[ga] RIAA Agrees To Take $200-Per-File In Texas Case

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Seems that this lady/girls lawyer folded too soon, IMO.  But
the RIAA got to save a litle face on this one, saddly...

  Again when will ICANN realize that such organizatuions as
the RIAA and the GNSO's IPC are only serving to engender
further distrust in ICANN?

See:
In a San Antonio, Texas case,
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#Maverick_v_Harper
Maverick v. Harper, in which a young woman was accused of having
committed copyright infringement at the age of 16, the Judge
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/09/1912245&tid=123
denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion this summer, saying there
were factual issues as to whether the defendant qualified for the
'innocent infringement' defense. He offered the record companies a way
out, however, saying he would grant them a judgment if they agreed to
take only $200 as opposed to the $9,250 they sought from Jammie Thomas
or the $750 they usually seek per infringed recording. We have recently
learned that, after the Judge denied the RIAA's reconsideration motion
and scheduled a trial date, the RIAA filed papers
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_10_01_archive.html#9376728175690636
agreeing to take the $200-per-recording amount. While $200 is still
about 600 times the amount of the actual damages, it's better than
paying 26,000 times the actual damages, which is what the RIAA tried to
squeeze out of Ms. Thomas." This is a reversal of
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080922-riaa-rejects-damage-award-forces-trial-looks-hypocritical.html
the RIAA's rejection of the $200 award per song last month.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827