UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why would UMG, one of the four major RIAA members, consider an infringement award 'grossly excessive'? Naturally, because they were the ones ordered to pay it. While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs, they thought that being ordered to pay ten times the actual damages in Bridgeport v. Justin Combs was just too much. Then again, maybe that's why they didn't complain back when the increased statutory damages section was cut from the PRO-IP Act? Now if they could just cut the rest of the act."

Comments

Re:Actually I wonder

[morgan_greywolf]

Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"

That's what these guys did.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Keyper7]

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording. Next, -- wait, what do you mean you didn't sign a contract? He didn't sign a contract giving them rights to record his participation and profiting from it, either.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Tim C]

I've not been to a gig or concert in quite a long time, but I distinctly remember most (if not all) tickets having blurb on the back to the effect that you consent to being recorded and the recordings being used commercially, etc.

I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Ares]

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you. You are indeed correct. However I own the copyright to the content thereof, and your recording would be a derivative work of my speaking. Without a license from me to reproduce that recording, your ownership of the recording is worthless to you. Its just like an artist who covers an already published song. They don't go to the studio or the original artists to get permission, they go back to the songwriters for permission.

Re:Assholes

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well I'm pleased that they just got hit with a $107,834 attorneys fee award.

26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The way I figure it,
-the wholesale price per download is around 70 cents
-the expenses including royalties payable are around 35 cents
-therefore the profit per download is around 35 cents
-UMG & friends were awarded $9250 per song file
-9250 divided by .35=26,428.

I.e., the Jammie Thomas award bore a ratio to actual damages of 26,428:1.

UMG contends anything more than 10:1 is unconstitutional.

Therefore the maximum permissible award in the Thomas case should have been:

24 songs x $3.50=

$84

Slight discrepancy there, 222,000 versus 84

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Samalie]

I was at a concert recently where they were recording for future commercial purposes.

As well as there being a clause on the back of the ticket (enforceable or not) there were signs at the enterence stating "Tonights performance is being recorded for the future production of a live DVD. By entering this arena, you grant license to to use your image, likeness, blah blah blah. If you do not consent to these terms, please see X person at Y gate for a full refund of your ticket."

Seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and yes I went :)