Court Says Fair Use May Hold In Some RIAA Cases

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Boston RIAA case in which the defendant, represented by Charles Nesson of Harvard Law School, admitted liability at his trial, the Court has entered judgment in favor of the RIAA for the monetary award of $625,000 fixed by the jury. However, the Court left open the questions of whether the amount is excessive, and whether attorneys fees and/or sanctions should be awarded, and has scheduled further briefing of those issues. The Court granted the RIAA much, but not all, of the injunctive relief it requested. In an unusual step, the Court issued a 38-page decision (PDF) explaining in some detail the Court's views of the Fair Use defense in the context of cases like this, and indicating that there are some factual scenarios — not applicable in this particular case — in which it might have concluded that the claims were barred by Fair Use. E.g. it declined to rule out the possibility that creation of mp3 files exclusively for space-shifting purposes from audio CDs a defendant had previously purchased might constitute fair use."

Comments

Re:Damages should be limited by law

[mea37]

So, you figure as long as I either avoid owning assets or hide them well, I should be allowed to do whatever I want to your assets without fear of consequence?

Interesting.

Re:I didn't know they could do that

[keithpreston]

Does sharing a few songs justify essentially indentured servitude for 12 years?

Does not sharing those songs, make you life so unbearable that you can't continue?

Re:Damages should be limited by law

[jedidiah]

> Sure, just as jail terms are limited by law. The problem is, the losses are pretty much impossible to calculate.

Not at all.

The relevant "art industries" have some idea of what this stuff is worth. They need to be able to evaluate value
in order to do the "business" part of art. So for ANY bit of "art" whether it is something an unsigned band or
something that already has as well established track record, the labels or the studios have some idea of what they
could be losing.

The CEO Virgin Atlantic doesn't just shake a dead chicken while dancing around in a circle mumbling.

ALL of the works have some sort of estimated value and expected annual revenue.

Simply put: the damages for a single uploader should never exceed the actual value of the work.

If music were really treated like real property then it would be taxed as such and there
would be an assessed value on it and that would be recorded with the relevant tax authority.
There would be no guesswork. The maximum potential done to "piracy" would be equal to "out
right theft" of the rights to the work in question.

It is time for this "statutory damages" nonsense to end and for the courts to deal with actual damages.

The fact that it might be "difficult" is irrelevant. These people want to directly destroy lives. They should be given no special favors when it comes to the burden of proof.