Recent RIAA decision

from Ars:

It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement. That's significant, because it shows that the DoJ is siding with the RIAA when it comes to the issue of whether making a file available for download on a P2P network constitutes distribution. It was a contentious issue during the Thomas trial, with the jury instructions originally stating that making songs available is not the same as distribution. The RIAA objected to that instruction, and in its final form, all the jury had to do was find that Thomas made the files available.

Well actually you can know how many people have grabbed your file since most clients will tell you not only how many people are connected to your client but also how many times the file has been completely uploaded. So it is entirely knowable the exact amount of copies that have been originally distributed.

Secondly, unless we are using the same logic as the felony murder laws, what other people did once they got the files ought to be irrelevant. If this individual is going to be held legally responsible for the infringement done by others, then the on the next go round the defendant ought to claim that he got his file from Thomas and that since the court has ruled that Thomas is legally and monetarily responsible for any further infringement that occurs from files Thomas originally infringed upon, then the RIAA has already been compensated for all it's losses.

It is clear that the judge here is biased. How can the sharing of a a single file that has a revenue of 77cents result in $220,000 of damages? Even with punitive measures added that number is too high. I mean that's over 314285.714 record sales. Very few albums by themselves even sell that much in a single year much less a single track. That simply makes NO sense.