[DannyBee]

So i guess everyone else whose time and money she is wasting outside of the RIAA is just acceptable collateral damage?

Note that while they won't throw her in jail, it will come out of her paycheck, they'll also make her sell a lot of her assets, etc.

Also, ever hear the expression "bad facts make bad law"?

She is not the case you want in front of the supreme court. It isn't about wasting time/money, it's about whether she's going to end up fucking over a lot of people who actually stood a chance of getting ridiculous verdicts overturned. Given her circumstances, there is a significant chance she will be singled out by the supreme court as an example of when 220k for a verdict is okay. It's hard to predict, but instead of helping others and getting a good legal result, she may end up having wasted some RIAA money and fucked over a lot of people. What a great idea!

In short: You are horrendously short sighted, and courts are not a great place to take our your frustrations on an organization you don't like.

[eqreqeq]

>>So i guess everyone else whose time and money she is wasting outside of the RIAA is just acceptable collateral damage?

Whose time and money? The government. Please, we wasted so much money already on senseless wars and security theater that this argument is silly at this point.

>>Note that while they won't throw her in jail, it will come out of her paycheck, they'll also make her sell a lot of her assets, etc.

One word: bankruptcy

>>It's hard to predict, but instead of helping others and getting a good legal result, she may end up having wasted some RIAA money and fucked over a lot of people. What a great idea!

OK, I'll grant you points on this one. Getting a bad precedent would not be a good idea. Although, note sure if that is even possible in this case so you just sound like you are fear mongering. How are people going to get fucked over? Are you sure you are not just spreading FUD?

[DannyBee]

You don't actually understand how bankruptcy works, do you? Not all debts are dischargeable.

Yes i'm sure i'm not spreading FUD. It is entirely possible that the supreme court will take the case. If they made the decision that the ratio of damages like her case was okay, it would fuck over all the other similarly situated people who aren't just lying on the stand.

[eqreqeq]

>>You don't actually understand how bankruptcy works, do you? Not all debts are dischargeable.

Read about it and the debts that are not actually dischargeable are student loans (USA). Are there any more? Could you cite an example? In this specific case, would her debt not be dischargeable?

[DannyBee]

there are plenty of debts that are not dischargeable. Here's a short list:

Taxes and tax liens

Student loans

Alimony and child support (domestic support obligations)

Debts obtained through fraud, false pretenses or false representation

Debts you failed to schedule in time to allow creditors to file proofs of claim (unscheduled debts)

Debts for fraud while you were acting in a fiduciary capacity, or for embezzlement or larceny

Debts for willful and malicious injury

Debts for most criminal liability. Debts for fines or penalties to governmental units

Debts for judgments in wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits resulting from motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft accidents while you were intoxicated

Condominium or cooperative association fees or assessments

In her case, willful infringement is "maybe" dischargeable. Probably not, but it's not really come up yet.

[danielweber]

Off the top of my head, tax debts aren't dischargeable.

The bankruptcy code defines a bunch of things that you can't discharge, including debts you acquired through fraud, through embezzlement, through larceny, or government fines.

[tptacek]

Damages from intentional torts might not be dischargeable either.