ssddx
Glorious
[citation][nom]nixname[/nom]King-Although I personally won't stick up for RIAA or the gradual dismantling of the public sphere and privacy rights, saying that no one should be allowed to defend them would make us just as fascist as we are accusing them of being. I for one would love to see if anyone can come up with compelling argument for the tactics/goals/practices of RIAA. So please...have at it.[/citation]
Quite simple, they are using scare tactics. Do you honestly think they will see 675k from a 25 year old? They are trying (albiet in a bad way) to get people to buy music (at high prices) instead of downloading it from filesharing services. They do have the legal right to pursue cases such as these; it was not the riaa that came up with the 675,000 figure. It was a jury of his peers.
Do I think the case was legit? Sure. Do I think it was the right thing to do? No. They have ruined at least 10 years of the kid's life over 30 songs. They are looking for the publicity. If they actually wanted payment they would have settled it out of court for a fraction of the penalty.
Quite simple, they are using scare tactics. Do you honestly think they will see 675k from a 25 year old? They are trying (albiet in a bad way) to get people to buy music (at high prices) instead of downloading it from filesharing services. They do have the legal right to pursue cases such as these; it was not the riaa that came up with the 675,000 figure. It was a jury of his peers.
Do I think the case was legit? Sure. Do I think it was the right thing to do? No. They have ruined at least 10 years of the kid's life over 30 songs. They are looking for the publicity. If they actually wanted payment they would have settled it out of court for a fraction of the penalty.