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

Record Companies Owe ME !

[CmdrGravy]

I've been wondering how much certain record companies might owe me. They often sell live albums recorded when their artists have been on tour and these albums contain not only the protected intellectual property of the artist but also the protected intellectual property of the audience which they often use to fill in gaps between songs or fade in and out of the main song.

Now I have attended some of these concerts which were later either televised or recorded and these recordings do contain my own work, mainly rythmic clapping and shouting but as yet I have to see a single penny from any of the record companies who, it seems to me, are intent on taking my own work and using it to sell records without paying me for any of the performance and composition rights I am owed.

If any lawyers would be like to comment and let me know how best to approach the companies in question with a view to getting my due royalties I would appreciate it.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Anonymous Coward]

If any lawyers would be like to comment and let me know how best to approach the companies in question with a view to getting my due royalties I would appreciate it.

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?

Oh well, too bad for you then.

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Carewolf]

If you haven't signed a contract it just means the record company is not allowed to use your performance at all. The only question here is if clapping is considered a performance, if it is worth anything, and if the recording doesn't fall within fair use.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[morgan_greywolf]

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording.

You don't need one. In all countries who signed the Berne Convention or the WIPO Treaty, copyright is implied from the date of publication. Royalties can be ordered to be paid retroactively by a court of law in cases of copyright infringement.

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

Only if I grant you permission to record my speech.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Anonymous Coward]

In all countries who signed the Berne Convention or the WIPO Treaty, copyright is implied from the date of publication.

Speaking aloud or making a sound (ex. clapping) does not qualify for copyright protection under the Berne Convention. The work has to be "fixed" to be covered by copyright.

In this case, the only copyright is held by the folks doing the recording, not the folks participating in the recording. Even the musicians on stage won't necessarily get paid royalties unless their contracts explicitly grant them (they could be session musicians who are paid only for the performance). Just because you're on the recording doesn't mean you own the recording, even if you contributed original material to it. As a musician, I have personally contributed original material to recordings that I do not hold the copyright to. I am only eligible for royalties based on agreements (contracts) made with the copyright holder.

Only if I grant you permission to record my speech.

In a public place, you can be recorded without permission, simply because it's a public place. On private property, you can be recorded by the property owners or their designates. It happens all the time (ex. security cameras).

The Laws

[whisper_jeff]

The laws (and associated penalties) apply to you, not us.

Yours truly,
Big Media(tm)

Re:Wow...

[Svartalf]

Yeah, just remind them that if they DO win that they can't go back and ask for those insane damages again- you can't have your cake and eat it too; and neither should they.

If it's excessive for them, it's going to be excessive for whomever gets nailed by their shenanigans.

IANAL, but..

[Keyper7]

...isn't the UMG/Universal case worse? I mean, they were clearly using the unlicenced song for profit and an album version without it wasn't even available. Jammie Thomas, on the other hand, even it was true that she was sharing copyrighted songs, she wasn't profiting from it.

Re:Actually I wonder

[johannesg]

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them (and some judges still have some semblance of sanity, so eventually they will hit one when they climb the judical ladder). Don't your options run out after three tries (with the supreme court only rarely accepting cases anyway, so they cannot count on that)?

Their victims usually don't have the money to do the same. Though... should it ever hit me, before I hand over my life savings to them, I pump it into the courts. At least there it MIGHT somehow be used for good. After such a trial, you're broke and in debt for life anyway.

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 the mindset behind terrorism: people have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. So why not do something useful with your miserable life, and go and blow up some market or whatever to punish the infidels? Any solution for the middle east should somehow take this into account...

wth editors

[visible.frylock]

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.

Wildly speculate much? From reading the material, the case they were complaining about was about explicitly punitive damages. The section cut out from the PROIP act was about treating individual copyright infringements rather than as compilation infringement (which, in itself, makes total sense). Two completely different things.

Seriously, we all know imaginary property doesn't exist and the laws are seriously corrupt and fubar. But sensationlism and hyperbole doesn't really help our case. But don't let that stand in the way of headlines.

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

You admit that there were "actual costs..."

"While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs,..."

I guess that settles the argument about whether "sharing" is theft or not.

Re:Actually I wonder

[Tridus]

Back when they were having their congressional pets write the law, they had no idea that it could ever be used against them.

Suddenly realizing that they might have to pay these things causes the appeal to wane.

Its similar to software patents. Lots of big software companies were in favor of the patents until small patent troll companies started filing lawsuits against them for pretty much every new product.

Re:Actually I wonder

[sm62704]

Why are they against excessive damages?

because Howlin' Wolf's label can (and did) sucessfully sue ZZ Top for the "how how how how" in La Grange, and george Harrison's label can be sued by the Chiffon's label for using the same three notes Ronald Mack used in "He's So Fine".

George Harrison was ordered to pay $587,000 to Bright Tunes Music (the owners of the song's copyright) in 1976, after a judge found him guilty of "subconscious" plagiarism of "He's So Fine" in regard to his 1971 hit "My Sweet Lord".[1] The Chiffons would later record "My Sweet Lord" to capitalize on the publicity generated by the lawsuit.

Modern copyright is so fucktarded that it's damned near impossible to write and perform a song without infringing someone's copyright.

Re:Actually I wonder

[CaptainZapp]

Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages

Actually this stint should have landed Thomas Hesse and some of his senior management SonyBMG cronies in the slammer for an extended stay.

The same, which would have happened to a pimply faced teenager from Iowa if he would have dared to pull a comparable stint and would have been rightfully convicted as a computer criminal.

It mystifies me until today how those douchebags got away that cheaply.

Informed Consent

[Cassini2]

Those conditions might not be prominently displayed before the ticket has been purchased. As such, one would wonder if the consent was properly given. Further, TicketMaster also has some language that they will not accept a return of the ticket. The same legal arguments that can be used to invalidate shrink wrapped EULA's would apply here as well. Essentially, you can't sell something to a customer with fine print locked inside that says: "If you open this, you agree to sell your house to me in exchange for the use of the software."

Also, even if you do consent to be recorded, the copyright still remains yours. You have to agree to license the copyright as well.

Re:Actually I wonder

[Opportunist]

That's the mindset behind terrorism: people have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. So why not do something useful with your miserable life, and go and blow up some market or whatever to punish the infidels? Any solution for the middle east should somehow take this into account...

ANY solution for social problems should take that into account. No amount of force or surveillance has ever stopped a revolution from happening. Paris in 1789 was not unlike a police state, czarist Russia was one of the tightest controlled countries in 1917, yet in neither case it could stop a revolution that was based on this very simple motivation: Even death isn't worse than the life you currently live.

Now, we shipped off our poverty to other countries, where the people can't easily come and throttle us "aristocrats" who tell them to eat cake. But we're reimporting poverty. And the amount of people who are living beyond their means is growing, unemployment (or "employed but unable to make ends meet with 2 jobs") is on the rise as well, and the ensuing unhappiness can easily turn into a mob.

And again, the solution is surveillance and force. Doesn't anyone learn from history?