Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"

Posted by timothy on from the for-thee-and-not-for-me dept.

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."

2 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Assholes by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  2. 26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful