RIAA at it again
Obama DoJ OKs fine.
Stealing what amounts to two albums or one double album? 1.92 million.
Average wrongful death settlement for adult females ... between 1.3 - 5.6 million. So, in certain cases, killing a female costs you less than illegally downloading two fucking music albums. Yeah, that's fair.
The Obama administration told a federal judge Friday the $1.92 million jury verdict against a Minnesota woman for sharing 24 music tracks on Kazaa was constitutionally sound
Stealing what amounts to two albums or one double album? 1.92 million.
Average wrongful death settlement for adult females ... between 1.3 - 5.6 million. So, in certain cases, killing a female costs you less than illegally downloading two fucking music albums. Yeah, that's fair.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Someone needs to compare these ridiculous judgments against actual sales figures.
I think they'd find that based on their numbers, the lowest selling albums would still go quadruple platinum.
I think they'd find that based on their numbers, the lowest selling albums would still go quadruple platinum.
"Happy slaves are the worst enemies of freedom." - Marie Von Ebner
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
"It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies..." - Orwell
The basic law sounds more sane in words:
There are 2 types of damages: 1) Actual and 2) statutory. Actual means any loss incurred as a result, and any profit gained by the infringer. Statutory means "by law." Ie. Damages created purely as punitive measure. Basic statutory damages for copyright infringement are $750 - $30,000. Willful infringement is eligible for 5x damages (ie. up to $150k per work). However, if the infringer was neither willful, nor had a reason to believe they were infringing, then damages may be reduced down to $200/work.
So, either the monetary damages were somehow $50k per song (50,000 downloads of each, maybe?) or the judge/jury found her guilty of knowingly, willfully infringing. These types of damages (iirc from my intellectual property law class) are presumably reserved for the types of people that make bootlegs or other purposely illegal goods for sale.
Either way, it's hard for me to believe that she should have been fined more than the minimum (a still sizable $18k).
There are 2 types of damages: 1) Actual and 2) statutory. Actual means any loss incurred as a result, and any profit gained by the infringer. Statutory means "by law." Ie. Damages created purely as punitive measure. Basic statutory damages for copyright infringement are $750 - $30,000. Willful infringement is eligible for 5x damages (ie. up to $150k per work). However, if the infringer was neither willful, nor had a reason to believe they were infringing, then damages may be reduced down to $200/work.
So, either the monetary damages were somehow $50k per song (50,000 downloads of each, maybe?) or the judge/jury found her guilty of knowingly, willfully infringing. These types of damages (iirc from my intellectual property law class) are presumably reserved for the types of people that make bootlegs or other purposely illegal goods for sale.
Either way, it's hard for me to believe that she should have been fined more than the minimum (a still sizable $18k).
It's not me, it's someone else.
Judge cuts down RIAA fine. From 80K per song to about 2K. Looks like he disagreed w\ the DoJ assessment a bit ago.Malcolm wrote:Obama DoJ OKs fine.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
And of course in response the RIAA immediately tries to settle for half of that, in order to avoid the judge's ruling being completed and turned into precedent. I hope she turns them down.
Edited By TPRJones on 1264628577
Edited By TPRJones on 1264628577
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
She turned it down.
I don't agree with her arguement that any fine is unconstitutional, but I do think the largest reasonable fine would be $0.99 a song, that being the amount it would typically have cost her to purchase those individual tracks at the time. Fine her for her own use. But fining her for sharing it with others is a bit much, IMO, under the circumstances.
If she were making money off of selling the tracks then that would be a different story. Fine the crap out of her. But otherwise they should go after the other people that downloaded from her if they want their $0.99 per song. Trying to take it out of her is not justice, it's trying to make an example of her so others will stop sharing when they shouldn't.
It can't be stopped, anyway, so they should stop trying and learn to operate under the new economy instead of being assholes to their customers.
I don't agree with her arguement that any fine is unconstitutional, but I do think the largest reasonable fine would be $0.99 a song, that being the amount it would typically have cost her to purchase those individual tracks at the time. Fine her for her own use. But fining her for sharing it with others is a bit much, IMO, under the circumstances.
If she were making money off of selling the tracks then that would be a different story. Fine the crap out of her. But otherwise they should go after the other people that downloaded from her if they want their $0.99 per song. Trying to take it out of her is not justice, it's trying to make an example of her so others will stop sharing when they shouldn't.
It can't be stopped, anyway, so they should stop trying and learn to operate under the new economy instead of being assholes to their customers.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
Given that you can get most tracks for 99 cents, why not just make the fine $20 per track? About 20x the cost normally while still not being insane.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
No, because the damage she caused is the replacement cost of any potential sales she may have cost, which is far larger than the $0.99/song.TPRJones wrote:I don't agree with her arguement that any fine is unconstitutional, but I do think the largest reasonable fine would be $0.99 a song, that being the amount it would typically have cost her to purchase those individual tracks at the time. Fine her for her own use. But fining her for sharing it with others is a bit much, IMO, under the circumstances.
If she were making money off of selling the tracks then that would be a different story. Fine the crap out of her. But otherwise they should go after the other people that downloaded from her if they want their $0.99 per song. Trying to take it out of her is not justice, it's trying to make an example of her so others will stop sharing when they shouldn't.
I think damages in the hundreds or single thousands is reasonable for her crime.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Well, if you add up $0.99 per song and go after her for the full 1,000+ that she supposedly did this with then the total would be right in the range you suggest.
Or are you saying that's what it should be for just the 24 songs, and it would be a whole lot more if they included them all?
Or are you saying that's what it should be for just the 24 songs, and it would be a whole lot more if they included them all?
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
I agree with your statements, yet disagree with your conclusion. Because they aren't going after people that are stealing from them, they're going after one person and trying to destroy her so completely and utterly beyond any concept of what is reasonable so that they don't have to go after the rest.
That's not justice. That's using the legal system as a mafia thug.
Edited By TPRJones on 1264688366
That's not justice. That's using the legal system as a mafia thug.
Edited By TPRJones on 1264688366
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
They're trying to make the statement that people who commit these crimes are thieves, and think that by showing the massive amt of punishment that can be doled out, it will deter others.
I don't agree, but I do think they need a fairly easy way to track down people who are doing this, and have some kind of remediation.
Possible damages:
1) Loss of sales
2) Cost of finding out who is doing it/notifying ISP to get info/etc.
3) Lawyers/lawsuits
That's all expensive, and could be avoided if people didn't do this stuff.
Again, I'm not saying I'd do exactly the same as the RIAA, but they do need to work to make sure people aren't stealing their members' products.
I don't agree, but I do think they need a fairly easy way to track down people who are doing this, and have some kind of remediation.
Possible damages:
1) Loss of sales
2) Cost of finding out who is doing it/notifying ISP to get info/etc.
3) Lawyers/lawsuits
That's all expensive, and could be avoided if people didn't do this stuff.
Again, I'm not saying I'd do exactly the same as the RIAA, but they do need to work to make sure people aren't stealing their members' products.
It's not me, it's someone else.
Not the RIAA this time, but similarly stupid: Sony complains to YouTube about copyright infringement and gets Beyoncé's official YouTube channel shut down. Because she posted her own stuff.
This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
This video contains content from Sony Music Entertainment, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.
Congrats to Sony Entertainment for wisely spending its legal dollars and working on behalf of its artists.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
That worked brilliantly.
Only the lawyers ever win.
The RIAA paid Holmes Roberts & Owen $9,364,901 in 2008, Jenner & Block more than $7,000,000, and Cravath Swain & Moore $1.25 million, to pursue its "copyright infringement" claims, in order to recover a mere $391,000. [ps there were many other law firms feeding at the trough too; these were just the ones listed among the top 5 independent contractors.]
Embarrassing.
If the average settlement were $3,900, that would mean 100 settlements for the entire year.
As bad as it was, I guess it was better than the numbers for 2007, in which more than $21 million was spent on legal fees, and $3.5 million on "investigative operations" ... presumably MediaSentry. And the amount recovered was $515,929.
And 2006 was similar: they spent more than $19,000,000 in legal fees and more than $3,600,000 in "investigative operations" expenses to recover $455,000.
So all in all, for a 3 year period, they spent around $64,000,000 in legal and investigative expenses to recover around $1,361,000.
Only the lawyers ever win.
It's not me, it's someone else.
RIAA is short for Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music’s (US, but controlled by a Canadian) misnamed Recording Industry Association of America.
Heh.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."