Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the how-generous dept.

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.

9 of 154 comments (clear)

  1. She'll be fine. by drunkennewfiemidget · · Score: 5, Interesting

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

    So in this case, I'm sure they'll suggest she not go to post-secondary school and spends her school savings to pay them.

    This is why I haven't bought an RIAA registered CD since 2001, and won't. Douchebags.

    http://www.riaaradar.com/ ftw.

  2. Justice system as a revenue stream by nfc_Death · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I cannot understand the usage of a public system such as the justice system being perverted to act as a revenue stream for clearly underhanded groups of people. Its scary how twisted and shackled all our legal systems have become.

  3. What happens? by saladpuncher · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So what happens if they win? I am not a lawyer but if someone sues you for a trizzillion dollars and you don't have it...what happens? They can't throw you in jail. They can't take your stuff...or can they? They can screw your credit rating up and maybe garnish your wages in the few states that allow it. I have won civil suits before and never got a dime. The judge slaps his gavel down, says "you owe the that dude 500 dollars" and then nothing happens. So what happens if you don't or can't pay the RIAA?

    1. Re:What happens? by cydnub · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Or your could just do what Bernie Goetz did when he couldn't (wouldn't) pay: file for bankruptcy. He had a $43M judgement against him in 1996 and in 2004, "hasn't paid a penny yet".

  4. Appeal Appeal Appeal by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This should be appealed on at least two grounds:

    1: 600X actual damages is constitutionally excessive.

    2: Attempted Distribution != Distribution. Or in other terms: Making Available != Distribution.

    On a side note, while the judge seems like a nice guy here, he's a moron for buying the RIAA's line that while we can't prove she ever provided a file to anyone except our own hired, paid, and completely unlicensed investigators, she's guilty anyway.

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  5. Real question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages"

    And how do you know?

    10 songs a CD, 15 dollars a CD, would equate to 1.50 a song. 600 times that would be... Wait, your using new math?

    Seriously, how can someone come up with a dollar figure for copyright infringment.

    I used to run a courier group. At one point, we where ranked #1 in the US, and ranked .eu fairly high, according to CWS, USCR, etc. (this is dating me).

    I couldn't tell you how much damage our MP3 group did, per song. Neither can NYCL, neither can RIAA or any other entity, because you DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE LEECHED FROM HER, AND IN TURN, FROM THE ORIGINAL LEECHERS.

    I haven't had a problem with the dollar figures they put out, simply because, YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY the dollar amounts, because nobody knows.

    So, seriously, how can you be taken seriously, when you are spouting dollar figures as well that don't add up?

    Serious question, NYCL. I want to know where your dollar figures came from and your percentages.... If only in case someday the past comes to haunt me :) lol.

    --eighteen double zero

    1. Re:Real question by photomonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here's how you can put a dollar amount on things:

      I'm a professional commercial photographer. I do advertising work, editorial (newspaper/magazine) and documentary work.

      For an in-the-clear commercial infringement, I typically seek the cost of the shoot plus 5x the 'market rate' for the run of the photo; and any lawyers' fees I'm entitled to recoup.

      Why? To get fairly compensated for what was taken from me, and to make it painful enough to the infringer (usually a company, occasionally a mom-and-pop publisher/advertiser) to realize that next time, they're better off paying market value than 'borrowing' someone else's work to make a buck.

      But then, I'm not a parasite. I wouldn't sue you for downloading a picture and making it your desktop wallpaper. I would sue your ass off if you downloaded an image, and used it to sell your business, illustrate your book/publication or sell art prints of the same.

      Technically, I would be legally in bounds to sue for infringement if the work appeared on your Web site under a lot (granted, not all) of circumstances. Most of the time, I don't care. Unless you're directly or indirectly profiting from having the work there, toss me a credit, link and an email asking permission.

      Copyright is an act of moderation, and I firmly believe in letting the punishment fit the crime/infraction.

      --
      Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
  6. $4.00 for infringement is more like it.... by mlwmohawk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If the standard for judgment is actual damages plus treble damages, i.e $0.99 per song and $0.99 * 3 for damages, that's more like it.

    While I don't mean to incite violence, but I'm really starting to think that "we the people" need to find a way to rid ourselves of these parasites who write the laws, pay the legislatures to pass the laws, pay the executive branch to sign the law, "influence" the judiciary to uphold the laws, and destroy the lives of defenseless citizens.

    Sorry, but they suck, and they all need to be on a plane that crashes in the ocean.

  7. copyright infrigement != stealing by cpghost · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Test your logic:

    A. Stealing == mv(1). (as in: mv /riaa/somefile.mp3 /home/mycollection)

    B. Infringing copyright == cp(1). (as in: cp /riaa/somefile.mp3 /home/mycollection)

    C. mv(1) != cp(1). (because with mv, /riaa/somefile.mp3 is gone, while with cp, it's still there)

    Ergo: Stealing != Infringing copyright.

    --
    cpghost at Cordula's Web.