RIAA Agrees To Take $200-Per-File In Texas Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a San Antonio, Texas case, Maverick v. Harper, in which a young woman was accused of having committed copyright infringement at the age of 16, the Judge denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion this summer, saying there were factual issues as to whether the defendant qualified for the 'innocent infringement' defense. He offered the record companies a way out, however, saying he would grant them a judgment if they agreed to take only $200 — as opposed to the $9,250 they sought from Jammie Thomas or the $750 they usually seek — per infringed recording. We have recently learned that, after the Judge denied the RIAA's reconsideration motion and scheduled a trial date, the RIAA filed papers agreeing to take the $200-per-recording amount. While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages, it's better than paying 26,000 times the actual damages, which is what the RIAA tried to squeeze out of Ms. Thomas." This is a reversal of the RIAA's rejection of the $200 award per song last month.

Comments

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

600 times the actual damages for what she had possession of, but they don't go after people for simply having music, they go after them for making it available to others and distributing it. The actual damages could have been much more than 33 cents per song.

Re:Wrong

[lysergic.acid]

those are hypothetical damages. technically the recording industry didn't incur any real damages from this type of copyright infringement. making copies of electronic data doesn't cost anything.

and if you want to talk about hypothetical damages, then what about the potential losses to indie artists or labels due to the major labels' monopolistic control over music distribution/promotion? Payola is still alive and well today. the music promotion racket run by the Big Four and the Clear Channel radio network requires artists & labels to buy spin slots on top 40 playlists. this essentially prevents independent musicians from gaining any kind of public exposure. these are blatantly anti-competitive practices used to lock non-RIAA-sanctioned artists out of the industry.

and what about the ASCAP & BMI who each collect hundreds of millions in music royalties each year? any public venue that plays music--whether live, recorded, or broadcast--has to pay these RIAA-run organizations "licensing fees" regardless of who owns the rights to the music. the ASCAP even charges venues for playing foreign music that is in public domain. so they will collect licensing fees on your music whether you want them to or not. but if an artist wants to actually receive his royalty checks, he needs to pay for ASCAP/BMI membership. for most musicians, these royalties are not worth the cost of membership. it would be better to just allow public venues to play their music for free, thus promoting the band and giving them free exposure. but these extortion rings eliminate any financial incentive to play non-RIAA-licensed music since a venue is billed even for playing music by non-RIAA-affiliated artists.

file sharing is a major threat to the RIAA not because it hurts the music industry--it doesn't, it has actually boosted net profits--but because it undermines the Big Four's traditionally held control over music distribution & promotion. radio used to be the only place where consumers could sample music for free. but now consumers can explore music that actually suits their taste by circumventing traditional channels. you can sample music before you pay for it, and this gives consumers the power to only pay for music they actually like. that means no more buying $20 pop albums full of filler tracks just for one or two radio singles. file sharing actually exposes consumers to much more music than before, which has expanded people's musical tastes and increased music-related expenditures. but that spending is now distributed across a large variety of indie artists rather than concentrated in a small handful of mainstream acts. mainstream pop musicians that have traditionally been the major labels' cash cows are no longer selling because people realize that such throwaway fad music is not worth spending money on.

It's still not really reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

That's like going to extort a store owner:

Mafiaa: Hey buddy, You wanna keep your store safe, it'll be 30%, off the top.
Store: We can't afford that. We'll just close shop.
Mafiaa: Ok, we'll just take 3%.

Re:It's still not really reasonable

[Just Some Guy]

It's my understanding that the mafia actually provides the negotiated service, which would more than I could say for the RIAA. Besides, the mafia scares me on a lesser level. They might break my legs or throw me in a river, but as far as I know they can't actually devour my soul.

Re:Justice system as a revenue stream

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described 90% of all civil legal actions.

Re:She'll be fine.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, at least all that money is all going to the starving artists who she ruthlessly stole from. Right?

Re:She'll be fine.

[elashish14]

After all, the RIAA simply suggests you drop out of school to pay your fine.

It's a really talented and well-written article. It's things like this which need to be published on a mass scale (unfortunately, a college newspaper won't get you anywhere) before we see any change. When extortion of this level of cruelty happens legally, generating awareness is the only way to stop it.

As it is right now, politicians don't even know what the internet or a computer is, how are we supposed to make them defend our rights?

Re:What happens?

[supernova_hq]

Umm, garnishing your wages does not mean the take everything...they simply take a percentage. Just think of it as a second income-tax :p

Re:Justice system as a revenue stream

[Arthur Grumbine]

I cannot understand the usage of a public system such as the ________ system being perverted to act as a revenue stream for clearly underhanded groups of people.

I'll help you understand (insert political/educational/judicial/legislative/economic/etc in the blank):
1) People are not perfect. Therefore people do not make the perfect ________ system.
2) There are some people who do not want to accept the rules of the ________ system.
3) Some of these people try to circumvent the rules of the ________ system, fail, and are punished/suffer.
4) Others (the clever ones) are able to successfully use the imperfections of the ________ system to circumvent, or change, the rules of the system. These people, in thoroughly developed society, will have an incredible amount of control over the original system. To not think this inevitable is akin to honestly believing "The cheater never prospers".

As a side-note, the abuses and manipulations of the American judicial system, at most times, seem pretty tame compared to those of the financial/economic, or political/legislative.

Re:What happens?

[davolfman]

One which often leaves you with less than living expenses these days. It's not as if anyone actually gives 40 hours a week with the economy like this, they're too busy trying to keep existing employees on the payroll.

Re:Punitive damages are meant to PUNISH

[Dutch Gun]

I don't condone her actions, nor would I excuse them. In fact, I get somewhat irritated by those that try to justify stealing music. I'd actually agree that she needs to be punished to some reasonable degree.

I don't agree, however, that downloading music illegally is a crime that merits the financial destruction of someone's future. That's the issue I have here.

Let me ask you - would you consider illegally downloading music or stealing a car a more serious crime? Doesn't it seem a bit crazy to you that the penalty for downloading music is harsher than grand theft auto?

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't get the memo. You can't do that anymore.

Re:it bears repeating

[jcgf]

I can't make a copy of your Ferrari instantly and without depriving you of yours. Your analogy sucks and people should stop using it.

Re:Real question

[mpe]

The total revenue from music sales in the USA is less than $10 billion. So if everyone stopped buying music right now and exclusively changed to downloading music from peer-to-peer networks, the total damage would be $10 billion. Actually a lot less, because that $10 billion revenue produces a lot of cost as well.

It's also more complicated since it is not the case that "downloaders" would otherwise be customers. Whilst the industry likes to claim that if people couldn't download they would otherwise buy this is simply a false dichotomy. Since there are plenty of alternative forms of entertainment. Nor does "buying music" equate to buying a music recording.