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.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Ex-FBI Agent, Trauma Surgeon Testify That Kelly Thomas' Death Was A Result Of Officers' Excessive Force
- Scumbag Revenge Porn Site Operator Arrested... But Many Of The Charges Are Very Problematic
- Legal Challenges To Spying Mount In UK
- Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood Thinks Google Is To Blame For Infringement On The Web
- Feds To FISC: Of Course We Don't Have To Share Our Full Legal Filings With Companies Suing Us Over NSA Transparency