RIAA's Excessive Loss Claims Unconstitutional?

Found on Techdirt on Tuesday, 03 May 2005
Browse Legal-Issues

The RIAA's questionable math has been discussed at length in the past -- where they love to trot out the claim that each shared song is worth somewhere between $750 and $30,000 in "losses." While the number is completely bogus for a variety of reasons, it is the number that the industry uses when suing the thousands of people they've sued. Now, Declan McCullough points out an analysis suggesting that these high dollar claims are unconstitutional by being so excessive. Because of this, the writer argues, the RIAA should not be allowed to sue for such a high amount. This would mean that more accused file sharers would likely be willing to challenge the lawsuits in court, rather than settling for a few grand just to get out from under the possibility of owing millions. In other words, some of these cases might actually get argued on the merits -- something the RIAA doesn't seem all that enthusiastic about, despite being the one bringing all of the lawsuits.

Their math is simple: they see x sources for a song and multiply it with part of the album price (or the whole album price). That's not how it works. Most people wouldn't buy the song/album; even if this would be the only way to get it. It looks like more and more lines are drawn for this greedy industry: now that they are fighting against Internet2 too, they get replies they might not like ( RIAA's Internet2 Lectures Fall On Deaf Ears ).