$675,000 RIAA File Sharing Verdict Is ‘Unreasonable’

That is an insane amount for each song, it makes one wonder what punishment would come from stealing a dozen cds (a tangible item of similar nature).

We're doing pick your price music on <a href="http://anjuno.com" rel="nofollow">http://anjuno.com</a> and for some reason no one is paying $22,500 per song. I wish those RIAA lawyers would start using Anjuno, it would really help our bottom line.

When special interest groups have the amount of lobbying power that they do today you get nonsense like this.<p>Why such a thing as a lobby even exists is beyond me, the government is supposed to be there for the people.

Regardless, the RIAA and the major labels are all in big trouble. There's only so much litigation you can do before you realize that the world has changed. The RIAA suing customers is like manufacturers of horse drawn carts suing early car manufacturers back in the early 1900s. The new economy just happens whether you like it or not. Music file sharing makes perfect sense in a world where the cost of making a copy of a digital file is zero. Arguing against that is like arguing against gravity. It is what it is. The labels were all aware of the changes going on way back, but they chose not to take advantage of change because they thought they were that powerful. They deserve their cruel fate.

Coming from the days of the cassette recorder when we all used to record from the radio and share tapes with friends, how is it that this is anything less than persecution? Is this sort of judgment making us warm towards the recording industry or artists? Assuming that people who download are the biggest buyers?(Forrester research) can they really make a case for any losses? <a href="http://www.phrequency.com/blog/Study_shows_music_pirates_buy_more_music.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.phrequency.com/blog/Study_shows_music_pirates_buy...</a>