![[Home]](/graphics/button-home.gif)
![[About Me]](/graphics/button-about_me.gif)
![[The Daleisphere]](/graphics/button-the-daleisphere.gif)
![[Video Game Law]](/graphics/button-vgl.gif)
![[iMedia Law]](/graphics/button-imedia_law.gif)
![[wishhh.com]](/graphics/button_wishhh.gif)
![[Filler Bar]](/graphics/button_filler.gif)
Judge Allows RIAA Defendant to Argue $750-per-song Damages are Unconscionable
Categories: BigMedia v. P2P Users • Cases
WestLaw Version of Decision – (2006 WL 3335048 (E.D.N.Y.)) (Nov 9, 2006)
Decision Granting Leave to Amend Answer (Nov 9, 2006)
RIAA Response Text Constitutional Challenge
The standard RIAA consumer file-copying suit seeks $750 damager per illegally downloaded song. As I reported last May, Marie Lindor argued that this amount is unconscionable when the average download price per song is 99¢ per song. Judge David Tragger agreed and has permitted the defendant to amend her defense to include that argument.
Texas Law Review Article on the Topic by: J. Cam Barker
Sources: Recording Industry vs The People | ars technica | afterdawn | the Inquirer | P2PNet | Howard Knopf
Related Posts:
- Judge Allows RIAA Defendant to Argue $750-per-song Damages are Unconscionable (November 15, 2006)
- Constitutionality of $750-Per-Song Damages Challenged in UMG v. Lindor (May 4, 2006)
Digg 
Del.icio.us 
