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

Actually I wonder

[Opportunist]

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).

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?"

Re:Actually I wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because I would be worried about accidentally taking out the mail man and/or janitor.

Re:Actually I wonder

[c]

> 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 a good point, seeing as how the large media companies say they're only
suing the most hardened criminals. Surely those mafioso grandmothers would know that
it's cheaper to hire a hitman or two than to fight a court battle? And a hardcore,
meth-addicted welfare mother would have access to heavy weapons, right?

c.

Re:Actually I wonder

[zappepcs]

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them..... IANAL but I'd think that if even one person gets something like 13000 times the actual value for damages, then everybody who wants to sue them will ask for it too. It sets a precedent that they don't want to have to pay for. In fact, I expect that any week now someone's lawyer will come up with the right defense or technical argument to leave the **AA's legal strategy in tatters and they will then be open for multiple suits if not class action suits. With the growing volumes of legal opinion against them, it is only a matter of time until all judges are aware that the **AA legal team is operating on very thin legal ice.

Yes, they have been successful thus far using very shaky technical experts and such, but that will fall apart quickly, and I'm betting that ISP cooperation with P2P makers and their arguments for throttling P2P traffic will remove all doubt as to the illegal nature of the **AA suits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the saying goes. I believe a couple of really sound, well placed offensive legal suits will put the **AA on defense to the point that they will be spending hundreds of millions trying to cover their tracks, and slowly their legal team will be dismissed and forgotten.

Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages. The school teacher in Russia that got sued for illegal copies of Windows is another example of wrong doing by well meaning laws, so the problem is not just the **AA. The DMCA and it's precedents seem to set the pace of wrong doing. We have seen the DMCA used against large corp. entities already, and in wrong ways. It is things like this that will lead to the halt of the **AA legal teams. As more technical knowledge is handed to the general public and, more importantly the legal system, their strategy will disappear.

We know that they basically have to flout the law to get your IP address/name connection and that will be shown. The legal system is slow and not all argument is germane to all cases, but it will happen. We need something like watergate to be uncovered so that their righteous position is removed, then all will sort itself out. They are a dying industry and are fighting death with all that they have. Even those resources are not inexhaustible. Several music groups are actually seeing no benefit in letting the RIAA continue their legal antics. Look at how much artists were paid from the Napster winnings.... zero! The cost of those legal teams is quite high, and they really aren't seeing anything from it. Every time they do anything it hits the news and more people see what asshats they really are. Bad PR is costing them quite a bit of money and I expect that we'll see it mentioned in upcoming financial reports. Loss of revenues eventually has to be blamed on market forces and those market forces are affected by bad PR.

It's a slow process, but losing badly in court sets the precedent that will speed it up. This is what the death bed of the RIAA looks like. To see more Google for SCO or just pop on over to Groklaw.

Non-obligatory bashing: MS is in a similar position but trying hard not to bleed out before the doctor gets out to the house to see how bad it is.

This is the way of business. Some folks just make bad decisions and the company and consumers have to live with it until things change a little at a time. The mere fact that they believe the award to be too high is a signal that I'm right. Of course they have to say that to continue to bolster their own position. The trouble is that they are now looking at what the hard place and the rock to see what they actually look like from a short distance. I imagine it will get a bit messier before it starts looking better. It will take a few more awards against them first.

Re:Actually I wonder

[Maxo-Texas]

It's interesting that people would consider killing for songs and movies rather than not download them or forgo purchasing them for 12-15 months until they are reasonably priced.

How would the record industry react if people started freaking out for real?
How would the government react?

I think creating that environment is bad for our children and grandchildren.

However, the creeping oligarchy is bad too.

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

What units are they using to make the comparison between the two cases? The 13,214 ratio is $damages/$song, while the 10 ratio is $damages/$song/number of copies. If they'd use the same $damages/$song ratio for Universal, the answer would be 5,000,000.

The Golden Rule

[southpolesammy]

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Well, ok. Technically, the rules aren't being made here, but this is just another example of the perversion of justice that exists among the elite in America. By and large, the America's "upper class", which include the wealthy, the politicians, celebrities, athletes, and corporations, aren't subject to the same blind justice as everyone else in this country.

If you have money and/or power, you have a way out.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[maxume]

Read one of your tickets.

Re:So....

[Skye16]

Costing someone something and stealing something from them are different. After all, I may upset you so badly from a bad breakup that it costs you a few thousand dollars in bills for seeing a therapist. You're going to be hard pressed to find any court that awards you damages for "theft of sanity".

Just so you're aware: cost != loss of property. Loss of - whether it's peace of mind or potential sale, but not property!

Re:wth editors

[mea37]

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.

Ah, the irony.

To say "we all know" is hyperbole. And the phrase "imaginary property" is sensationalism.

I've yet to see any credible argument that intellectual property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties) is any more "imaginary" (or shall we say, any less real) than tangible property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties).

IP is newer. Less people are comfortable saying they understand it. And the current laws are further from what they should be than the laws that define tangible property rights. There are plenty of things wrong with modern copyright, trademark, and patent law. But "imaginary"?

Sensationalism and hyperbole indeed don't help.

Re:26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case

[slcdb]

Just looking for clarification here... after reading part of the appeals court's opinion, wasn't UMG et. al. arguing that it was the punitive damages that were unconstitutional?

In Jammie's case, she's looking at statutory damages, not punitive, right?

I understand that the Supreme Court has already established guidelines regarding the constitutionality and proportionality of punitive damages. But have they done the same for statutory damages?

I'd think that is still a hurdle that needs to be overcome. Personally I think that due process is due process regardless of whether it's labeled "punitive" or "statutory". So greater than 10x actual damages should be unconstitutional regardless, in my humble opinion.

But I guess I'm wondering whether the distinction between statutory and punitive here means that getting the award against Jammie reduced is going to be more difficult than it might at first appear.