The argument that the damages are disproportionate may resonate but would its proponents also support the elimination of punitive damages against callous corporate tortfeasors. I think not. Perhaps the remedy is exorbitant and the remedy should instead be a form of punitive damages where the wealth of the thief and the compensatory damages recoverable are factors to be considered. Applying Supreme Court precedents, punitives in the 10x range would impose a significant deterent, in particular where thousands of songs have been improperly downloaded. By the way, how many songs is Joel accused of taking?

The common denominator is that each feel an entitlement to claim money they are owed. The downfall, they do not know if you listened to music or watched television with out payment. “A legal claim for loss.” In the breif filed in Directv V. treworgy, US appeals court, 11th circuit, Directv admits they have no way of knowing if there television was ever watched by the defendant. Does the RIAA know if you listened to the music with out paying? I bought a corvette, should I get a ticket because I might speed? The flaw of these suits lies in the claim for loss. A download does not prove any loss. The purchase of a smart card programmer does not prove any loss. These matters are based on a hypothetical claim for a hypothetical theft. If collection from another where there is a hypothetical claim exists, well then no one is safe in there property or possessions.

In 2002, Directv first mastered these type litigation letters and lawsuits. They mailed some 175,000 letters for which millions in settlement money was mailed and confidential settlements signed. For those resisting the letters, 30,000 were sued in Federal court. Sued for the mere possession of a lawfully owned smart card programmer.Understand, there is no law prohibiting the ownership of a smart card programmer. The theory was that a smart card programmer might have been used to reprogram a directv access card and then might have been used to view television with out having paid. People can claim, “well you cannot sue on a maybe.” or “they will never win in any trial over that.” What most do not realize is that of the 30,000 sued, directv never intended for someone to have a trial. No trial, there is nothing which has to to be proved so the plaintiff can say anything, true or not. There is no trial because the plaintiff will increase litigation to the extent that it drive the defendant broke long before any trial van occur. In the Directv cases, many simply filed Bankruptcy when they could litigate no more.
In my own case, I am not ashamed to say that I bought an access card to receive the programming I paid directv to receive. That’s right, I paid for the service! As a paid subscriber I have to buy an access card to see what I paid for and I do not have to become a victim of crime should the copyright holder decide to steal. April 10, 1997, Directv in what was later known as class action Luaces V. Directv, Miami, used digital manipulation, took programming away from PAID subscribers and refused to return the programming unless they paid more. In as much as Directv paid 11 million in settlement for that indiscretion, directv later turned and sued the class action members stating that it was now the members who stole the programming because they bought an access card to stop the theft of there programming on April 10, 1997. In many of these settlements when the defendant cannot afford to litigate, the settlement requires the signing away of constitution rights and liberties and seals the settlement as confidential. In my case, the perpetrator ran me out of money then had me sin a confidential agreement. Not only that but commencing litigation in a second federal court after the issue was settled in a previous federal court causes any settlements to be re-written. Now which federal court settlement do you wish to follow? There is something far more at stake here where an attorney can make up a story to a court and use that made up story to force payment out of the target. I say made uo as in my case they knew the truth and chose not to tell the court. Then comes the confidential settlement where all is sealed. It is well a matter of against public policy, but first someone has got to care if confidential settlements are made to conceal the taking of constitutional rights. Far be it the defendant to disclose his constitutional rights taken in confidential settlement. He would then open the matter allowing Goliath to sue again for breech.

You can read the cases here: http://www.digitalrightownertheft.com/
http://www.digitalrightownertheft.com/

My google video explains it too but it is booring so be prepared:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7190539995214850542

I realise many of you may think me unconscionably generous To allow the RIAA off with a mere 36% of their yearly income, surely a pittance compared to their actual net worth, but I truly believe that a generous attitude towards the industry should be cultivated. I would only insist on collecting my rightfully due 44% is I was actually prepared to take over a comensurate stake in each company in the RIAA combine and attempt to run them with some thought towards serving their customer’s needs. But, frankly, I’m not into music and don’t want that type of responsibility so I’ll let it go if they manage to sue me and lose.