Motley Fool Says RIAA Hitting a Brick Wall

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Motley Fool business site says that the RIAA's litigation campaign is in the end game. Monday it reported that 'the music industry's lawsuit crusade against defenseless college students and housewives appears to have hit the skids,' predicting that the RIAA's tactics are 'all about to change.' Today the Fool confirms that 'the change is happening in Internet time, which is somewhere between "instantly" and "yesterday,"' noting that the RIAA's abandonment of its 'making available' theory shows that the end is near. And this is before the RIAA faces its first jury trial, set to begin Oct. 2 in Duluth."

Comments

Re:Motley Fool... RIAA

[Mark_in_Brazil]

Takes a fool to know another, perhaps?

Yes and no. The RIAA is a bunch of small-f fools. The Motley Fool strives to be a bunch of Big-F Fools.

From the linked page:

Motley Fool was founded in 1993 by brothers David and Tom Gardner. Our name derives from Elizabethan drama, where only the court jester (the "Fool") could tell the King the truth without getting his head lopped off. We're dedicated to educating, amusing, and enriching individuals in search of the truth.

A big-F Fool is one who sees, among other things, people being small-f fools, and isn't afraid to say it.

Re:Scare tactic

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Even if you understand that it's wrong and agree that the RIAA should be compensated when they do sue someone who is guilty, that doesn't mean you agree that they're asking for reasonable compensation. $750 per song? Do you really think that every time a person puts a song in their shared folder, they deprive the RIAA of an average of 750 legal downloads? Particularly if no one has to have ever downloaded the song from you to get sued? If they were asking for $5 or $10 a song - and being more careful about who they sued - sure there'd still be some people claiming they should never ever sue anyone, but I think many people would be at least a little more sympathetic. At least I'd only think they were being silly and self-destructive for clinging to an outdated business model, rather than seeing them as extortionists and fear-mongerers. And given that they're settling for $3000, you can't tell me that they actually need the whole $750/song for legal fees, etc. They use it as a scare tactic, plain and simple, so they can get their $3k with no fuss and muss. Hence the defense that the RIAA's $750-per-song-file damages theory (2000 times the actual damages per song) might be a wee bit unconstitutional, since, as Judge Trager said:

[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."