Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?"
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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.
The laws (and associated penalties) apply to you, not us.
Yours truly,
Big Media(tm)
You wish to engage in corporate hypocrisy:
>cancel
>allow
...I never thought I would be rooting FOR an RIAA member in a copyright case.
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.
...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.
"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.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
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.
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!
Well I'm pleased that they just got hit with a $107,834 attorneys fee award.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The way I figure it, .35=26,428.
-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
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
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.
Suggest you seek more facts on the McDonalds case. Like for instance the fact that the coffee served by that establishment was significantly hotter than that served by all of the surrounding establishments by a significant amount and that McDonalds had received more than 700 complaints of injuries across their chain. The temperature was some 50 degrees hotter than a normal home coffee pot would serve it at. You might also learn that the woman simply wanted her medical costs attended to (that's $15K) and that the large settlement was awarded by the jury that was outraged at McDonald's behavior and attitude. While it's true she should have been more careful and focused the spill occurred while the car was stopped and she was *NOT* driving. I think that most any sane person would expect a spill to be merely painful and not require medical personnel to remove the clothing that had MELTED into her skin. Nor would a normal prudent person expect that a spill might require skin grafts to repair the damage. Would you have felt better about this settlement if it had been a child carrying a cup of coffee for their parent and gotten scalded? Oh wait, kids *had* been burned in the past and still McDonalds insisted on the temp being kept excessively high.
Here are some starter links for you, Google can provide more.
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org