ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 11/23/2014 04:24 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
   Top News Economy
Uber Investigating Executive for Spying on Users
more News
out of this Channel...
  2.624 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
01/19/2009 07:46 PM ID: 76366 Permalink   

RIAA's Restitution Motion Denied

 

Judge James P. Jones of Western District Virginia denied the RIAA's request for restitution in a 16 page opinion, holding the RIAA's reasoning to be unsound.
A few of the better quotes from the ruling:

"Certainly 100% of the illegal downloads through Elite Torrents did not result in the loss of a sale, but both Lionsgate and RIAA estimate their losses based on this faulty assumption."

"Those who download movies and music for free would not necessarily purchase those movies and music at the full purchase price"

"Like the court in Hudson, I am skeptical that customers would pay $7.22 or $19 for something they got for free."

 
  Source: recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com  
    WebReporter: Rayn Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  5 Comments
  
  Score!  
 
I've always said that the RIAA and the like can't claim that they are losing money everytime I "may or may-not" download movies or music, because the truth of the matter is I would never have purchased the product at their current prices. I may in the far future purchase it used, but in that case the RIAA doesn't get a dime from that purchase anyway.
 
  by: theavenger8     01/19/2009 08:19 PM     
  I hope  
 
this ruling means something. you can't sue based on hypothetical sales. if i watch a movie and i like, then i buy. not vice versa.
 
  by: leparsdon     01/19/2009 08:59 PM     
  .  
 
I think that also says that if they didn't deprive them of $19, they didn't deprive them of $250k for each song. My friend got caught file sharing and threatened with being sued for somewhere around $250m, for a little less than 1000 songs. Like she really caused that much damage.
 
  by: PeddlerOfFlesh   01/19/2009 09:57 PM     
  buy your music``  
 
I'm not in favor for the RIAA sueing someone for $250m for sharing songs but in reality they are losing money because people like to illegally share music files. To me if you like a song, go buy it even if it's used.It takes a lot of work to make a cd.
 
  by: bigbadwolf2008   01/20/2009 06:20 AM     
  RAPPY  
 
ITS ABOUT TIME SOMEONE SUED THEM BACK FOR THERE OUTLANDISH CLAIMS AND STRESS
THEYEVE CAUSED.
 
  by: raptorcigs   01/20/2009 01:12 PM     
 
 
Copyright ©2014 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com