[Jason Eaton]

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/11/judge-grants-marie-lindors-motion-to_09.html

"In UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has granted Ms. Lindor's motion to add a defense based on the unconstitutionality of the $750-per-song damages sought by plaintiffs. He rejected the RIAA's arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality."

A little back story just in case you haven't heard about this one. Seems the RIAA is seeking damages from Marie Lindor's heinous crime of having one song not legal purchased on her machine. Yes, one song and they want $750 in damages. In turn part of her defense is that actual damages are only $.70. Here is to you Mrs Lindor, we are rooting for you.

[Jason Eaton]

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/11/judge-grants-marie-lindors-motion-to_09.html

"In UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has granted Ms. Lindor's motion to add a defense based on the unconstitutionality of the $750-per-song damages sought by plaintiffs. He rejected the RIAA's arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality."

A little back story just in case you haven't heard about this one. Seems the RIAA is seeking damages from Marie Lindor's heinous crime of having one song not legal purchased on her machine. Yes, one song and they want $750 in damages. In turn part of her defense is that actual damages are only $.70. Here is to you Mrs Lindor, we are rooting for you.

[Chris Gohlke]

Good for her, if the damages drop to $.70 per song, a lot more people will probably stand up to the RIAA rather than settling out of fear that they could lose a massive amount of money at the $750 per song rate.