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

She'll be fine.

[drunkennewfiemidget]

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.

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?

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.

Woohoo!

[guyminuslife]

I'm a Texan, and this is great news. I only owe them 2 million dollars!

What happens?

[saladpuncher]

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?

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're forced to work as a discwasher.

Re:What happens?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can take your stuff. A civil judgment also stays good for 20 years (in most states), so they can garnish your wages once you DO get some jing.

Re:What happens?

[cydnub]

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".

How generous

[RealGrouchy]

Wow! Now you're only cutting off one of my balls? You're so charitable!

- RG>

Re:Judge can reason evidence, can he administer?

[AngryLlama]

Home of the rave? I would assume that is in Europe some place.

Real question

[Anonymous Coward]

"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

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.