A U.S. judge has reduced the damage award in a Minnesota file sharing case from $80,000 per song to $2,250. The 97% reduction comes as the judge found the original jury award shocking and concluded that statutory damages must bear some relationship to actual damages.
U.S. Judge Drops “Shocking” File Sharing Damage Award By 97%
2 Comments
Recent Posts
The Online Streaming Act in Jeopardy: U.S. Takes Aim at the CUSMA Cultural Exemption With Threats of Bill C-11 Retaliation 
The Hidden Lawful Access Tradeoff: How Bill C-22 Lowers the Evidentiary Standards for Police Access to Subscriber Information 
The Lawful Access Privacy Risks: Unpacking Bill C-22’s Expansive Metadata Retention Requirements 
The Law Bytes Podcast, Episode 261: Ian Goldberg on the Privacy Risks of Age Assurance Technologies 
Government Enacts Political Party Anti-Privacy Rules With Bill C-4 Royal Assent Sprint
…
…Sad that 97% less is still not enough,at least in my opinion.
when deterrence becomes exorbitant
Thanks for pointing out this interesting case of a judge using common sense when dispensing a judgment regarding illegal file sharing. Fining someone $80,000 *per song* for downloading and sharing 24 files goes beyond deterrence and into the realm of the ridiculous. Naturally, record companies want consumers to be deterred from illegally sharing files, but when the plaintiff is not required to actually prove what the damages really were, it is unfair to saddle the defendant with such a massive debt. I applaud this judge and the review of this case.