nsane.forums Posted February 10, 2010 Share Posted February 10, 2010 When Jammie Thomas (now Thomas-Rasset) became the first alleged P2P file-swapper to take her case all the way to trial and verdict, no one suspected that she would actually have three trials and verdicts, but that's the case today, as the RIAA rejected a federal judge's decision to slash Thomas-Rasset's damage award. Instead, we're headed to a truncated third trial on the issue of damages.The recording industry also made it clear this week that both Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum (the second P2P defendant to go to trial and verdict) are, in its view, quite terrible people: lying, deceiving, irresponsible, and unreasonable. And the industry can't understand why they're both fighting on. View: Original Article Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Night Owl Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 The recording industry is talking about itself:lying, deceiving, irresponsible, and unreasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator DKT27 Posted February 11, 2010 Administrator Share Posted February 11, 2010 The recording industry is talking about itself:lying, deceiving, irresponsible, and unreasonable.Haha. :lmao:It's RIAA the one who should be punished. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HX1 Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 This is when a legitimate assessment of the damages done, in the form of a study.. should be done to properly assess the value of damages done. Intrinsically I think that it should consider how many people ( percentage ).. out of the ones who obtain.. would otherwise be respective buyers. Versus... the actual cost per purchase.. Then I believe the funds should be filtered directly back into the contract pertaining to the artists involved. If you then want to get technical, ( which would be a more fiscally responsible number n assessing actual damage to the industry by said offenders.. ) factor in a reasonable percentage to take away from that amount in which would have been targeted marketing dollars which would have otherwise been spent to sell this product to the customers.. ( including demographical research ).Technically, anyone has the right to pursue JUSTICE.. Yet if in fact no reasonable amount which is considered a viable compensation within those bounds can be met ..then an adjusted awarded amount set forth by the judiciary should then prevail.. a settlement reached.. Or otherwise I feel the case should be dropped.. then of curse fall back upon the laws concerning being tried twice for the same crime...Otherwise I would state that I agree that the people who actually give the industry the financial support it needs are not to blame for a change in economic climate and in the way that we live in todays digital world.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizarre™ Posted February 11, 2010 Share Posted February 11, 2010 And don't forget conniving... it's what they are :bag: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.