How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If a regular 'country lawyer' like myself had taken a case like the RIAA's in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset to court, he or she would have been laughed out of the courthouse. But when it's the RIAA suing, the plaintiffs are awarded a $1.92 million verdict for the infringement of $23.76 worth of song files. That's because RIAA litigation proceeds in a parallel universe, which on its face looks like litigation, but isn't. On my blog I fantasize as to how the trial would have ended had it taken place not in the 'parallel universe,' but in the real world of litigation. In that world, the case would have been dismissed. And if the Judge had submitted it to the jury instead of dismissing, and the jury had ruled in favor of the RIAA, the 'statutory damages' awarded would have been less than $18,000."

Comments

Re:the perjury factor

[mr_matticus]

Yes. Not once, but twice. The first result saw the jury react in a punitive way with the $200,000 award. It was atypical then, and it was based on her lying to the jury and basically the Slashdot legal effect: treat the jury as simpletons and morons and try to pull a "clever" fast one based on a ficitionalized fantasy version of the legal system. It didn't work then, and it certainly didn't work the second time.

Not only was there the knowledge that the first jury found her dishonest, but she continued with the same basic tactics this time. The jury reacted very much in the same way, and frankly, this case was a terrible test balloon with an unsurprising result. The only thing notable about the outcome here was the scale of the jury's contempt for the defendant. It was always apparent to everyone actually involved in the real world issues of this case that NYCL's analysis was deeply flawed and biased. It doesn't matter, though, given the massive echo chamber here.

What this case calls into question is not the concept of copyright or even the mechanics of its operation. It highlights the ongoing and deeply problematic lack of a second set of statutory damages keyed more to the P2P-style infringement that has become an issue in the past decade. The statutory damages are perfectly fine the way they are for the kinds of infringement they were written to stop. They're not fine for more casual users. The damages are intentionally not tied to the retail cost of a single copy, which makes the nonsense $24 claim just as egregious as the RIAA's "lost sales" figures. They are meant to be harsh and punitive, because enforcement is so spotty. The double standard here is irrelevant though when it's the popular side.

But Slashdot is full of petulant children and the same set of people who actively unravel every proposed change to copyright law that isn't a purely fantastical complete abolition. The US economy could not handle such a thing. IP is by far our most valuable export, and the only thing supporting our international trading. We don't manufacture anything of particular noteworthiness, and a service economy is dependent on non-tangible goods and attendant legal protection. Copyright is not going anywhere.

Re:the perjury factor

[cliffski]

Excellent post. Nice to see not everyone here is waving a flag for NYCL and the abolition of copyright.
And also good to see someone else realises that the only countries who will benefit from abolishing copyright are those like China with a decent manufacturing base.
If IP is devalued, the USA is fucked, and the current generation of college kids are more fucked than anyone else.