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

Justifying piracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Fellow pirates,

I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.

Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.

I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one [slashdot.org], amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.

According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.

I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.

EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.

Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.

Yours truly,
A fellow Slashbot

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.