Slashdot Mirror
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."
The RIAA represent imaginary goods, so their cases take place in an imaginary land.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Personally, I have not purchased a CD in almost 10 years, and I will not purchase another CD from an RIAA label EVER. That is the only way we can make our voices heard... DO NOT BUY FROM THEM.
Logic is the beginning of reason, not the end of it.
Your fantasy-land in which intellectual property has no value, and clearly guilty people have the cases against them dismissed... that's the imaginary one.
Did you even bother to read Ray's post? I'm guessing not.
Ray points out some extremely simple things that were overlooked. Here's one example:
The jury should have been required to make findings as to (a) the date defendant commenced using an âoeonline media distribution systemâ (Kazaa) and (b) the copyright registration effective date of each work they find was infringed. The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa [or the Court could itself have made that determination based on the answers to the verdict form].
I don't recall the exact details off the top of my head, but basically if you want to bring a lawsuit over copyright in the U.S., you need to have registered that copyright. Under Berne, copyright attaches at the moment of creation (fixation), but the U.S. requires registration of works if there's going to be a case about it (at least for domestic works). This is a simple technical detail, but if the works were registered after any copying or distribution happened, it is an important fact.
Also, Ray is not saying IP has no value.... sounds like you have an axe to grind and are just looking for a place to do it.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
I purchased the full albums (and a few singles) of the songs that she downloaded and put them on eBay in one single auction. I put the listing at $1.92 million for the starting bid. However, eBay took my listing down, thinking it was a fraudulent listing. I tried explaining to them on the phone that these 19 CDs worth of music were worth $1.92 million, I even linked them THREE DOZEN news articles reporting the value.
Here's a list of the songs she downloaded.
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/23534
The RIAA is just doing anything they can to stay in business, like any good capitalist business should.
Now that's funny. A "good" capitalist business should roll with the changes, should cater to their customer, should work with their customer, should take advantage of technology, etc. The RIAA is not a business. It is a lobbying group. It is comprised of businesses. A good business would sue someone who stole their property for the amount of losses they experienced. We do not have that going on here. We have a hilarious trial that stinks to high hell where you are fined $80,000 per song you downloaded in copyright violations.
The businesses that support the RIAA are past due on realizing that the RIAA has outlived itself. Now it's just a monster run amok and the consumers are the victims.
You are without help if you believe the RIAA is just another capitalist business trying to get by in tough times.
My work here is dung.
From Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge:
> The newer (September 2008) editions have a total of $20,580
That wouldn't go far to pay off $1.9M. Perhaps if you had the most valuable set ever:
> The Guinness Book of World Records states that a set worth $2,000,000 and made of
> 23-carat gold, with rubies and sapphires atop the chimneys of the houses and hotels,
> is the most expensive Monopoly set ever produced.
but just barely!
You're not doing a very convincing job of constructing an argument. So far you have
- ad hominem: You only think Ray's good cause he's popular on Slashdot
- argument from authority: lawyers, judges, and juries must be right
- another ad hominem: for Ray to claim those guys are wrong, wow, what arrogance!
Ray's blog, on the other hand, contains actual substantive arguments pertaining to proper procedures (who should be allowed to testify and with what caveats or warnings) and prior case history (what is the relationship between award of damages and monetary harm). He might be wrong, but then so might be the jury.
In fact, if the jury thinks the way you've presented your arguments, they'll just think, "Wow, all these really masterful lawyers on one side, they can't be wrong--I'll just trust whatever they say and not think about it!" The judge, if he or she shares the approach you took in this post, is liable to be similarly swayed.
There's a company that makes blow-up car passengers to help scare off rapists. Do you really believe that they should rape people to make sure their product sells well, or do you think you might have forgotten about ethics somewhere along the line? ;)
If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.
This is when you think the law is bad, or you otherwise cannot convict them under it by your conscience. It still exists to this day, but simply remains mostly unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
In this case, I would have absolutely nullified a potential $2 million fine. Did she do it? Sure. But it's a bad law resulting in excessive fines.
It only takes one juror who knows his or her rights to stop this kind of crap. For more information as your rights at a juror, see the Fully Informed Jury Association.
http://fija.org/
-SKO
Yes, Ray is claiming that all those people did it wrong and I have no idea if he's right. But he is giving a list of arguments to support his point.
So if you want to claim that he is wrong, you should show that those arguments are wrong.
So far, all you are saying is "a lot of judges and lawyers agreed on this, therefore the decision is correct", like there's never been a wrong judgement in the history of mankind.
The blog post ignores the fact that a trial is a dynamic process. Had he made the arguments he lists, then RIAA lawyers would quite likely have countered them with appropriate arguments and evidence. For example:
Liability-Reproduction right
Plaintiffs failed to introduce an iota of evidence that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had made a single copy using Kazaa.
Result: directed verdict on reproduction right.
If he made that argument at trial, the RIAA would almost certainly have introduced evidence that bit-for-bit identical copies of the songs in question are available on Kazaa, that such an identical copy is unlikely to have occurred if she ripped the song herself, and that she didn't own the albums in question. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but probably enough to get the issue to the jury instead of a directed verdict.
Some of his statements are questionable as a matter of law:
The jury should have been instructed that a "work" is an album, and that multiple mp3's from one album constitutes a single "work".
There is not particularly strong precedent on this issue. Some courts have held that this is the case, it's true, but as best I can find they were only district courts and not in the same circuit as Minnesota (where the Thomas case was held), further diminishing their already merely persuasive authority. I do not believe there is any mandatory authority on this point for the District of Minnesota, which means that the RIAA lawyers may well have been successful in persuading the judge to adopt a one song, one work basis for calculating statutory damages.
Some of his statements sound impressive but wouldn't have made a difference:
The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa
A quick check at the US Copyright Registry of a random selection of the songs that Ms. Thomas infringed shows that they were registered many years ago, in some cases over a decade ago, and easily predated any infringement by Ms. Thomas.
Ultimately, this is about drumming up interest in his law firm and ad revenue from his blog, which Slashdot happily hands him about once a week or so. It also does a lot to poison the potential jury pool for future copyright litigation, which is of great interest to a lawyer who works those kinds of cases on the side of the defense. One should take everything Mr. Beckerman says about these issues with a grain of salt appropriate to the magnitude of his self-interest.
In short, this is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking, and not particularly good quarterbacking at that. It should also tell one something that most of his legal arguments are not backed up by citations to relevant authorities.
As a Brit, I'm aware that my own country's legal system has gone rather downhill over the last 30 years. But the thing that strikes a European most about the US legal system is its cruelty. Punitive damages. Unconvicted defendants for white collar crimes going into court with wire ties binding their wrists. Three strikes and you're out for even a trivial third offense. "Humane" systems of execution where executioners spin out the proceedings for hours. Obviously practice varies greatly across the US States, just as some EU countries (ahem, Greece, ahem) have crap legal systems and others like Germany have good ones. But you only have to look at the outcome of the Pirate Bay case in Sweden, and this one, to see the disproportion involved. The effect of the Pirate Bay case on the European elections (and now a German MEP has defected to the Pirate Party) also shows the different levels of popular tolerance involved.
US citizens need to start growing a backbone. You do not have to support criminal activity to demand that corporations not be allowed to take over and distort the legal system.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Well...
You shouldn't concentrate so much on that verdict, but as to what that verdict does to foreign perception of the US. I live but two hours from the US border, and what Jamie did doesn't even qualify as a civil issue, let alone a crime, where I live. Unfortunately, US lobbyists are trying to change the law here, but, so far, with little success (except for the typical lip service; love to see politicos at work sucking hard!).
Tough luck on the verdict, USA. I am laughing at you.
Now, for a practical matter. If a friend from the US comes and visits, and makes copies (or downloads) of music, is she liable for copyright infringement when she returns to the US? Now, further, if she downloads exclusively from me, and yet is resident in the US, is she guilty?
Tough questions, but these SHOULD be resolved in a hurry. After all, the difference between $0 and $1.92 million is, well, $1.92 million! Comparisons to cocaine smuggling are welcome... You can get 500 songs on the cheapest mp3 player these days, which is 400 times what Jamie is accused of, with a potential fine of 1/2 billion dollars now -- Say this out loud, and try not to break out laughing. "a $20 investment can result in $500 million in fines".
Nope, couldn't keep a straight face, sorry.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
There are several issues that need to be determined.
First - suppose you run a store, and some kid comes in, steals a candy bar, and eats it. You call the law, you call the parents, everyone shows up. Most definitely, someone owes you SOMETHING. The candy bar has a street value of about a dollar. (Oddly, that's pretty close to the street value of a single soundtrack.) What do you demand as recompense? Most store owners don't want the dollar, because they are pissed off. Most store owners don't demand a million dollar payoff, either. Among other reasons, neither the parents, nor the cops, nor a judge, nor any jury is going to go along with such a thing.
So - what is reasonable? Personally, I make the KID pay for his candy bar, by working it off. Tell the parents that he can work in the store for a week, cleaning, mopping, or whatever, OR, you'll take the matter to court.
Compare that to RIAA. They want THOUSANDS of dollars for a ripped off song which has a similar street value to my candy bar. Do you not think that is preposterous? Do you not think that there are issues that need to be resolved here?
In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it.
Even if it goes to court, and a hard fought case goes to RIAA, no sane judge is going to award a million bucks. I invite you to check out your own court system in your own home town. First time offenders convicted of petty theft generally pay restitution, a small fine, court costs, and community service. If there is no lawyer involved, total cost is maybe $1500 bucks. Paying a lawyer in my home town would add 500 bucks to the bill, your mileage may differ.
Personally, as I've said, Jammy probably is guilty of something. But, guilty or not, the penalty has to be something within the realms of reason.
HOWEVER!!! Illegal evidence has never been admissable in a criminal court, nor should it be encouraged in a civil court. RIAA has a lot to answer for, regarding their "investigative" techniques. MediaSentry, among other things, has been shot so full of holes, it resembles the Titanic. Forensic evidence is never properly obtained, documented, or presented. The courts don't even seem to understand what all this evidence is SUPPOSED to mean, let alone examine it to determine if it's legal, and technically correct.
Bottom line, RIAA are a bunch of parasites who manage to get by because they shout "THIEF" more loudly than their victims can.
Let's put RIAA out of everyone's misery, then we might all get together to come up with some sane laws. Note, I don't even say "fair laws". For the sake of this argument, I only require "sane".
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
"In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it."
It's important to keep in mind that she was nailed for distributing, not downloading. When you use the word "damages" here I think you may be thinking in terms of downloading. For instance, if I found a way to get free songs from the iTunes or Amazon store and managed to download 24 tracks before caught but did not distribute them, then it would fit the framework you've described. But that's not what she did -- she was making them available. In this case it did not matter how the tracks got into her share directory.
The issue here is that the limits for statutory damages are a remnant of the days when large-scale distribution required one person to have a lot of resources, and thus was almost always for profit. Given the new reality of sharing a track with thousands or millions of people with just a few clicks and at very low cost, the limits for statutory damages should be scaled back immensely (less than $1,000 per work), or at the very least, a separate set of limits should apply to commercial vs. non-commercial infringement, so that the courts can still wreak serious financial harm to the folks churning out fake Windows CDs by the pallet.
I should also point out that while she was taken to court for sharing 24 songs, she had something like 1,500 tracks in her share directory. This is fitting with the RIAA's usual tactic of going after the "whales" of file sharing; if you have just a few dozen tracks in your share directory you're less liable to be caught. To use an ugly analogy, Timonthy McVeigh killed 168 people but was charged only for the murder of 11 federal agents (in addition to some other charges not relating to particular victoms). I take it that this is relatively common in the legal system; only charge them for enough to get the punishment you want.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
Yes, Ray is claiming that all those people did it wrong and I have no idea if he's right. But he is giving a list of arguments to support his point. So if you want to claim that he is wrong, you should show that those arguments are wrong.
My blog post was written specifically to an audience of experienced lawyers. Any regular litigator knows that the procedural errors I pointed out are correct. And any regular copyright lawyer, litigator or not, knows that the substantive legal errors I pointed out are also correct. By saying that you "have no idea if he's right" you are demonstrating intellectual integrity, something in short supply these days. So thank you.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Tough luck on the verdict, USA. I am laughing at you.
You and everyone else in the world who knows about this.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Copyright law is there to protect the rights of the creators;[snip]
Incorrect by way of ommision. Copyright is intended "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings ..."-U.S. Constitution
It seems that the judicial, legislative, and executive branches have all completely skipped over the entire first part, and only acknowledge the existence of the second part, as do many individuals.
The "securing...exclusive rights..." part is simply a method devised to, and derives from, the desire to accomplish the "To promote the progress of science and useful arts..." part. It doesn't stand on it's own, and that's one of the biggest problems with modern copyright law interpretation and enforcement as well as the laws written concerning copyright in recent times IMHO.
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.