AfterDawn: News

RIAA wins $22 million in damages from MP3Skull

The RIAA has secured a $22 million judgement against MP3Skull, a site that did not host but linked to pirated song files.

MP3Skull lost because nobody ever came to court to defend the site, including the site's owner Monica Vasilenko, who currently resides in Russia.



Sued in April 2015, the "very popular rogue website devoted to the massive, brazen, and egregious theft of millions of copyrighted sound recordings" will now move into the control of the labels although it is highly unlikely they will ever receive a penny of the judgement.

MP3Skull was a very basic site that was created to "provide fast and relevant search" and then link to unauthorized music files.

The RIAA was "pleased" with the decision.

Source:
Arstechnica

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 26 Feb 2016 22:55

• Previous article

• France demanding nearly $2 billion in back taxes from Google

• Next article

• Sprint has brought back two-year contracts

• 5 comments

• blaster4

  So at least the RIAA won't get a penny. Good job too!
  

  28.2.2016 06:39 #1

• Admiral_Smith

  Well most people do not know what happens when there is a win on a lawsuit and the person cannot pay the bill right. Usually the judge gets creative on how to get the person to pay them back. This may include community service and/or prison time.
  

  ~Admiral Smith

  1.3.2016 14:07 #2

• blaster4

  Originally posted by Admiral_Smith: Well most people do not know what happens when there is a win on a lawsuit and the person cannot pay the bill right. Usually the judge gets creative on how to get the person to pay them back. This may include community service and/or prison time. But the defendant (the owner)resides in Russia so they can ignore the court, I guess.
  

  1.3.2016 16:41 #3

• Bozobub

  Originally posted by Admiral_Smith: Well most people do not know what happens when there is a win on a lawsuit and the person cannot pay the bill right. Usually the judge gets creative on how to get the person to pay them back. This may include community service and/or prison time.
  Not for a civil case, even if the defendant was a US citizen! I'm sorry, but you're confusing civil (tort) law with criminal law, a common error that even the RIAA/MPAA makes. Pirating IP is NOT "theft", and therefore a crime,; it's an "intellectual property violation", a civil case.
  
  If you simply cannot pay outright, the judge is likely to garnish a percentage of wages or - in extreme cases - force the sale of some assets, although there are legal limits on what can or cannot be garnished or sold off this way (you can't take their only car, their only house, and so on).
  
  Refusing to pay, however, when you demonstrably can do so, can cause the judge to hold you in contempt of court; only then would a criminal penalty apply, and legally that penalty can ONLY be for the contempt, itself, not the original civil case. In other words, a judge could lock you up for doing so, and even FORCE payment by some method if you have the funds somewhere, but s/he couldn't change the amount awarded, beyond simple interest for lack of payment.

  2.3.2016 16:09 #4

• KillerBug

  I believe there are also some statutes relating to jurisdiction and travel and such; if the owner can make a case that it is unreasonable to force her to travel half way around the world for a civil case in a court that doesn't even speak her language, that won't affect anything in the USA, but it would give her protection in Russia. That's probably why she didn't even bother to send a lawyer for a case that she could have won easily.
  

  
  

  4.3.2016 09:38 #5