Slashdot Mirror
In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson. Also, neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory — as opposed to actual — damages. No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional." Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT by T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica, too.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
$1.92M for 24 songs is unreasonable? What makes you say that?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.
Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
It looks like classic civil disobedience. Break am unjust law, get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court, all the way to the Supreme.
That, or massive incompetence of her defense.
Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her? Couldn't she just go on a sharing spree and drum up attention about it? Seems that once you ruin a person, they have no more motivation to do what you want as you've already leveled the most extreme punishment.
Wisest is he who knows he does not know.
If we end up with a string of verdicts like this I have two things to say:
1. I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords
2. I think we finally have step 3!
1. Produce easily copied item no one wants to pay for
2. Let people get used to getting it for free
3. Sue your customers for millions of dollars
4. Profit!
This space for rent...
According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $32,000/year (never mind the fact that women make $27K). Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $1.4 million.
They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.
What's wrong with this picture? Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
Porquoi?
Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.) This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential, I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.
If it weren't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury, the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her. Instead, she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded. It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files, and while she didn't need to volunteer that information necessarily, the deliberate obfuscation (returned hard drives, etc.) put her on the wrong side of the line.
I think this is a terrible precedent that was set, but really, I'm not surprised. The RIAA, of course, will never see their money, but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again, either, so I guess it's even.
Assuming a price of $15 per album, the defendant could have stolen 128,000 CDs and resold them and it would have been less damage than what they are collecting for two dozen songs.
$2M for 24 songs? Sounds like jury tampering.
So all I have to do is, twice a year write an awful song, then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right? That's a freaking awesome alternate reality! I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year!
By that kind of accounting, I'm worth billions. Boat salesmen will knock. Bikini clad women will swoon. I can have any car I like!
Tell the truth now, you're just trying to outdo the British, aren't you? They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread. You'd ruin people's whole lives over copying a song.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do.
Just like the rest of us who work for a living?
The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion.
The expenses can be recouped in the following manner: the RIAA pays the legal expenses they incurred. If we get into a fender bender, and I sue you for damages, that's okay. If I spend 3 million on my legal team over it, that's me spending money foolishly. You shouldn't have to pay for it.
I did say should... applying logic or "should" statements to legal proceedings is it's own type of illogical, I know...
Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them.
To absurd degrees considering how trivial an offense it was. That's what makes them bad guys.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
I wouldn't call standing up to a bully "foolish" exactly.
She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off. I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.
Um, no. For lying under oath she deserves to face perjury charges, not have her punishment be magnified 1000 times.
Let's assume 24 songs is about 2 CDs worth of music. What would happen if I stole 2 CDs from Wal-Mart? I'd get a slap on the wrist misdemeanor, and no more than a $1,000 fine. Probably I would get a whole lot less than that.
How is stealing that same content digitally somehow worse? If anything I can think of a few ways it's less harmful than shoplifting...
Porquoi?
All the RIAA did was cloud the identity of who the real pirates in this case was.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
...and I might agree with most of what you say if the content-creators (the Artists, not their representatives) were seeing this money directly.
As a recording and performing musician who is both excited by the limitless distribution and disgusted with their treatment of artists I find you personally offensive. Furthermore I also find you to be nothing more than a rhetoric spewing fool of the lowest order. I hope you choke on those party lines you parrot off mindlessly.
GTFO, troll.
Because it's a valid perspective? I don't agree with it -- John Carmack already gets paid enough for his work to keep doing it (even with piracy possibly sapping the numbers), and for being accused of downloading a couple CDs worth of songs this woman's now on the hook for enough money to record, publish and promote two platinum-level albums -- but if you're trying to figure out the jury this perspective is probably where you should start.
> Moral of the story: don't break the law
In my eyes the moral is: don't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....
The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system, but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public's behavior, it is actually working out in reverse....
I don't much care for the RIAA, but everything brought in as evidence was against her, and she couldn't come up with shit-all that might even bring a shred of reasonable doubt (let alone the much greater amount that they'd need to win a civil case).
If you actually think she's innocent, you're out of your mind. She did it. Is the punishment just? Hell, no. But I don't see how any intellectually honest person can take her defense as anything but the most pathetic thing around.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
Wow, you feel guilt? Girls feel guilt. Pirates don't feel guilt. We feel rum. And freeeeeeeee yaaarr
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome. I admit to not closely following this case. But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak. Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:
I really can't emphasize that last part enough. Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense. It's about convincing normal people. If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose. If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose. Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose. Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.
On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too. It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used. That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it. While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it. Especially if she seemed less than forthright.
That said, the damages award is completely insane. I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750). It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level. Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song. My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.
I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details. Maybe these were the best arguments they had. Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations. Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story. Whatever the case, the defense was really weak. This verdict was predictable.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
No distribution was ever shown. The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Where are they finding these jurors at? Where is the constitution on this one? I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias. How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides? Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone? This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
On the bright side, sometimes when something so stupid happens, it forces a change in the law. And certainly, this verdict (a) will itself be set aside, and (b) gives added ammunition to the lawyers like myself who are arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Actually you can notice that the actual lawyers here like NYCL never, ever say things like "... couldn't possibly win". That's probably because they're quite familiar with the fact that the legal system often coughs up ridiculous outcomes (in their eyes).
In my eyes, these outcomes just show that even judges often don't actually understand what the law says. And juries for sure don't. It will be interesting to see if this decision will be thrown out again.
Didn't the artists CHOOSE to make these arrangements? If they had a hope in hell of making money on their own selling their recording on the internet without their stuff getting stolen, don't you think they would? So you are some kind of moralizing god that can tell the Artists how to run their affairs? if the money is going through a 3rd party, then it is OK to steal it, but if it goes directly to the Artist, better to pay them? I bet most people check carefully to see where their money would go before they decide to steal content, right? Let's look at a quote from a REAL artist, the fabulous guitarist Andy McKee, posting on piratebay: âoeYeah thanks a lot for uploading! It's not like I need to make a living with my music or anything. 8,676 thieves. If you really appreciate what I am doing, buy my CD legitimately so I can continue to compose music rather than work at K-Mart. I'm not Metallica. I don't have hundreds of thousands of dollars, much less millions.â So even though he is signed with Candyrat, it sounds a little like he would prefer that you BUY his music, doesn't it? Have you ever tried to make a living by driving around the country doing shows? It is, after a short time, soul sucking and demeaning. But that is the only way even a great artist with fairly broad appeal can make a living in this day and age, because of morons like you.
This is the first troll post that I can sympathize with. We all know it; we are breaking the law when we download music/videos. It's just that, unlike mugging someone in the street, no one really loses out. Maybe the music execs will have to buy fewer wraps of coke. Is that such a bad thing? I don't think so.
In the end, the only winners are lawyers.
Open Source Drum Kit, LPLC deve board - mjhdesigns.com
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.
Have you ever tried to make a living by driving around the country doing shows? It is, after a short time, soul sucking and demeaning. But that is the only way even a great artist with fairly broad appeal can make a living in this day and age, because of morons like you.
Since when have musicians EVER made any significant living off of derivative works OTHER than performing live? Mozart did it, Elvis did it, Metallica did it. Artists have never been able to make a substantial income from record (or sheet music) sales. It wasn't until Beethoven that the idea of making money off of copies of musical works even really took off.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
But it's NOT a valid perspective. I know of nobody here that says people shouldn't get paid to perform work. But that's the troll/flame that he keeps on pimping until somebody actually starts believing it. He's full of it. It is those who advocate strong copyright who want to sit on their butts and collect the rent. They are the true pirates who use guns to lock down ideas. We must not allow this to continue.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
It's always the stupid and careless pirates that get caught in the harbor. It's natural evolution at work, a culling of the weak and unfit from the pirate fleet. Feel sad if you must for Thomas, but also feel comfort that evolution has done its job: the pirates that remain are the cream of the crop. They will bear an even more naturally skilled crew to man the next fleet of sloops and schooners.
While I don't agree with (a) your Social Darwinism theory, (b) your use of the word "pirates" as synonymous with copyright infringement, or (c) your belief that she did in fact do the file sharing, you do bring up a very interesting and perplexing point about these RIAA v. End User cases. The cases started being filed in 2003. ALL 40,000 of them are based on the Gnutella protocol (e.g. Limewire) or the FastTrack protocol (e.g. Kazaa). Meanwhile all of the sophisticated, high volume, 'swashbuckling', file sharers switched to BitTorrent long ago, yet the RIAA hasn't brought a SINGLE case based on BitTorrent. So the litigation scheme was almost by design calculated to ensnare 'low hanging fruit', the people at the low end of the file sharing totem pole, and to ensnare many innocents, since there is obviously no basis for assuming that the person who pays the phone bill is a copyright infringer.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Good point, however even if NYCL was the worst trial lawyer, his knowledge about the RIAA, copyright, etc is amazing. Include that from all I've been able to gather, he does seem competent as a trial lawyer (few lawyers are really any good at being a trial lawyer).
Perhaps NYCL will correct me on this, I've seen great litigators who never step foot in a courtroom and would be a disaster at trial. On the other hand I've seen great trial lawyers - both criminal and civil - who don't have the finesse to be a great litigator.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Nothing "valid" about it. He is lying when he says that we think people shouldn't get paid for working. What I demand is that they actually work for their money the same way I do. I have no divine providence over my finished work, nor should anybody else.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Because it's a valid perspective?
You can say that again. Seriously, $2M for 24 files? WHAT THE FUCK?
Yes. The artist chose to make these arrangements. They signed up to be screwed over by a morally corrupt organisation. Voluntarily. Perhaps they weren't familiar with how these companies operate. Perhaps, as an artist, they were merely ignorant to the fact that they could have sold their wares themselves and kept all the money. Perhaps They felt they needed big-dollar representation for something or other.
...and if they were directly awarded that, do you think they would be able to sleep at night?
If that's the case they were wrong. Given the compensation typical for a struggling artist (or even a minor-league success story) signed to an RIAA label. Selling his CD's himself, even with a signifigantly lower volume I have a hard time believing they would have trouble being just as broke as they already are.
Ignorance may explain the situation, but it does not excuse it.
How about this, if these artists were doing the suing themselves do you think they would ask for $1,920,000 in damages?
> And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?
The whole point of jury trials, when they were established after independence, was to prevent a corrupt legal system or judge from victimizing an innocent public. They were a reaction by the Founding Fathers against Americans having been jailed by British courts with no posibility of defense.
It's a pity that that isn't the first instruction which is given a jury in every trial --- a reminder of the real reason for their being the last word, and the information that, yes, they can totally ignore the letter of the law if they so desire. Or at least, they used to be able to do it. The legal system has been eroding that power slowly but surely, as we get further and further removed from the spirit which freed all Americans from tyranny, more than 200 years ago.
The justice system did serve justice. Twice. The RIAA lawyers were able to convince two juries that she was distributing 24 unauthorized mp3 files. How would she (or anyone) be better off if her lawyer told her that they had a strong case, that she had a weak defense, and that it would be cheaper to settle?
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
How do you even find 12 average people who can justify in their little brains that nearly $2 million is reasonable for 24 freaking songs?? Not much surprises me anymore but come on! WTF???? Most likely just another case of selecting a jury with a bunch of people dead set from the start on making the defendant pay and pay as much as possible regardless of guilt or innocence. The verdict was probably in before the opening statement was made. The RIAA's dream jury
There is no "realistic" value for lost sales here. Because no sales were lost. Except maybe to the negative publicity from this. In fact more sales were probably gained by sharing. The whole thing is completely bogus. And it's little more than a racket to protect the middlemen and gatekeepers. We should be hammering them on the head with the RICO statutes.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Well done, RIAA, and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.
I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection. Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection "Best Rock Songs Ever".
Used Bittorrent, so I figure that, at 80,000 per song, I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month!That theft took just 5% of my transfer cap, so I *could* go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking!
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
I would also be interested to know if that $1.9 million award included legal fees as well as compensatory and pun[i]tive damages
1. No it does not include legal fees.
2. It does not include any compensatory damages; the compensatory damages would have been approximately $8.
3. The damages are "statutory" damages which are similar to "punitive" damages.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
....this woman's now on the hook for enough money...
What happens to this woman or someone like her who doesn't have a penny to her name and she simply doesn't pay? How can you squeeze blood out of a turnip? If the award had been 10 times or 100 times or 1000 times as much, what difference would it make? They might as well tell her that she must pay off the national debt. It will never get paid off either.
All theory is gray
....Just like the rest of us who work for a living?...
Without the existence of copyright, all human creativity would cease. Oh wait... that is how it was for thousands of years before the modern age. I wonder if the ancient Egyptians had a copyright on the design plans of the pyramids.
All theory is gray
One sentence- Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright! The man has been pushing up the daisies (or sitting in the freezer, whichever you prefer) for over half a fricking century, yet his FIRST work, one made when planes were made out of cloth and antibiotics were just a dream, is STILL under copyright.
Most of us here are for fair copyright. Of course most of us would consider the outright bribery of our elected officials by multinational corporations to be treasonous. The US copyright system, which is being forced down the throats of more and more nations, was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly in the form of government imposed copyrights We, The People got in return a richer and more diverse Public Domain for all of us.
But we have been robbed, and the contract broken. We, The People are no longer represented anymore, because we can't cut individual checks to bribe our own elected officials like the multinationals can. Until We, The People are once again represented at the bargaining table then ALL copyrights should be considered by the people of this country and all those who have American copyrights forced upon them null and void and completely ignored. Crooked laws created by bribed officials should be looked upon as the illegal acts that they are. Period.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
It is, after a short time, soul sucking and demeaning
So you mean... it's like... HAVING A JOB?!?!?!?!?
"Artists" who think that one weekend's work and a year or two of sacrifices and chances should allow them to live luxuriously for years after get no sympathy for me. Buck up and welcome to reality. This recession's full of it.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
it is because of the RIAA's heavy hand in sueing p2p file sharers that i dont buy music anymore, i refuse to support such behaviour.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
For most people there is absolutely no benefit received from work that is already completed and sold. If as an electrician I design and wire someone's electrical system I get paid once, there are no future payments if the house is sold or if guests come use the system I installed.
Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense, and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it, they picked the cheaper alternative.
If you feel that you have no voice in the government, the way to change the government is not through anonymous piracy. Engage in civil protest or violent revolution -- whatever works for you. But anonymous leaching, and I mean that not only in the p2p sense, but also in the "how is an artist supposed to make a living if everything can be had free" sense, isn't going to accomplish anything. Rather, it shows "file sharers" to be "what can I get for nothing" freeloaders rather than people interested in changing our corrupt government.
As for the issues in this case, the damages are clearly excessive. Although I do believe that Jamie did the deed so to speak, and that the regular retail cost of the songs is not enough (*), $2m is more than she'll make in a lifetime. Damages should be something like 20-30% of her income for a year. That would be substantial without being ridiculously high.
(*) If maximum damages = price of song, there is no incentive, aside from one's own moral compass, to pay for content.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Well, anything she currently has could be seized and sold off, within some limits of bankruptcy protection. If she ever does earn money, her wages can be garnished to some extent. No matter how much ever earns, she's not going to get keep but a fraction. She is in essence, incapable of escaping poverty for her entire life. Every extra nickel she gets will be taken. Her only hope is to live off the grid now, but that has its own drawbacks.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
I can almost guarantee that $80,000 is less than they've actually spent on those songs. So when does the 'right to sue for damages' turn into the 'right to sue for profit'?
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
The law exists to protect the distributors' monopolistic business practices, not the creators. And all work can be done as "work for hire". I can produce a little teaser, hook, whatever you want to call it, and if you want more, you can cough up the scratch. You can hire managers to do the leg work when the money starts coming in. But exclusivity is out the window. Don't like it? Go out and dig ditches. People who produce for the love of it will do just fine. Those who want to make that one big hit, and live off that for 100 years can take a hike. It can only lead to a better quality product. Copyright is responsible for most of today's crap. And it makes it difficult for real talent to reach a wide audience. Well, it did before the net.
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
At least she can have all the music she wants.
"In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
One: Jealousy is not a valid reason why copyright is wrong.
Two: If you wire up someone's house, that person pays for all the materials, labor, and profit it takes for you to have your own house and food. $1 will barely buy a single outlet, let alone the box, wire, circuit breakers, or labor to install it. So a person who lets people have songs for $1 but keeps copyright, is hoping to put food on the table through volume sales. If it was required that the first sale cover all costs and some profit -- albums might cost $100,000. Everyone else gets the song free after the first sale, but if nobody bought the album in the first place, nobody would have the song at all. That's part of the social contract behind copyright -- the creator can let people have access to the work at an affordable price, but keeps enough control over the work that he/she can try to sell it to many people. That benefits society because instead of waiting for a patron to pay for the whole enchilada, we all get the work for a modest price while the artist takes the risk making or losing money on his/her efforts.
Three: A smart electrician (gets paid upfront) has almost no risk -- the job is simple profit. For an artist, there is an enormous risk of getting nothing after working very hard. If you don't like that some artists in essence win the lottery, then ensure that all artists get to earn a living wage. Society gets a lot of low cost high quality art from artists who do not win the publicity lottery, so it might actually cost more if artists got paid like electricians.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question (of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents. Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company (which they apparently aren't). And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps.
For the 24 songs in question to incur $80,000 in damages each, therefore, they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times, for 9696970MB of downloads. This would, at 256kbps, take 3507 days (about 9 and a half years). Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement. Also, for that matter, that ignores the remaining 1678 songs.
Going the other direction, if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa (call it 3 years even to make things easier) you'd have been able to upload 1009152MB, or about 201830 songs, divided evenly over all 1702 songs that's about 118 times each. At 99 cents each that's $2803.68 in statutory damages.
All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.
The federal jury is essentially creation of the federal courts.
You do not get to handcraft your own:
In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. ... All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the court. 1870. Challenges
The federal juror is 18 or over, a US citizen resident in the district for at least one year, writes and speaks English with reasonable proficiency and is physically and mentally fit for service. 1865. Qualifications for jury service
You could make a persuasive case for the geek being the idiot in court - to the despair of his consul and the joy of his opponent -
and the most common mistake he is likely to make is to show contempt for the jury.
The music industry has gotten into a state where a few big companies control the market. They don't need to control the artists, because they control the customers.
Distribution isn't the primary issue. It's easy enough to sell music over the internet, etc.
The problem is exposure. Most people don't really get a song into their head until they've heard it a couple times. Your average casual music buyer doesn't go through the trouble of searching for music they like, but just buys (or steals) music that they've heard somewhere, and enjoyed.
Because most of the channels of passive exposure are so controlled, the vast majority of customers are really only available to those who sign onto a big label.
This control of the market allows them to charge ridiculous prices, and pass on a very small amount to the artist.
All this doesn't make piracy right, but it does make it understandable.
How is a person even supposed to even find bands that they like? I haven't heard a song on the radio or television which interests me in years.
I still buy a lot of CDs, and go to a lot of live shows, but most of them I learned about by downloading from the internet.
The current system will fall at some point unless it adapts. The large record companies made some very smart moves which made them a lot of money. Now the world is changing, and instead of looking for new ways to make more money, they're trying to use their money/power to stop things from changing through fear of litigation.
Convince people that they have to play by your rules, or you'll sue them into the ground. The only problem is that a lot of them will just give you the finger.
On the Andy McKee thing: 8,676 thieves? I've never heard of the guy. I could go download his album, making the number 8,677. Maybe I'd like it, and go buy it. Maybe I'd listen once and decide I don't like it. In either case, Andy doesn't really know. Maybe a bunch of those people he's ranting to DID go and buy his CD legitimately. Maybe they hated it, and the download saved them from spending a bunch of money on something they don't like. The only ones who are stealing, at least morally, are the ones who like the music, keep it, and don't buy the CD.
Have it your way Andy. I won't download your album.
psst.. You might have just lost some sales.
It's time to change the law. Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim. If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.
This is my sig.
I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong
You don't pay people for there work every day. There are thousands of artists out there right now whose work you are not paying for. Artists you've never heard of.
Why does it make a difference if you see their work or not? It doesn't affect them.
I have way more than 24 songs and I will even take 1/4 price of what they think they are worth, $20000 per song. With the money I plan to pay off Jamie's Judgment and buy a beer for $1.2 million (that is what they should be worth in the RIAA's world).
Actually, technically speaking, Steamboat Willie is in the public domain due to errors in how they did the nameplates. The copyright act of 1909 was very stringent in that regard.
Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number > 1M) of people. They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.
Just a thought.
I read it as a prediction, based on certain things happening, which didn't happen.
Thing is, I made no such prediction. The GP is fond of attributing things to me which I never said.
What I predicted was that, based upon defendant's lawyers having filed the appropriate evidentiary objections to the MediaSentry printouts, the trial should be "interesting". I was wrong about that prediction, because the defense lawyers did not "voir dire" MediaSentry or Doug Jacobson, did not object to the admissibility of their testimony, and did not rigorously cross examine them. So it was not "interesting" at all; the RIAA was given the free pass I thought it was going to be denied on the technical. I made a prediction that it would be "interesting", and my prediction turned out to be wrong.
But I made no prediction whatsoever about winning or losing.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Based on this decision, my music folder is worth almost $5 billion. How come I have to work for a living, then?
Oh, right, that's not real money, and copyright infringement does not mean actual loss of money for the RIAA. Not to mention I live in Hungary, where fair use covers this. To the guy that got slapped with the $2M, however, is fucked.
Now, who's the bad guy again?
In all honesty, I don't think we want to go back to the way things were in Mozart's time, which was largely a system of patronage. It sucked. Reasonable copyright is better.
Qxe4
I always though that statutory damages are not meant as a punishment, but as a means to give the copyright holder fair compensation in situations where the actual damage is impossible to establish.
According to the CONTU report ("Committee On New Technological Uses", back when congress was working on extending copyright to software), and if I recall it correctly, the statutory damages are apparently intended to be both punitive and to allow the copyright holder to recover enough from the few moles he manages to whack to make up for the many he missed.
The precedent is a church choir director who purchased sheet music for a song that was scored out of the range of his choir (and most singers), did a transposition that made it singable, ran off a few copies for his choir, and offered the transposition back to the original author and publisher, gratis, for their next edition. Instead of "incorporating the patch", they sued for some large number of thousands of dollars (real money in those days, too) for the infringing copies of this derived work. And won.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
What are the laws for this situation? If I had a diamond/gold bars potentially worth 2 million dollar, and I just gave it away to an employee for just a few dollars, will the USA govt. excuse the employee from paying income/gift tax for the full potential value of the item? Because this seems to be exactly the case with RIAA now. Each of their files are now potentially worth $80000, correct? And just because RIAA's founding companies gift it away to the public at a much lesser price, should be of no concern to the USA government in terms of tax.
If the IRS and government officials ignore this tax fraud, are they not guilty of cheating and defrauding the american public, since they are letting RIAA get away with billions of dollars in tax fraud, while expecting only the poorer american public to pay their taxes?
Why is RIAA being allowed to get away with two different evaluations of its income/wealth in terms of tax? Shouldn't this unpaid tax money be collected from them and used to create new jobs for American people? They are cheating the american public of valuable tax money, especially in this time of global recession. It is the duty of the government to ensure that corporations are taxed *at least* as much as a common man is.
One sentence- Steamboat Willie is STILL under copyright!
Steamboat Willie is eight minutes of silent era sight gags linked by a thin narrative thread. Filmed on nitrate stock, it was projected with synchronized sound on a phonographic disk.
The copyright on Steamboat Willie protects that single incarnation of the Mouse. When it expires you get the right to distribute the short - if you can find unprotected primary sources. Try MoMA or The Library of Congress.
You get the right to produce derivatives based on Steamboat Willie - and only Steamboat Willie.
You do not get to use the trademarked character designs. You do not get the Phantom Blot - and the "steel-belted" Mouse of the comic pages.
MGM did rather well with Tom and Jerry. Paul Terry with Mighty Mouse. To be successful in this business, you had to find your own way.
The US copyright system, which is being forced down the throats of more and more nations, was a CONTRACT, nothing more. In return for a LIMITED monopoly in the form of government imposed copyrights We, The People got in return a richer and more diverse Public Domain for all of us.
Somehow this is what seems to get lost in a lot of copyright discussions. Not to give a complete history of the copyright, but there was a time when we had no copyright, and people wrote books, painted, composed music, and performed it because they wanted to, and often they found ways to get paid for their expertise and talent. One common way was to do work that someone else wanted them to do on commission, whether they wanted to do it or not. Though many artists wished to have control over their own work, it was just silly to expect as much. Another artist would copy your painting, or another author might rewrite your story, and that's how culture developed.
And basically all that was fine until the the printing press arrived, and book publishers started making a fortune from printing books, neglecting to pay the authors. People recognized this as unfair and discouraging to those who might want to write a book, so they invented the idea of the copyright. The idea wasn't to ensure profitability for publishers by forcing readers to pay for the right to read a book, nor was it meant to allow authors to control the destiny of their work, but it was solely a way to help authors get a share of the huge profits publishers were already making.
Flash forward to the present, and now copyrights are being manipulated in such a way as to have almost the opposite effect that was intended. Copyrights are being used to guarantee profits for the publishers, while the artists are being denied their fair share of the profits. If anything, the Internet should allow us to go back to pre-copyright days, since distribution doesn't really require a "publisher" in the same way.
Now I'm not saying we actually should drop copyrights, but only that convention has twisted the purpose of the copyright and given bad expectations about what copyrights will accomplish. Now we think that people own, buy, and sell ideas. Further, that if you own an idea, you should retain ownership and complete control forever. That's just an unsustainable situation.
If as an electrician I design and wire someone's electrical system I get paid once, there are no future payments if the house is sold or if guests come use the system I installed.
Something like that is a poor analogy, because no matter how many electrical systems you do, it requires the same amount of time and resources to do the next system as it did to do the last system. Once someone writes a book or releases a song, though, other people can duplicate them easily (and almost for free these days). Copyright was meant to ensure that artists had a fair chance to make enough money to live on so that they would be able to continue to create art, which greatly benefits society. Obviously, the copyright laws in many countries have been perverted to greatly favor publishers (not even the artists, which makes it even worse). Hopefully it isn't too late to restore the laws to a sane level.
Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly? This woman lifted $23.76 worth of music. If those were candy bars she'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time.
You don't win cases by giving press conferences and bragging about what you're going to do to the other side. You win cases by staying up late, going through boxes of documents. I was truly surprised everyone was reading and writing all that nonsense and buying into that hype. You don't see that on my blog.
Yes I was "hoping for the best". And for all I know defendant's counsel did a great job. They certainly worked hard, and demonstrated intelligence and enthusiasm, at least in the earlier stages.
I'm not in a position to criticize her counsel because I don't know what went on, and I don't know what pressures they were under.
All I know is that, as an outside observer, I was disappointed at the absence of a number of things I would have expected to see. Whose fault that is, I don't know.
What's next is:
1.Defendant moves to set aside verdict and for new trial.
2.Motion granted, new trial scheduled.
3.New trial: defendant wins, plaintiffs appeal.
I would also not be surprised to see the RIAA aggressively seek to enter into a confidential settlement with her, even to the point of paying her attorneys fees, to avoid this getting set aside.
Those of us making the constitutional argument on excessiveness of the RIAA's statutory damages theory will be helped by this verdict.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If 1000 SlashDotters download one song every 2 minutes, then they will download 262,800 songs over the course of one year. If the RIAA collects $80,000 per song, they will collect $21 Trillion Dollars. At 10% income tax, this will raise an extra $2 trillion for the U.S. budget, and wipe out the nations deficit.
As such, every /. reader should download as many songs as possible. Save the nation from deficit! Fix the housing crisis! Save the stock market! Be a national hero!
Then let me help: Jammie, if you go nuts and commit an act of retribution against the RIAA and/or their lawyers, and I can scam my way onto the jury, I personally guarantee you a hung jury at worst. Seriously, I figure for $2 million you've pretty much bought the right to any form of revenge you can come up with.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
No, wrong. Each song is worth like $2 with statutory damages of HOLY FUCK BANKRUPTCY.
I can't say I agree with the size of the damages, but that's no excuse to completely misrepresent the issue.
For a site about things like basic rights, Slashdot users sure do like to censor "dissent".
What are the laws for this situation?
For this situation, or for the one you describe?
For this situation, nothing, because no one (but you) has said their songs are worth $80000 in value.
All the jury said was each infringement is worth $80000 in damages.
It's a fine, not a repayment.
She is in essence, incapable of escaping poverty for her entire life. Every extra nickel she gets will be taken.
You know, taking every last thing a person has leaves you with someone who has nothing to lose. One of these days the RIAA's laywers are going to win a punitive suit against the wrong person, and I just hope that I am nowhere near the building the lawfirm is in when it happens.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
You have no idea what you are talking about, so listen, because I'll only explain once:
You've made the statistical mistake of comparing one artist in a generation to every artist of our day. How many composers do you know from the classical period? Have you ever heard of Andrea Luchesi? Probably not. For every Mozart, there are hundreds of Andrea Luchesis. Just as now there are hundreds of artists like Brittany Spears.
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
Besides, there was no one like Brittany: no one had her mix of innocence and sexual confidence. She was popular for a reason. If you don't understand why, it just shows that you are also out of touch with the tastes of modern culture.
Qxe4
You failed to comprehend. I didn't say violent revolution is better. What I said was that trying to hide and slip under the radar while doing what one wants, does not change government in the least. There are ways to change law ranging from civil disobedience at one end of the spectrum, to taking up arms on the other. I did not indicate where in that spectrum I believe action should be taken. It should also be clear from my post and somewhat derogatory depiction of "file sharing", that I don't have a huge amount of sympathy with those who would deprive people of their living, while at the same time thinking that the punishment in this case was excessive. Jamie is wrong. File sharers are wrong. The RIAA is wrong. And the Government is wrong. I'm waiting for someone to be reasonable.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
> We all know it; we are breaking the law when we download music/videos Perhaps where you live. Here in Switzerland, downloading music and videos remains legal. Sharing (read: copying) pieces of music, art, etc (not computer programs) with family and close friends is stated quite explicitiy as legal in the swiss equivalent of copyright law.
Except that the copyright system in the U.S. wasn't created as a social welfare system for artist: it was created to encourage production which would enter the public domain soon enough.
Imagine if the estate of William Shakespeare still got a cut of every print and performance of his works. Would we every see them in high schools? How about Dickens or Twain? What if literature coursebooks had to pay huge sums of money for the right to republish thousand-year-old manuscripts?
Think I'm being disingenuous? I'm not. I should be able to freely use, remake, dramatize for the theater, and cut up over half of the movies on this list, but I couldn't find any listed as public domain in my ten-minute attempt. The Presley estate shouldn't still be making money off of music written and recorded fifty years ago, if indeed the estate is the entity holding the rights. Automatic extension has made it virtually impossible to know who actually holds the rights when you care enough to license that seventy-year-old movie for inclusion in your film.
The original Copyright Act offered protection for fourteen years, with an optional extension of another fourteen years. I don't see the problem with that or why it needed to be changed.
Put identity in the browser.
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
I realize that you were trying to contrast patronage with what we've got now, but I don't see the real difference between what you've described and being under contract to a major label.
Put identity in the browser.
If you feel that you have no voice in the government, the way to change the government is not through anonymous piracy. Engage in civil protest or violent revolution -- whatever works for you.
I'm starting to be sick of this idea you and others repeat over and over again.
If I feel I have no voice in the government, I will do exactly as I please, just like everyone else.
For example, I can decide that I'll only follow laws to the extent I can be forced to. Thus, I might break any and all unenforceable laws, just for the sake of it.
And I don't really care if it's "the way" as you say.
Creating a government that doesn't represent the people can obviously be great for its members and the people powerful enough to manipulate them (and so, it).
Expecting everyone else to follow the rules because it's the right thing to do...
--Most of us here are for fair copyright--
Or even -minimum- copyright. The purpose of having it at all, is to encourage the creation of works. So it follows that the length of protesction, and the strength of protection should be the minimum required to stimulate such creation.
What length that is, and what strength that is, is offcourse debatable, but I haven't seen any coherent argument that todays rules aren't MASSIVE giveaways.
Does -anyone- honestly believe that there'd be less music released if copyright was for 28 years (the original terms in USA) rather than life-of-author plus 70 years ? Would *any* musicians go "Screw that, if I can only profit for the next 28 years, I'm not gonna bother!" -- does that sound plausible to you ?
Does anyone write computer-games, expecting to earn significantly from them for a period LONGER than 28 years ? I seriously doubt it, and I don't think it'll be easy to find anyone who -does- believe that.
In economic terms, 28 years is (more than!) two thirds of forever anyway. If you assume 4% deprecation pro year (i.e. that given a choice between $100 now or $104 one year from now, you consider both offers similarily attractive) then a fixed income-stream has 70% of it's value in the first 28 years.
And -that- is assuming the income-stream is fixed, which is HIGHLY unrealistic, to the contrary, I would guess that most copyrighted works have 90% of their sales in the first 5 years after release. For some classes of works, such as computergames even this is understating it, I bet most computer-games have 95% of their dollar-value in sales inside of the first 3 years after release.
Actually, monks copying books was what arguably underpinned the development of science - the printing press just increased the speed of propagation of ideas.
You're correct on the copyright though. Copyright laws were a variation on the theme of the "patent" and were around not much later than when the first books started to appear in print. The first copyright or privilege was granted to Aldus Manutius, for this manuscript 'Aristoteles', in 1495. However, these privileges were NOT granted to the author (who expected to be paid as any other worker), but to the publisher - to protect their investment. Only in the 18th century these privileges or patents were granted to authors. Before that time, they were exclusively granted to publishers and not automatic for every work but you had to apply to the King or Queen for every book you wanted to protect.
The funny thing is that the transfer of copyright from publisher to author started when there were huge fights over the publishing rights. Around the end of the 17th century the London and Paris publishers had a total monopoly, that ended in the UK in 1694, after which the publishers outside London started to publish all the books in a massive burst. The attempt to re-monopolize the market led to the Copyright Act of 1709, granting rights to the author for 14 years after publication, with an extension possible for another 14 years if the author was still alive then. The same thing happened in France, resulting in the notion that both the publisher and author needed some protection.
Now, noone I know has any problem with paying the author or publisher for work well done. But the perpetual copyright we have now means I no longer take it seriously.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
If like me you think this is absurd, let me suggest you join the Pirate Party in your country. We recently got 7.1% of the vote in Sweden, and it's likely that soon we'll be achieving this and more throughout the developed world.
In the UK, join Pirate Party UK; elsewhere look at Pirate Party International to find your national Pirate Party.
As a small voice of support for your position, this is more or less how Prohibition got repealed. The cumulative affect of a very significant portion of the population simply ignoring the law until it could no longer stand. I'm not saying it can or will work for copyright, there were additional factors in Prohibition relating to the public health risks posed both by the smugglers and dangerously unregulated booze production that just don't exist in this case, but it is an analogous if not identical situation.
Having said that, I definitely feel that most of the parties involved in this dispute are being unreasonable. Content creators (or rather the huge companies that "represent" them) are clearly overreaching what they can reasonably claim both in terms of length of copyright and what rights are granted. The Government is clearly giving more weight to the rights of content companies than to rights of consumers, which is both unfair and a violation of its mandate. Many if not most of the "information wants to be free" crowd seem perfectly content to drive the people who create content completely out of business. This is doubly foolish since it both hurts the content creators, in the end, the consumers themselves. Rather like "fishing out" an area, many of these voracious consumers of content may find that should they ever succeed in in their quest they will have no content to consume.
It seems to me that while the concept of copyright is sound, its terms and duration are currently excessive. Unfortunately it is extremely difficult to "unmake" regulation. I am not really sure what the answer is.
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
You have no idea what you are talking about, so listen, because I'll only explain once:
Ok. I'm interested.
You've made the statistical mistake of comparing one artist in a generation to every artist of our day. How many composers do you know from the classical period? Have you ever heard of Andrea Luchesi? Probably not. For every Mozart, there are hundreds of Andrea Luchesis. Just as now there are hundreds of artists like Brittany Spears.
Sure, misrepresenting a situation with an improper sample set is a common mistake, and there were lots of unknown composers for every couple famous composers, just as today.
Patronage was horrible. You had to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what your royal sponsor demanded of the evening. You art would be filled with things only to please your king. See the music of Haydn for an example of this. In some cases, a patron would even modify the work of art however he desired. It sucks.
Woah, wait a second. How is this any different than today? Now bands have to compose, perform, or do nothing, all based on what their corporate (who thinks of themselves as royal) sponsor demands of them for the album, who demands that their art be filled with things that makes them lots of money. At least in the old days the music was designed to be aesthetically pleasing to the person commissioning it rather than being this carefully measured, mathematically balanced formula geared toward the broadest demographic. Regarding the Royals changing songs around, I remember there was this XTC album that they remade to CD where they just dropped a bunch of shitty filler right in the middle of all the good songs. That's not a case of corporate drones changing individual songs, but it disrupts the overall flow of the music. (I'm sure that the band's members got nothing from that cd also...) For other instances of music designed to sell, see also: Anything done by Nickelback and Green Day's American Idiot. Indeed, it is even funnier to grab the copy that someone made where they take four or five modern songs and transpose them over one another. A good one was Wonderwall and Boulevard of Broken Dreams. I lost all respect for Oasis AND Green Day at that moment.
Besides, there was no one like Brittany: no one had her mix of innocence and sexual confidence. She was popular for a reason. If you don't understand why, it just shows that you are also out of touch with the tastes of modern culture.
At the risk of me being snarky, I'll say that you say all that as if its a bad thing. Furthermore, I contend that she had nothing except the ability to sing. The corporate marketing department gave her that finely honed, well measured, bland, "just provocative enough to be alluring, but not so much to alienate parents" touch.
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...
There is a well-documented psychological phenomenon where people who can't do something believe it is easy for the people who can do it.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Exactly. I make a living from copyright. If copyright didn't exist, I there are a few other business models I could use relatively easily, but copyright is simpler. I don't expect to be making any money from anything I've created yet more than 10 years after I've written it, and in most cases I'd be very surprised if I'm still making money from it in five years. Copyrights of over 14 years are of no benefit to me at all, nor (as at least two studies that I've read have shown) to most people who produce creative works. The only people who benefit from it are publishers with large back-catalogues that they can keep milking. The only way I can think of that I might benefit from long copyrights is that it keeps the price of some good older material high or (more usefully) completely unavailable and stops it from competing with me, but I'd have a hard time arguing that that's in the best interests of society...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
BTW if you REALLY believe your post, why the hell are you sat here, instead of on your private island after last weeks pop recording session? It's easy right? so why are you not giving up your career to do it?
Because I'm not a hypocrite.
/entitled/ to over $14 million (1/7th of $100M) from our federal government that they probably never intend to pay, and I never intend to collect (because I'm entitled to it does not mean I think I deserve it). You unknowingly use my family's inventions every day, at low cost, because my grandfather never enforced his patents, and now they're public domain, as far as I know/care.
You direct your question to a very interesting case study. I pursue art, in many different mediums, as a hobby. Legally, I am
I was born (or indoctrinated) with a very strong work ethic, and I feel a great sense of satisfaction by using it.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.