> in practice the RIAA offered defendants the option of establishing a “Clean Slate” by destroying all of their illegally acquired files and paying a settlement of approximately $3 per illegal song.
It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is:
"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened, legal actions against well over 20,000 individuals.2 "
It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/september-8/riaa...
> in practice the RIAA offered defendants the option of establishing a “Clean Slate” by destroying all of their illegally acquired files and paying a settlement of approximately $3 per illegal song.
The two notable cases were:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records,_Inc._v._Thoma...
2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_Music_Entertainment_v...
Weird, what about this? https://w2.eff.org/IP/P2P/riaa_at_four.pdf
Could you also make the argument here instead of just linking a 25 page PDF?
It's basically many pages refuting parent's comments framing of "It's pretty easy to validate that everything they're saying is accurate." given the PDF opening is:
"On September 8, 2003, the recording industry sued 261 American music fans for sharing songs on peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing networks, kicking off an unprecedented legal campaign against its own customers.1 Four years later, the recording industry has filed, settled, or threatened, legal actions against well over 20,000 individuals.2 "
Which paints a different picture.