Slashdot Mirror
Cuban Says RIAA Damages Should be $5 Per Month
Thomas Hawk writes "Mark Cuban is arguing over at Blog Maverick that with the introduction of Yahoo!'s new $5 per month music service that this needs to become the new de facto 'damages' that the RIAA ought to be able to claim when suing kids. After all, when the kids could have paid for the music via Yahoo! for $5 a month it makes it hard to say the music loss is worth more than that. 'The RIAA can no longer claim that students who are downloading music are costing them thousands of dollars each. They cant claim much of anything actually. In essence, Yahoo just turned possession of a controlled music substance into a misdemeanor. Payable by a $5 per month fine.'"
Yes, the RIAA targets uploaders. But how do you differentiate uploaders from downloaders on a P2P network where you become an uploader (of specific chunks) the moment you start downloading? And when you finish downloading the file, most people leave it shared by default and you are now an uploader?
I understand that BitTorrent is a little different because there is an original seeder but after enough time it turns into a big P2P network just like Emule... errr.... Edonkey.
I know they target those who are the "big" uploaders, who share thousands of songs. But I'd wager that their standards for "big uploaders" are getting looser and looser and if the continue to see success with their current strategy, before long their standards will point to the "average joe P2P user." What happens then?
"This is Zombo Com, and welcome to you who have come to Zombo Com" - www.zombo.com
If I sold my Mustang to you could I get sued by Ford for it? If not, why not?
The first sale doctrine applies in both patent law and copyright law. Ford can't sue used car dealers for patent infringement because the first sale of a patented article to the public exhausts the exclusive right to resell that article. Likewise, you have the right to resell a lawfully made CD on which copyrighted works are recorded.
No, that is not what punitive damages are for. They are not a deterrant, they are specifically intended as an additional punishment for notably egregious, willful, or wanton violation of the law.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
AFAIK, the RIAA has yet to actually obtain a judgement in any end-user lawsuit. That they can successfully sue at all is far from clear at this point. Indeed, with the exception of the Napster suit, the RIAA has yet to prevail in a single hearing, much less a trial. So far, people have settled, or the suit has yet to reach trial. To date, the RIAA is batting .000 in court on end-user lawsuits.
Cuban may well be right about the proper amount for damages, but that assumes judgement. At the start, anyone can sue anybody for any sum. For example, SCO's multi-billion dollar suit against IBM. I think we can all agree SCO won't get billions. Likewise, the RIAA would probably get less than they are asking IF they won at trial, and IF a judge agreed to impose damages. Both of those eventualities are speculative at this point.
Not at all. "Punitive damages" are quite common in civil suits. Punitive damages are fines that exceed the actual damage done to the victim, with the intent being to punish the offender and deter them (and others) from committing similar offenses in the future.
Say I own a company that sells dangerous products. They injure some of their users, so I have to pay $X/year in damages due to lawsuits. Now, if it would cost me more than $X/year to fix my product, it would be in my best interests to just continue injuring people and then paying them in court rather than making my product safe. Courts often award punitive damages in such situations, as an incentive for the defendant to stop doing whatever it is that they're getting sued for. The same logic applies here; if you only had to pay the actual cost of an illegally-downloaded song, there would be no incentive to ever legally purchase a song; at worst, I'll get caught and have to pay the price that I would have paid in a store anyway.
I'm not arguing for or against a monopoly by the RIAA. I am arguing that this group of businesses does not automatically own all music created, and so "any artist" that wants to distribute his music in his own manner is free to do so.
Likewise, I'm sure the indi venue is an insignificant portion of the audience market but I have no numbers to back me up.
I have no idea either, but the indy market share isn't relevent to my point.
The music radio is mostly clear-channel. I'm sure Satalite radio is clear-channel controlled. MTV is certainly biased towards the establishment.
They have to be, they can only play the establishment's music by buying a license from a broadcast rights manage group like ASCAP, and if they're dickheads about the RIAA's behavior, they'll find their license expense crawling up. MTV is as much a slave to the content cartels as FM radio.
The only large distribution you have left are sound-tracks of big-end movies. With the possible exception of indi-films that at least get a lot of spot-light, if not popularity.
If you want large-scale distribution then your choices are limited. If you want millions and millions of people to hear your music then you are at the mercy of distribution channels that can potentially reach millions and millions of people. The internet is my personal favorite.
The industry has calculated methods of maximizing profit;
Any prudent business should, yes.
tuning various demographics to particular sounds and focusing on particular artists of the month to build sensationalism which causes people to flock to the fad-of-the-month and thus increase revenue. To facilitate this brainwashing, they need LOTS of airtime for their target projects, and this leaves no room for anything else.. With the consolidation of media outlets, the drive to "advertise" a particular label means even less airtime for variety.
In other words, they saturate the masses with cookie-cooker schlock and the masses eat it up. This has been happening for as long as there has been art and isn't a phenomenon unique to big business. Note: I am not exonerating big business for any wrong-doing. I hate big corporations as much as the next day.
So there IS an establishment that is trying to squash unsigned material, albeit indirectly through the reduction of avenues of distribution.
I don't think they're actively trying to squash unsigned material, because they could buy out almost anybody they wanted. If your material was so good that they were potentially losing millions in sales off your stuff, they'd have come up (in most cases) with enough money to turn the pupils of even the most principled artist into dollar signs. Everybody has high standards about how money should trade hands when they aren't the ones earning it.
I don't think the attempt to destroy the P2P networks is based on squelching unsigned talent either. They really do believe that they're losing money off of it. They're idiots, of course, because assuming P2P is the root of the problem, will banning it solve the problem? No. Will copy protection and DRM solve it? No.
As a disclaimer, I have no association with the musical profession.
Nor do I. I think you missed part of my point. I was countering this idea that if I want to hand out my music to anybod who wants to hear it, I can't because of the RIAA. This just isn't true. They don't own all music in the world.
I don't agree with them, their tactics, their close relationship to our congressional representatives, their at
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
I've said this before and I'll say it again ... like it or not, if it's against the law, it's against the law (unless you're Canadian eh!).
How many stupid laws do I have to look up for you to believe that not all laws are created with wisdom and good intentions?
Remeber prohibition. Some civil disobedience never hurt anyone.
Just note that America has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Jailing more people obviously isn't solving your problems.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0