Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Defendant Says Kazaa Settlement Bars Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in Arista v. Greubel has filed an answering statement. The statement says that the RIAA's case against him, since it's based upon his use of Kazaa, is barred by the RIAA's receipt of $115 million from Kazaa. Mr. Greubel also challenged the constitutionality of the RIAA's $750-per-song damages theory, saying damages should be limited to $2.80 per song. See the previous Slashdot discussion of that issue and Judge Trager's decision in UMG v. Lindor."
IANAL but I don't care. The defendant is right in every single assertion they have made. The RIAA is wrong and should be sued out of existence. /conversation
The CRIA (Canada's RIAA, or more correctly the multinational IAA as they represent no Canadian artists, producers or studios) hasn't been suing Canadians because of the tariff on CD already makes us pay for being music pirates (the CRIA/RIAA says so). The CRIA convinced the government to put the tariff in place over a decade ago, and the CRIA knows it will get its hiney kicked if it is tested it in court.
750 is nothing more than extortion unless they can prove actual value lost (which they can't) or until they actually force someone to settle for that amount, which they haven't yet.
No, that's actually the number Congress provided in the statute. It's meant to be an alternative to having to prove actual damages (similar in some respects to, say, workman's comp). In fact, $750 per work is the minimum amount they can ask for; the maximum is $30,000 to $150,000, depending on some facts in the case. Don't think that the $750 figure is them being nice; it's meant to stay away from a jury that might side with the defendant, since if the minimum is what's sought, there's nothing for a jury to decide with regard to damages, or even to need to know about.
As for settlement, that has nothing to do with anything.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Mr. Greubel's lawyers are Charles Mudd of Chicago, and John Browning of Dallas. They are two really good litigators. John Browning's the guy who got the excellent order on hard drive inspections in SONY v. Arellanes, which I predict will serve as a model for all future RIAA v. Consumer litigations.
I wouldn't bet against these guys.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Not entirely true.
The recording industry lobbied the government for a levy (not a tax) on recordable media. The government decides what media is covered and what the amount of money is levied. The money is sent to the recording industry which is supposed to distribute it to the recordning artists (I don't believe that part has actually happened yet).
In exchange for the levy, the copyright act specifies that copying an audio musical performance for personal use is not considered infringement. This is *very* different than saying "It has already been paid for". It has not. Copying for person use is *not* infringement whether or not the must has "been paid for".
The court case in question was an injunction to get certain ISPs to release the names of accounts who had been shown to share files over the internet. In the case, the recording industry failed to show that they represented the copyright holders for those files (they had file names, not contents). And they failed to show that the copying was not for personal use. Further they failed to show that making a file available *to others* on the internet actually infringed copyright (since *they* weren't the ones who were copying it).
So, they failed to show any evidence at all that copyright infringement had occurred. And so the judge did not grant the injunction.
Right now the Canadian government is making ammendments to the copyright act. There are no details on what those ammendments will be. But one can guess. Government officials have been meeting with recording industry lobbiests to consult on the issue. The government even paid hundreds of dollars to take lobbiests out for lunch. So far they have refused to meet with pro-user lobbiests.
I agree with you that the complaints are defective.
They're all the same by the way, all 20,000 of them.
So far though 6 out of 6 judges have said that this vague complaint is ok for the first round.
We're still waiting for judge number 7, Judge Karas, in Elektra v. Barker.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
As far as I know, the score as of today in contested cases is 0-0.
The RIAA hasn't won any contested case.
No defendant has won a contested case either.
No contested case of which I am aware has been seen through to conclusion yet.
(By "contested case" I mean a case in which the defendant (a) denies having done what the RIAA claims he or she did, and (b) is fighting back and not defaulting.).
There are probably cases out there that I don't know about. If you hear of any, please let me know.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Good thinking. Here is an excellent law review article which agrees with you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Doing a quick google search for "RIAA contested case" turns up this link http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061015-799
Defendants 1, RIAA 0.