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."

8 of 126 comments (clear)

  1. Record Companies Owe ME ! by CmdrGravy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. The Laws by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    Yours truly,
    Big Media(tm)

  3. Re:Wow... by Svartalf · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
  4. IANAL, but.. by Keyper7 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...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.

  5. wth editors by visible.frylock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Billy Brown rides on. Yolanda Green bypasses Gary White.
  6. Re:Actually I wonder by Tridus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    -- "So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated." - Bill Gates
  7. Re:Actually I wonder by sm62704 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.
    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  8. Re:Actually I wonder by CaptainZapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk