View Single Post
Old 12-02-2010, 01:13 PM   #11
pdurrant
The Grand Mouse
pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.pdurrant ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
pdurrant's Avatar
 
Posts: 31,171
Karma: 86241230
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Norfolk, England
Device: NOOK ST GlowLight
Quote:
Originally Posted by taming View Post
What struck me is how mean spirited the media companies are in cases like this. They could have accepted the lower court's ruling to decrease the fine to $200, rather than appeal. The issue the Supreme Court looked at was actually whether the appellate court's decision to grant the appeal was lawful.
I thought that in this case the defendant appealed the judgement, not the record companies?

And it's not a $200 fine. It's $200 per song. 37 IIRC, making the original judgement for $7400, and the new judgement ($750/song) $27,750.

It's certainly disproportionate.
pdurrant is offline   Reply With Quote