Wow ....

[Iccy]

Students Want File-Sharing Site
To Pay for RIAA Settlements


http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB ... in_tff_top



The students are arguing that if it weren't for i2hub, they wouldn't have broken the law. "Had the UMass students known that i2hub was making their copyrighted information available for sharing over the Internet … they would have likely not used i2hub, opting instead to use legal music downloading services,"




Just wow man, the bullshit is just oozing out of that article. Nice t see solidarity between our youths.

[FragaGeddon]

Is that guy a fucking idiot?

[mjrpes]

money is a universal solvent when it comes to solidarity.

[Iccy]

All that poped in my head when i read this was.


" if the coffee wasnt so hot i wouldnt have burned myself " from that mcdonalds lawsuit, which the plaintiff won.

Im sorry i know this is harsh, but at some point dont we need to thin the herd for survival? Too much hand holding and blame placement in this country, people just need to stand up and accept the things they CHOSE to do and deal with it.

[Chupacabra]

what about the mcdonalds suit?

[Tormentius]

Too much hand holding and blame placement in this country, people just need to stand up and accept the things they CHOSE to do and deal with it.

Exactly. The sheer amount of buck-passing is pathetic in both the US and Canada. Nobody is responsible for their own actions or choices anymore.

[Iccy]

what about the mcdonalds suit?

Someone sued mcdonalds a few years back cause the coffee was 180 degrees. I guess they spilt it on their lap and got burned, then turned around and blamed mcdonalds for the hot coffee being too hot.

Nice eh ?

[+JuggerNaut+]

what about the mcdonalds suit?

Someone sued mcdonalds a few years back cause the coffee was 180 degrees. I guess they spilt it on their lap and got burned, then turned around and blamed mcdonalds for the hot coffee being too hot.

Nice eh ?

idiocy abounds the world over - it just so happens that Americans love to sue to compensate for theirs.

[Chupacabra]

"So too, many of the media’s favorite illustrations of trivial claims
and outrageous verdicts rely on highly selective factual accounts. A
textbook illustration involves a recent multimillion dollar punitive
damages award against McDonald’s for serving coffee at scalding
temperatures. In most journalists’ simplified moral universe, this case
served as an all-purpose indictment of the legal profession and legal
process; an avaricious lawyer parades a petty incident before an out-
of-control jury and extracts an absurd recovery. Newspaper editori-
als, radio talk shows, and magazine commentaries replayed endless
variations on the theme summarized by the national Chamber of
Commerce: “Is it fair to get a couple of million dollars from a restau-
rant just because you spilled hot coffee on yourself?” (Chamber of
Commerce, quoted in Nader and Smith 1996, 267).

On closer examination, that question is not self-evidently rhetor-
ical. The plaintiff, a seventy-nine-year-old woman, suffered acutely
painful third-degree burns from 180 degree coffee. She spent eight
days in the hospital and returned again for skin grafts. Only after
McDonald’s refused to reimburse her medical expenses did she bring
suit. At trial, jurors learned of 700 other burn cases involving
McDonald’s coffee during the preceding decade. Although medical
experts had warned that such high temperatures were causing sen-
ous injuries, the corporation’s safety consultant dismissed the num-
ber of complaints as “trivial.” The jury’s verdict of $2.3 million was
not an arbitrary choice. Its punitive damages award represented two
days of coffee sales revenues, and the judge reduced the judgment to
$640,000. To avoid an appeal, the plaintiff then settled the case for a
lower, undisclosed amount. As a result of this litigation, McDonald’s
posted warning signs and other fast-food chains adopted similar mea-
sures (Webb 1995, 32). Although evaluations of this outcome may
vary, it was not the patently “ridiculous” travesty that media critics
presented (Chamber of Commerce, quoted in Nader and Smith 1996;
Press, Carroll, and Waldman 1995; Andrea Gerlin, “A Matter of
Degree: How a Jury Decided That a Coffee Spill Is Worth 2.9 Million,“
The Wall Street Journal, September 1, 1994, p. Al; Morgan 1994).
past decade (Marc Galanter, “Pick a Number, Any Number,” Legal
Times, February 17, 1992, p. 26; Galanter 1996)." --Rhode

The article also doesnt mention that: the lady was the passenger in the car (her son was the driver) and that it was at a McDonald's Drive-Thru. She was taking off the lid to put in sugar and creme and held it between her legs. Furthermore, McDonald's coffee is on average 40f degrees hotter than the average coffee beverage. National Burn Clinic says that beverages should never be higher than 135f degrees. One of the reasons the punitive damages were lowered from the multi-million is because it was determined that the lady was 20% at fault. How they figured that I'm not sure.

[Sanction]

what about the mcdonalds suit?

Someone sued mcdonalds a few years back cause the coffee was 180 degrees. I guess they spilt it on their lap and got burned, then turned around and blamed mcdonalds for the hot coffee being too hot.

Nice eh ?

There is a more recent suit, where people sued because McDonalds used deceptive marketting, which was the only reason people became fat.

[Wizard .3]

what about the mcdonalds suit?

Someone sued mcdonalds a few years back cause the coffee was 180 degrees. I guess they spilt it on their lap and got burned, then turned around and blamed mcdonalds for the hot coffee being too hot.

Nice eh ?

There is a more recent suit, where people sued because McDonalds used deceptive marketting, which was the only reason people became fat.

Is it how they claim their burgers are 100% beef, but ultimately, they simply buy their burgers from a company called 100% beef?

I'll have to check up on that one.
edit: i think it's actually an urban legend or whatever.

[Chupacabra]

correct me if im wrong here but didnt the judge drop that case?

edit: directed to sanction

edit2: oh ok, that must be different

[mjrpes]

I wrote a little something for a class about the McDonald's lawsuit & tort reform couple years ago.

Probably the most talked about “frivolous lawsuit” is the case of the elderly woman who sued McDonald’s because she spilled hot coffee and burned herself. Most people think her win of over six million (actually, she ended up getting a lot less) is outrageous; but when you read about the details of the case you find out that McDonald’s knew about the danger of extremely hot coffee yet knowingly kept it that hot in order that people would less likely have time to get refills. In the end, the jury openly decided that the woman’s case was strong and merited the large penalty against McDonald’s. I mention this case because it shows the benefit that companies have when bringing up the issue of tort reform: they just have to take cases out of context (such as the one I just mentioned) or mention the truly grievous ones in order to garner public approval, while at the same time taking away the ability to bring about cases that are needed to reform industry.

[R00k]

Hmm, I think I may need to reevaluate my impression of that lawsuit.

After reading how bad her injuries were, and that McDonalds had refused to consider reform multiple times, with other injured customers, and that their coffee was nearly 50% hotter than is generally recommended, I have to say that she was right to bring suit, but still don't think that she deserved 2 million dollars.

Then reading that she got closer to a quarter of that much, it sounds much more reasonable.

[mjrpes]

She brought it down to the point where McDonalds wouldn't appeal (less than a million). And the case brought about much needed reform, which affects us all.