Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial

[Hyperz]

The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum captured the nation's attention when they were defendants in the RIAA's first two trials against accused online infringers. But here's the mind-warping reality: both defendants would have been far better off monetarily if they had simply ignored the complaint altogether and failed to show up in court.

That counterintuitive logic played out again this week in Massachusetts, where federal judge Nancy Gertner issued four default judgments against accused P2P file-swappers who never bothered to respond to the charges against them. Their failure to appear meant an automatic loss, and though the judge does have some discretion in setting penalties, judges often pick the minimum awards in such cases.

That was true in all four cases, where Gertner accepted the record labels' claims and awarded them the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song. The defendants were accused of downloading an average of ten songs, putting total awards in the $7,500 range, in addition to a few hundred more for court costs.

Having $7,500 in damages assessed against you by a federal court is no picnic, but it pales in comparison to the two twenty-somethings who actually showed up to court, got attorneys, went through a multiyear process and a nationally covered trial, and came out the other side owing far more money.

The chart below illustrates the point by graphing the various damage awards per song:


When it comes to total damages, the disparities are even greater. Thomas-Rasset's retrial ended up with a $1.92 million award, while Tenenbaum faces $675,000 in damages. Those who didn't show up owe around $7,500.

In fact, this might well have been Tenenbaum's fate. He was actually included in a massive complaint consolidated into a single docket, and it was only when he showed up to a court hearing that Gertner stopped the default judgment proceeding against him and actually helped find him a lawyer—Harvard Law prof Charles Nesson. Now, Tenenbaum faces a life-altering damage award and the prospect of bankruptcy if not reduced or overturned on appeal.


Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...g-to-trial.ars

Hyperz Reviewed by Hyperz on 29th Sep 2009. Ignoring RIAA lawsuits cheaper than going to trial The same federal judge who oversaw the Joel Tenenbaum file-sharing trial earlier this year passed out default judgments this week against other file-swappers who never bothered to show up—and they now owe far less than Tenenbaum. Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum captured the nation's attention when they were defendants in the RIAA's first two trials against accused online infringers. But here's the mind-warping reality: both defendants would have been far better off monetarily if they Rating: 5

[G56Ace]

The RIAA should die. Seriously. Its ridiculous how much they are winning from individuals for sharing songs. I mean, its no different then letting friends hold a CD or something.
If people wanted to buy it (the album or movies, etc.), they would have. They obviously didn't and thus gives us the conclusion that most people would download would never have bought the product. So, its not a real lose.
They just want money! The bastards!
Anyway, thanks for the news!
At least we now know how to avoid paying 80k per song shared... if one were to get caught! O.O

[zibo]

those are seriously silly rules.
ALL have shared songs, lets put the whole world in jail, thats lame! thats sick!