Wrong, it's the statutory damages for this type of case so high and it was the very high damages that she was appealing as unconstitutional.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
Supreme court denies appeal of woman who owes RIAA $222,000
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 5K
Wrong, it's the statutory damages for this type of case so high and it was the very high damages that she was appealing as unconstitutional.
Sent from my iPhone using SatelliteGuys
But were the original damages set to include attorney and court costs? I'm asking because I don't know.
This is not a fine, it is an award. So this isn't a criminal case it is a civil case right? Either way, I believe (not 100% sure) that repayment of damages are not allowed to be discharged during bankruptcy, but punative damanges are. I'm not sure which this falls into, but could make a very big difference in this lady's life.
I understand it is an award but if the defendant had committed a crime as well, then the award and other fines cannot be discharged in bankruptcy under many state laws. I also don't know the history here.
I went through a small case myself on copyright infringement. I wanted to see if I had a suit case against a person who was violating my copyrights on my videos and yes, I could sue and win but if he filed bankruptcy, I wouldn't get a dime. However, if I turned the matter over to the FBI and they did find him guilty, then I sued for damages in civil court, the award could not be discharged in bankruptcy. Does that explain it any better? BTW- we ended up settling privately and he became one of my better customers.
I went through a small case myself on copyright infringement. I wanted to see if I had a suit case against a person who was violating my copyrights on my videos and yes, I could sue and win but if he filed bankruptcy, I wouldn't get a dime. However, if I turned the matter over to the FBI and they did find him guilty, then I sued for damages in civil court, the award could not be discharged in bankruptcy. Does that explain it any better? BTW- we ended up settling privately and he became one of my better customers.
Don:
You are a small business. Comparing yourself to Warner/Universal/BMI is not an apt comparison.
Guilt is not an issue, she did something wrong. The issue I have, is that the fine is designed to do one thing, ruin the plaintiffs finances. Any losses to any of these companies is buried several places to the right of the decimal in a P&L statement. Hell it might even be contained in a rounding error. Lawyer's costs should be a seperate issue, but once again, the only outcome is that it will ruin the plaintiff's finances.
Tell me, how productive would it have been for you if the award + lawyer's fees + court costs had ruined your customer's finances?
You are a small business. Comparing yourself to Warner/Universal/BMI is not an apt comparison.
Guilt is not an issue, she did something wrong. The issue I have, is that the fine is designed to do one thing, ruin the plaintiffs finances. Any losses to any of these companies is buried several places to the right of the decimal in a P&L statement. Hell it might even be contained in a rounding error. Lawyer's costs should be a seperate issue, but once again, the only outcome is that it will ruin the plaintiff's finances.
Tell me, how productive would it have been for you if the award + lawyer's fees + court costs had ruined your customer's finances?
Perhaps, but I wonder how you would feel if something that you held a copyright for was used and you weren't compensated for it.
If the mpaa and riaa quit thinking their copyrights are worth more than most 3rd world nations, then perhaps the public might side with them.
I did a (very) little research on this case. The damages were based on statutory damages. This quote is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:
"Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine a precise value of the loss suffered by the victim. This could be because calculation of a value is impractical, such as in intellectual property cases where the volume of the infringement cannot be ascertained".
It sounds like this is the criteria that was used.
"Lawmakers will provide for statutory damages for acts in which it is difficult to determine a precise value of the loss suffered by the victim. This could be because calculation of a value is impractical, such as in intellectual property cases where the volume of the infringement cannot be ascertained".
It sounds like this is the criteria that was used.
John- my point was to explain how the law works as to whether bankruptcy can be used to escape paying a civil court award. I never compared my company size to the companies you mentioned and I doubt the law compares this either. The law is in writing and only states what can and can't be discharged in bankruptcy court. Your post was strictly based on what you perceive as ethical and mine had noting to do with my personal opinion on the laws of copyright or bankruptcy or size of the companies. Just what I was told by an attorney on how it works.
But, indeed, if we're to talk size, in my case, the guy stealing would hardly been in any financial trouble because the size of the damage would have been in the low 4 figures by my estimate. Just not that many videos involved. Hardly enough to go to court on. But, the guy was more concerned about being investigated which, regardless of size, the FBI would have put him on the list. Maybe he had other issues that could have added to the crime???? Usually what follows something like this is a general IRS audit too.
We all have our personal opinions on the MPAA, RIAA, big corp execs, Unions and even the government and lobbyists. But when it comes right down to the wire, everyone is probably guilty of something and if caught you should make the best business decision. It seems to me whether this person is right or wrong under the law or ethics, she made the wrong (business) decision and now has to pay.
But, indeed, if we're to talk size, in my case, the guy stealing would hardly been in any financial trouble because the size of the damage would have been in the low 4 figures by my estimate. Just not that many videos involved. Hardly enough to go to court on. But, the guy was more concerned about being investigated which, regardless of size, the FBI would have put him on the list. Maybe he had other issues that could have added to the crime???? Usually what follows something like this is a general IRS audit too.
We all have our personal opinions on the MPAA, RIAA, big corp execs, Unions and even the government and lobbyists. But when it comes right down to the wire, everyone is probably guilty of something and if caught you should make the best business decision. It seems to me whether this person is right or wrong under the law or ethics, she made the wrong (business) decision and now has to pay.
If you got nothing, what do you have to loose.
The recording Industry will never collect from this lady
The recording Industry will never collect from this lady
Depends on the smarts of the plaintiff's lawyer. One of my clients won a suit against his customer for bad debts. She had no money, was separated from husband. 8 years passed. Finally got a divorce and was awarded the home with a mortgage. She sold the home and at closing was shocked to discover the equity proceeds were all transferred to my client for that back suit award. She walked away from closing with nothing.
