The parent claimed that the RIAA settled for $2-4 a song, which is true, and corroborated by your link. These were settled prior to legal action. They even had a website p2psettlement.com where you could pay before receiving legal notice.

The parent claimed that when RIAA actually sued, they sought statutory damages on a small subset of the infringed songs. Which is true. The two cases that went to trial involved 24 songs (Thomas-Rasset) and 30 songs (Tenenbaum), out of the thousands each defendant was accused of sharing. The statutory minimum was $750 per work, so a judgment on even a couple dozen songs exceeded the original settlement offer several times over.

The parent claimed that most parties got a lawyer, and would then negotiate with the RIAA. This is also true, most cases settled for under 10,000.

The two notable cases that went to trial were linked in my prior post. In one of them, the judge went so far as to urge Congress to lower the statutory minimum for individual, non-commercial infringers.

The last claim that RIAA tried to settle below the awarded damages is also true. Here is one instance of the two cases I linked: https://web.archive.org/web/20101201221839/http://news.cnet....

So I'm really not understanding what you're refuting. The EFF document you linked doesn't dispute any of these facts, it just critiques the scale and fairness. The parent described accurate mechanics, and the EFF thought it was abusive. These are both true at the same time and entirely different conversations.

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...

Another side effect is most of my socks are Injinji toe socks. Honestly might like these more than the shoes. Zero blisters even while backpacking. The big negative has been when I have to dress up. I have a couple of wide toe-box shoes but the good looking ones all seem to taper. I'm hoping maybe this "resurgence" can give us a few more companies making these and potentially a few new styles that I can wear to a wedding.

I don't have a problem with generally understanding someone's needs. You ask what he wants, you say what you want, you both find a common middle ground.

But that's not what I'm worried about. He also teaches you things like give gifts to instill a sense of reciprocity. Use odd numbers so it appears as if you've put in research to arrive at this figure. "Bend reality" by moving around deadlines. Take advantage of cognitive biases like loss aversion.

Actual empathy is one thing, steering someone into thinking that your preferred outcome was their own idea is another. And that steering is precisely the manipulation I can't shake off. I'd be fine with the other person knowing I'm actually empathizing. But all those other techniques rely on the other person not noticing, which falls into my definition of manipulation.