Slashdot Mirror


RIAA Says LimeWire Owes $1.5 Trillion

An anonymous reader writes "LimeWire owes the major record labels one point five trillion dollars, at a conservative estimate. At least, that's what an RIAA lawyer says. He also wants LimeWire shut down and its assets frozen, says Ray Beckerman's Recording Industry vs The People blog."

110 of 510 comments (clear)

  1. 1.5 Trillion?! by jpedlow · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I used to say MY lawyer was expensive.....

    1. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by SIBM · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many of the claims by the record labels are bupkis. It seems to be their business model. Instead of changing and embracing digital tech, they fear it, call it blasphemes, and sue the pants off of dead people et al. If I knew anyone personally who had been sued I'd jump o the piracy bandwagon to, I could not support and industry that will forcefully try to remove money from the people its suppose to cater to. 1.5 T is ridiculous. (I wonder how many sales have been generated by downloaders liking an artist and buying the latest CD?)

      --
      Scott
    2. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by AltairDusk · · Score: 2

      From TFA: "Now it looks as though one Kelly M. Klaus (right) of Munger, Tolles & Olson, yet another RIAA posse, wants Wood to order LimeWire owner Mark Gorton to pay $1,500,000,000,000 for 200,000,000 alleged downloads, at $750 per."

      $750 per song is absolutely ludicrous, not to mention Mark Gorton is not the one who downloaded 200,000,000 songs...

    3. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Barrinmw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Since when is 750% markup on punishment not cruel or unusual? That is like saying I steal a car, now I owe $15 million to the person I stole it to. True, there are criminal charges with stealing a car, but there would be civil ones as well.

    4. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Informative

      75,000%, actually.

    5. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The amount is obviously ridiculous, but it's been pretty obvious for years now that the only people who use limewire are people who are pirating music and people who are distributing viruses in order to create botnets using the computers of people who are pirating music. Limewire basically makes money from other peoples' desire to do something that the courts have repeatedly ruled is illegal, and unless they have some really amazing lawyers they're probably going to lose. They won't pay $1.5 trillion of course, but the RIAA doesn't really want the money, they want to shut down the service (and the company) for good, or at least turn it into a pathetic music industry puppet like Napster became after it lost its court cases.

      Of course, Limewire basically makes its money by loading up its users' computers with spyware and other assorted nastiness, so it's not like it would be a huge loss to see them go away.

    6. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      My interpretation of the headline:

      "RIAA declares LimeWire saved the economy from spending $1.5 Trillion on shitty music it didn't really need, and at least $1.4 Trillion of which wasn't worth listening to a second time anyway"

      When the numbers you throw around are significantly larger than your industry's profits from the better part of a century, and start to close in on a fraction of the GDP, you sure make it easy to poke fun at you. Do they really think anyone is going to, for even a second, believe that they would have made $1.5 trillion dollars had it not been for one crappy P2P tool? OMGLOL

    7. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Barrinmw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No. It is a civil case and you should only be able to sue in a civil case for the following, money lost, time lost, litigation fees for having to take you to court. The purpose of civil cases are not to punish but to compensate.

    8. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by ICLKennyG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      TFA: $1.5T; 200m downloads @ $750 per
      That's not how copyright statutory damages work. It's per work infringed not number of times the work was infringed. You would have to cite that you owned 200,000,000 (or at the very least 600,600) works and that all of them were copied illegally by the proposed system to get that far. Even then it's pretty remote for vicarious/inducement liability. Copyright has statutory damages due to the general rules against presuming damages. Statutory damages are your option if you wish to not prove the exact damages. I wouldn't be surprised if Limewire made a Rule 11 (b) motion to sanction this pleading. It's REALLY POOR. The UPPER limit of the presumable damages for this action are the 30 songs named in the complaint times the ~$250k in statutory damages available. That's ~$7.5M.

    9. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by chadplusplus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The curious thing about all of this is that the general sentiment is:
      Civil Suit vs. BP = We Need Punatives!!
      Civil Suit vs. individual pirates = Punatives are unfair!!!

    10. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by QuantumRiff · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If Limewire is smart, they will not try to argue this amount down. they should keep letting the lawyers demand 1.5 trillion. It will help shine light on how excessive and non-realistic the penalties are.

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    11. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Kjella · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's maybe how you'd like it to be, but in practice it isn't. For example triple damages have been used quite a bit. Statutory minimums means you don't have to prove any damage at all. However, claims like these are just bizarre. Imagine, for one little moment that LimeWire had 1.5 trillion, you couldn't say this was actual damages or even triple damages it'd just be massive cash grab.

      Even in civil cases they want it to work so that most people and companies stay honest. If the absolutely worst you could end up with in civil court is to pay what you rightfully owed, then everybody would try to cheat as much as possible. But this... I've had to deal with a few US template contracts at international companies even though I'm not in the US, and the more I see of the US system the more I see why they're filled with 100 pages of CYA. Else you get the silliest of lawsuits bleeding you to death.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by DangerFace · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, the more accurate sentiment would be:

      Civil suit vs individual pirates = Punatives are unfair

      Civil suit vs BP = Compensate people for the damage you caused

      Criminal suit against BP = This should happen

      The flaw in your logic is conflating the ideas of civil and criminal court. If someone steals my wallet and gets caught, odds are that they'll never pay me back. They'll get community service, maybe jail, maybe a warning, but they will not have to pay me back. This is punishment, rather than compensation. If I sue the same guy in civil court, that is for compensation, not punishment - thus I can't just ask for 1000000% of what was in my wallet as punishment.

    13. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful
      "The curious thing about all of this is that the general sentiment is:

      Civil Suit vs. BP = We Need Punatives!!

      Civil Suit vs. individual pirates = Punatives are unfair!!!"

      Hmm, well, lessee...how many peoples' lives ruined, wildlife killed, physical devastation, economic repercussions for decades, destruction of fully 1/3 of the seafood supply for the US, and generations of a way of life have the "music pirates' caused with downloading songs?

      I think it is more of a "let the punishment fit the crime" type thing...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    14. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Gilmoure · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least now I know Limewire is still alive and kicking. I hadn't thought of it in ages.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by MightyYar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm a little more nuanced... there SHOULD be punatives, but they should not go to the plaintiff. I'm open to where they should go - perhaps to a legal fund of some kind.

      BP should get sued heavily and hard, but the punitive damages should not go to the fishermen et al. Similarly, the RIAA should not get more than damages and possibly legal costs. Winning a court case should not be like winning the lottery.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    16. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by nofx_3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed, but we saw this coming, in fact I saw this coming a year and a half ago when I posted this comment: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1095153&cid=26492161 with some quick math that put an estimate at around $2 Billion. Not bad for back of the envelope math.

      --
      Visualize Whirled Peas
    17. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's ~$7.5M.

      The other one trillion four hundred ninety-nine billion nine hundred ninety-two million five hundred thousand is for lawyer's fees.

    18. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If BP was sued for the same percentage of punitive damages that individual pirates are sued for, they'd have to invent a new prefix to stand for all the zeros, because I don't think centillion would cut it.

      And I think you'd consider that unfair too.

    19. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by chad.koehler · · Score: 5, Informative

      2 Billion is pretty far off 1.5 Trillion.

    20. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Jurily · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To put that number in context: There are currently 8 countries on Earth with a GDP higher than that.

      The RIAA claims that if it wasn't for those meddling Limewire, they'd made more money than the entire population and industry of Canada in a year.

    21. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The way I see it, the issue is that we should not be setting a precedent of awarding ludicrous amounts of money. If Limewire is ordered to pay over a trillion dollars, it allows the copyright lobby to hold the threat of similar payouts over the heads over more innocent companies, should those companies do something the lobby does not approve of. The fact that Limewire happens to install spyware does not mean it is a good thing for an absurd ruling against them.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    22. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by idontgno · · Score: 2, Funny
      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    23. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Nematode · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are some situations where the award of more than actual damages in a civil suit is a good idea. Or at the least, reasonably arguable as a good idea.

      For example, in our state, the civil conversion law allows for treble damages. Conversion being the civil equivalent of theft. If I "convert" $5000 of your cash, or a widget of yours worth $5000, should I just be required to pay you $5000?
      You can see the problems with that - it basically turns everyone into a merchant of all their possessions. If you won't voluntarily give or sell me something of yours that I want, I can force a sale just by taking it.
      So the law allows for treble damages, not just as pure out-of-pocket compensation, but as an additional deterrent.

      Punitive damages don't always work the same way, but in some contexts, the deterrent effect is one of the motivating principles. If people and corporations are going to engage in "efficient torts," the law will sometime put its thumb on the scale of the "cost" side of the cost/benefit analysis, to discourage the conduct in question.

      As always, the devil is in the details - does such a rule make sense for the tort in question, and is the amount of the punitive damage reasonable?

    24. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by aix+tom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      He. Then even by their wrong maths they are wrong. If they base the "$750 per song" on the assumption that "other people" also downloaded the song on one hand, then that becomes void when they apply that $750 to everybody who downloaded the song on the other hand.

      Stupid bought-out legal system.

    25. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by BigSlowTarget · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the issue is that the numbers are a bit wrong. If BP were charged the same markup on actual damages as this guy is saying is fair to charge Limewire they would owe literally quadrillions of dollars or basically more money than exists or is expected to exist for a long time.

    26. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by AtomicJake · · Score: 5, Funny

      The RIAA claims that if it wasn't for those meddling Limewire, they'd made more money than the entire population and industry of Canada in a year.

      OK. Let's blame Canada.

    27. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by usrbinallen · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here's another calculation: 200,000,000 x $150,000 = $3 x 10^13 This is the max they can go for. What's holding them back? Scientific notation?

      --
      Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted. Albert Einstein
    28. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by masmullin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When downloading songs destroys the Louisiana bayou we'll talk again.

      When downloading songs kills the fishing industry that supplies 1/3 of the seafood in the US, we'll talk again

      Until then, STFU.

    29. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is a civil case and you should only be able to sue in a civil case for the following, money lost, time lost, litigation fees for having to take you to court. The purpose of civil cases are not to punish but to compensate.

      I don't mean to nitpick, but in the U.S. civil court system at least, punitive damages are available under certain circumstances (and they are very often claimed, not as often awarded). But in this case, $750 doesn't necessarily even include punitive damages: because money lost includes "lost profits" (expectation damages in contracts, consequential damages in torts). If they can show, with preponderance of the evidence, that because you shared one song, 10 people who otherwise would have paid for it did not, you can be liable for those 10 lost sales.

      One big flaw in their evidence is that (from what I understand) they argue that a song downloaded is a song that would otherwise have been purchased - which completely defies any basic principles of economics (price/demand curve).

      I think we can all agree that $750/song or $1.5 trillion total sounds just absurd.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    30. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, intellectual property misusers and huge corporation should both be held responsible for covering the cost of any actual damages they contribute to. With the downloaders, the actual damages should be about $1 per song, not $20,000 per song. For BP, the actual damages run into billions of dollars. Also, since the downloader's infringement is arguably intentional, while the heartless corporation's misdeeds are arguably "accidental", only the downloader should be charged treble damages. Individual pirates should pay their $3 per song, and BP should pay tens of billions. Arguing that the penalty assessed for "piracy" is excessive is not the same as arguing that there should be no penalty at all.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    31. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Crazyswedishguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you that the availability of free songs shifts the supply curve, but that's not really my point.
      From what I understand (I could be wrong), their argument is that everyone who downloaded the song for free would have paid the full price for it if it wasn't available free. If you were to draw that, you get a flat demand curve, where the demand is the same at a price of $0 as at a price significantly greater than that. Surely the demand for music isn't price-insensitive.

      --
      This space up for sale.
    32. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by tsalmark · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, we pay a tax, on all recordable media, to them already.

    33. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by sarysa · · Score: 2

      I'd +1 Insightful this if I still had mod points. In related events, Jammie Thomas got her penalty knocked down to $54k and the plaintiffs even offered a $25k settlement. I hope that means that they're running scared...

      --
      Charisma is the measure of someone's ability to lie with a straight face.
    34. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey, we pay a tax, on all recordable media, to them already

      Stop. Talking. Like. Shatner. People. Will. Believe. We. All. Talk. That. Way.

    35. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Individual sharers SHOULD be held accountable. For a reasonable amount. 75k is NOT a reasonable amount per song.

      Say they share it to 1-1 ratio... which in itself is questionable whether the person did that (I know that I don't). That's one (one) copy of the song. That's worth $1.00. We'll completely ignore the whole 'other downloader would very, very likely have never bought the song legally' aspect... that's besides the point.

      So charge them say... $20 per song they allow for upload. That's a full 20 times the value of the song. In fact, THAT is ludicrously too high, since it didn't devalue the song, nor deprive the ability of the company a copy of the product to sell, since it's not physical. But stick with me here... $20 for the sake of argument.

      Say said person was tagged for having 100 songs. That's $2000. That's a damn painful shot to the kidneys for most people, and will indeed teach them a lesson. But it won't ruin their life, and cause them to live as a homeless bum the rest of their lives, versus the... $7.5 million on the other end of the scale.

    36. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's look at the score.

      Deaths: 11 for BP, 0 for pirates.

      Damages from oil spill: tourist industry, fishing industry, land erosion from loss of vegetation, infrastructure, plus of course direct costs from deploying booms, skimmers, dispersants, dredging for sand to make berms, the expense of the many failed attempts to stop the leak, and the direct losses of all that oil that isn't being collected for refinement, the loss of the drilling platform, etc. Damages from piracy: entirely hypothetical. Could even be $0, or negative! But we really do not know. There seems to be a lack of unbiased studies that take into account such very basic things as the law of supply and demand, the beneficial effects of advertising, the savings to be had from going digital and eliminating packaging and delivery expenses, and so on.

      I expect some of those responsible for the oil spill will go to jail. They certainly deserve it.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    37. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Com2Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Many of the claims by the record labels are bupkis. It seems to be their business model. Instead of changing and embracing digital tech,

      Sorry, that is last decade's argument.

      Between all you can eat Zune Pass, streaming radio Pandora, digital ecosystem iTunes, and unencumbered MP3's from Amazon, music is now available in pretty much any digital format, with any sort of imaginable payment scheme.

      ~10 years ago I made a post similar to yours. Back then I was unable to legally purchase MP3s of the music I wanted. That has changed.

      Instead argue about fair use possibilities for lime wire or something else like that.

    38. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Local+ID10T · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Each user is potentially contributing to the theft of the song but you can't say there were 100,000 illegal downloads of the song and each user is responsible for 100,000 thefts creating 400,000 thefts. If user D never shared it, the number of thefts would probably still be the same unless someone got queued up and canceled their download.

      If someone decided it was taking to long to steal a song then you can imagine their desire to obtain the song was probably not that great in the first place meaning they probably wouldn't have bought it.

      Sorry to be pedantic, but copyright infringement is not theft. It is not stealing. It is not piracy. It is copyright infringement.

      Please do not fall for the brainwashing.

      Conflating these terms is intentional on the part of the music, movie, and software industries and is a deliberate attempt to create the impression that infringers are criminals and deserving of punishment.

      --
      "You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
    39. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Rival · · Score: 2

      Wait, something like this could work to everyone's advantage:

      1.) Set up a company hosting all music and movies to be shared. Encode said files with an identical MD5 checksum, to be used later.
              For irony, perhaps use 09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0.
              The checksum will be used as evidence because checksums are very hard to fake.
      2.) Everybody grab whatever they want.
      3.) The RIAA/MPAA sues the company for $1.5 trillion, or whatever large number they'd like to come up with.
      4.) Said company is found guilty (checksums prove it, and besides, they admit it) but they can't pay, and fold.
      5.) The RIAA/MPAA can't come after you, since they've already been awarded damages covering the infringement.
      6.) PROFIT!

      (If you haven't figured it out yet, this is meant to be funny and I am not a lawyer. Laugh already!)

    40. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Sancho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is problematic. If a copyright holder can only sue for damages, there's zero incentive for people to pay for goods. They can take the chance and pirate it. If they're caught, then they just pay the regular fee. Since the piracy detection rate is lower than 100% (significantly lower, I'd wager), an individual will end up paying less overall. Even if the detection rate is at 100% for some people, they're still only paying what they would have had to in the store, anyway.

      Now if you're suggesting that there should be criminal penalties for copying a music file, that's another matter. The problem here is that piracy is rampant enough that it's almost impossible to enforce criminally. Imagine the case backlogs.

    41. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by Com2Kid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh for fucks sake.

      First off CDs are lossy. All Analog to Digital conversions are lossy. CDs are a digital recording of an analog phenomenon, in the process of digitization some data of lost. Thankfully the data is recorded with such high fidelity that you do not notice that loss.

      If you think you can notice the difference between a high quality (320kbit/s or higher) MP3 and a CD then you need to have your head examined.

      By a shrink.

      In other news, printed books frequently have typos in them, photographs do not capture 100% of the visible light spectrum, and television pictures are made up of millions of little dots that quite frankly have lousy color gamut.

      I have owned all of 2 physical CDs in my life. I have better things to do with my time. I am not going to go around finding arbitrary excuses for me to pirate music. "Oh those fuckers don't offer music in some-random-weird-format, so I have an excuse to steal everything I want to!!!"

      No.

      They have made a reasonable effort to offer music in every reasonable format known to mankind.

      At this point in time, people can either buy CDs or download digital copies of songs, or buy CDs and rip to some lossless format and deal with everyone else looking at them like they are fucking nuts.

    42. Re:1.5 Trillion?! by aaron552 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Blind A/B tests say you are wrong. You can continue to enjoy your lack of HD space, over sized files, and imaginary perceived quality.

      Blind A/B tests say that the majority of people cannot tell the difference for the majority of music. That does not mean that no one can. Audio quality is extremely subjective and removing data through a lossy process can make the audio sound "better" to some people.

      --
      I had a sig once. It was lost in the great storm of '09.
  2. Deficit reduction! by siglercm · · Score: 4, Funny

    Good! Now the U.S. Gov't. needs to seize RIAA. That'll take a sizable chunk out of our $13+ trillion deficit!

    --
    sigfault (core dumped)
    1. Re:Deficit reduction! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 2, Funny

      What world do you live in? Obviously they're Too Big To Fail, and need to be bailed out to the tune of 1.5 trillion.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Deficit reduction! by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh, I love how there are companies that are "Too Big To Fail" yet they aren't "Too Big to Require Regulation" I dunno about you, but if a single company failing could put us into a recession, then that company should be regulated to prevent that from happening.

    3. Re:Deficit reduction! by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      That'll take a sizable chunk out of our $13+ trillion deficit!

      Meh. According to the RIAA, my hard drive is valued over $500 million, but I still have to work for a living.

      Btw, anyone wanna buy a hard drive?

    4. Re:Deficit reduction! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 5, Funny

      See, there you go using logic. Don't do that. It makes the politicians and the businessmen afraid.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    5. Re:Deficit reduction! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You don't seem to understand economics. Individuals with their "civil rights" are worms, while corporations Too Big to Fail are emerging butterflies, ready to spread their wings and soar. The socialists like you who want to regulate companies are like a giant jackboot on a time traveller ready to squash the butterflies and end all hope for the future, and equally ready to trod underfoot the worms wallowing in their commie dirt like "health care" and "education." It's only the Republitarian Tea Party who wants to save our delicate butterflies from the vicious violations perpetrated upon them by the worms and the boots and the dirty Huns and REMEMBER THE ALAMO.

      The economy is like a car: regulation is like how the engine keeps the gasoline exploding in the engine in tiny, controlled bursts that propels the whole car forward, so if you pour enough additives like nitroglycerin into the tank—that is, if you water the tree of liberty—you can liberate those propulsive explosions from the engine's control and blow the whole car up, which will make its individual pieces—individuals and individual responsibility and individual liberty—go much, much faster as the careen flaming across space.

    6. Re:Deficit reduction! by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Interesting

      ...if a single company failing could put us into a recession, then that company should be regulated to prevent that from happening

      How exactly do you think that anybody can regulate a company to keep it from failing? What generally happens is that the government regulates an economically critical industry, this leads to new companies from being able to enter the field. One or more of the big players screw up (or sometimes do it on purpose). This leads to demands for greater government regulation. The result of the greater regulation is that the smaller companies can no longer afford to compete. Rinse and repeat.
      As an example look at the financial regulation bills that Congress is considering. They will require massive increases on the paperwork that banks have to file. The cost of these new regulations will be more than small banks will be able to afford, so they will get bought out by the banks that were the ones that everyone is saying were the cause of the problem. Making those banks even bigger.
      If a company is "too big to fail" and the government needs to bail it out, as soon as things stabilize (and maybe before) it should be split into smaller companies.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    7. Re:Deficit reduction! by Barrinmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are plenty of ways to regulate without hurting incoming businesses to the market. Forcing corporations to keep a certain amount of cash on hand to handle any hiccups would be one way. Yeah, they wouldn't be able to grow as fast as smaller companies, but that isn't as bad as shrinking the entire economy.

      Also, it would be easy for Congress to make it so that bank reform only affects financial institutions over a certain value. Your local bank won't be affected, but big huge banks would. Small banks failing don't destroy the national economy.

    8. Re:Deficit reduction! by authority69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If a company is "Too Big To Fail(TM)" they probably got to that point by exploiting existing regulation and/or politicians. I would rather see failing companies fail so the resources they have can be reallocated to more worthwhile uses. If you try to regulate away the natural consequences for stupid and risky behavior, you encourage more stupid and risky behavior, and it's necessary descendant, failure. "Failure" is not a bad word. Failure is life. Failure is necessary. Without some means of saying "this is bad", we will waste limited resources on endless streams of bad ideas.

      And remember, your and my idea of "Good" and "Bad" may not be shared with the rest of the market in general. Put your ideas out there, let the market decide. If the market says bad, move on.

    9. Re:Deficit reduction! by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will you take movies in trade? I'll swear on their value! Perhaps we can get the MPAA to appraise them =)

  3. HAHAHAHAHA by kidgenius · · Score: 5, Funny

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Wow.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA And they expect to get this money how? Are there any corporations around that even have a market cap above a trillion? They might as well ask for a BAJILLION!

    1. Re:HAHAHAHAHA by daveime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'll see your Iranian Reals, and raise you "Pre-1996" Zimbawean Dollars

      Hello, Mr Ebagum Trebor, we'd like 559,950,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 of your terrorist "Pre-1996" Zimbawean Dollars.

  4. In other news... by Lemental · · Score: 4, Funny

    I am submitting a bill for 500 million to McDonalds, Phillip Morris and Jack Daniels for turning me into a Fat Alcoholic who smokes.

    1. Re:In other news... by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny
  5. Respond appropriately by pembo13 · · Score: 3, Funny

    The appropriate response to such a statement is a delivery of mint Monopoly® bills to the sum of 1.5 trillion.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:Respond appropriately by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, send a couple Zimbabwe trillion dollar bills, then demand half a trillion in change.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Respond appropriately by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, cause the best way to respond is to do something that is guaranteed to piss off the court and get yourself into a bigger mess.

      What are they going to do? Throw you in prison? Oh noes, contempt of court charges! You can take the fine out of my bank account that is currently overdrawn to the tune of $-1,500,000,000,000.00

      If you ever put me that far into debt, it's like tunneling through the world and coming out the other side, the punishment loops around. You have set the punishment to such a ridiculous level that you have effectively made me my own sovereign entity since nothing you can do starts to approach what you have already done.

      And no, I don't consider threat of prison to be greater than eternal slavery.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  6. Making Shit Up by whisper_jeff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If this isn't as clear an example of how the RIAA is making shit up as they go along, I don't know what it will take. They keep coming up with outrageous numbers and nobody blinks. So they come up with bigger numbers, and get away with it. And bigger numbers, and they get paid. And bigger numbers, and laws change. And now they are saying one company owes them $1.5 TRILLION. This has got to be the point where sane people around the world finally say "What? That's a joke, right? Please say that's a joke."

    People are going to say that, right?

  7. In case anybody still took them seriously... by bcmm · · Score: 5, Informative

    For a sense of scale, that rather silly number is about a thousand times the annual revenue of EMI. Also, this page feels kinda relevant.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:In case anybody still took them seriously... by bcmm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, you're having a pretty bad Monday, given that it wasn't Monday in any time zone when you posted that. Oversleep?

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
  8. Obviously by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It should be clear to anyone that the damage caused by Limewire dwarf those from, say, BP.

    Also, the RIAA is full of retards. No offense to people with actual disabilities, mind you, unless they work at the RIAA.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  9. That's 10% of the US GDP by macklin01 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wow, by this google search, that amounts to just over 10% of the entire US GDP. Glad somebody's been genuinely productive this year.

    --
    OpenSource.MathCancer.org: open source comp bio
    1. Re:That's 10% of the US GDP by sco08y · · Score: 2, Interesting

      More googly searching shows 1.5 trillion would be on the low end of some of the claims of how much is owed for reparations for slavery in the US.

      It's way more than the reparations paid out to holocaust survivors, even after inflation.

      It's higher than the some claims of the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

      What it proves is how music labels have been inflating their damages by a ridiculous margin, and should call into question many of their legal practices and the judgements in their favor.

    2. Re:That's 10% of the US GDP by AndersOSU · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's way more than the reparations paid out to holocaust survivors, even after inflation.

      Nice.

      New headline. "RIAA claims piracy more damaging than holocaust."

  10. And BP owes 75 million? by copponex · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, the justice system is at least supposed to give the illusion of justice in order to work. Apparently I can destroy the ecosystem of a good 20% of the American coastline and pay 20,000 times less than a company that made P2P file sharing easier.

    What. The. Fuck.

    1. Re:And BP owes 75 million? by copponex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No, I'm talking about the cap. The oil companies lobbied for a cap of 75 million on environmental disasters that could cost billions. How is it that the liability on something like P2P file sharing is in the trillions when there are virtually zero real costs to ending it's impact on the injured party?

      It represents an imbalance that is pretty bleeding obvious.

  11. Let's do the math here by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The music and movie industries earn somewhere around $35B/year in revenue, last I heard. Let's up that, with inflation, to $50B/year. How do they expect anyone to believe that Limewire alone has denied them 30 years worth of revenues in a span of about a decade?

    Claims like this only serve to make normal people think they're pathological liars that deserve to be robbed blind.

    1. Re:Let's do the math here by schon · · Score: 4, Funny

      Well *obviously* they only made $50B/year because Limewire is stealing all their income! So if Limewire hadn't existed, they would have made every penny of that $1.5 Trillion. And don't try telling me that it's absurd that they would be owed 10% of the entire US GDP. GDP is only a measure of economic output, so obviously if Limewire hadn't stolen all that money, and it had gone to EMI instead, the GDP would have been $1.5 Trillion more than it was!

      And since it's known that EMI's revenue is a tiny fraction of the US's GDP, we can only conclude that the GDP would have been several thousands of times higher than it was.

      Conclusion: LIMEWIRE IS STEALING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS FROM THE USA EVERY YEAR!!!!!

  12. Funny Money by longacre · · Score: 4, Interesting

    $1.5 trillion is more than the combined revenue of every RIAA member in this history of the world.

  13. Stop it at its source by SCHecklerX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This ridiculousness needed to be stopped at its source. Artists should have stopped signing on with the RIAA at least a decade ago. They are not needed. Even as a hobby, these days, you can afford to self-produce with your own studio, if you are so inclined.

    No artists == no product == no RIAA.

    1. Re:Stop it at its source by Chatterton · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is interresting especially when you see things like this: how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online

    2. Re:Stop it at its source by jandrese · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Self publishing sounds great until you realize what percentage of the Radio stations in the country are owned by ClearChannel, and how much of the remainder is christian/talk/news/etc... radio. Also how many venues are owned by RIAA members. Self publishing and small labels are still a road to obscurity because the big incumbents have spend decades entrenching themselves in the system. They have been largely successful at getting monopoly restrictions repealed as well over the past couple of decades.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Stop it at its source by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Self publishing and small labels are still a road to obscurity because the big incumbents have spend decades entrenching themselves in the system.

      You might not get super-famous doing self-publishing, but if you end up more economically comfortable doing self-publishing you'll see most musicians begging for the chance. The vast majority of musicians (in all styles of music) stay afloat via some combination of performing, teaching, self-published recordings, and very likely a non-musical job. A few are signed to labels, but due to Hollywood accounting the musicians basically make nothing from that kind of deal. A very very very few (e.g. Michael Jackson) will make it really really big.

      Basically, your chances of making big bucks as a good musician are about the same as the chance that your average high school football player will end up as an NFL star. And by signing with a label, you give yourself a chance at the big bucks but at the risk of making absolutely nothing. A lot of musicians would much rather have a guaranteed modest income rather than a 0.05% chance at making millions.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:Stop it at its source by Sir_Kurt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well I say self publish AND fuck the radio stations too.

      The real reason that the RIAA and the media groups are going after p2p and internet streaming is that they would like to abolish/control a much more flexible and cheaper method of distribution than CDs and radio.

      So make your own music. Play it in the park. Share with your friends stream it on the internet and do it for free.

      Kurt

  14. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by garyisabusyguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That value seems out of range, considering that you could finance two wars, clean up the BP spill and probably have enough left over to coat New Orleans in gold leaf...

    In most scientific pursuits, getting a value that far out of range would lead a person to conclude that some of their underlying assumptions are invalid and cause them to form a more realistic hypothesis.

    Apparently, in the riaa's world it means that they will develop superpowers and start traveling past the speed of light.

    freaking morons

    --
    Wherever You Go, There You Are
  15. RIAA are idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    For that kind of money, LimeWire can put out contracts on all RIAA's lawyers and officers, and still have lots of money left over for all their officers to afford a comfortable retirement in a country with no extradition treaty with the United States... This is strictly an observation. I am not advocating such action, and I am sure it is quite illegal. So don't try this kids...

  16. Not making shit up by l2718 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Under US Copyright law, damage awards are not necessarily connected to actual damages. The court is given a range (the range depends on whether the infringement is "wilful"), and may assign any damages it considers just from that range -- the plaintiff doesn't have to prove their actual damages. These statutory damages are figured out per act of infringement and the top of the range can be $150,000. To get the $1.5T figure the RIAA is arguing that LimeWire has contributed to 10M cases of infringement, and should be forced to pay the maximum penalty of $150K per. According to US law they are free to make this claim, but the court doesn't have to accept it. There is an argument that too wide a disparity between the actual damages (no more than $0.20 per downloaded song) and the damage award (say, the $9000 per download that has been awarded in a particular file-sharing case) might violate the Due Process Clause of the (14th Amendment to) the Constitution, but there is no definite Supreme Court precedent on that.

  17. Re:They probably did by thepike · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If it's theatre that we're paying for, shouldn't we get to watch it? Oh no, we would manipulate it if we could watch it.

  18. All part of the plan... by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 3, Interesting
    1. Establish that you're owed $1.5 TRILLION
    2. Extend that to the means of transfer: MS and Apple
    3. Sue them and settle for, say, 10% of your claim?
    4. Chuckle maniacially to the bank!
    --
    If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    1. Re:All part of the plan... by cowscows · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting theory, but going after MS and Apple doesn't really fit the RIAA's style. MS and Apple can afford scary lawyers and fight back.

      Honestly, I don't even think this is about making money for the RIAA anymore. I think they're past that point. Most of the people they sue can't afford anywhere near the number they throw around, and then end up settling for amounts that are pocket change as far as the RIAA is concerned. Basically, they're watching their business model becoming obsolete, there's nothing they can do about it, and so they're just throwing big temper tantrums. They know that they're sinking, and are just trying to take down whoever they can with them, just out of spite.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  19. off the deep end by Triv · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...what the fuck are they smoking.

    The current US Gross Domestic Product is in the vicinity of 14 trillion dollars.

    The RIAA honestly believes that Limewire owes them 10% of all the wealth produced by the United States in a year.

    The RIAA was always living in their own little fantasy world, but I didn't realize the depth of their delusion until now.

    This has to stop.

    1. Re:off the deep end by ChefInnocent · · Score: 2, Interesting

      LimeWire should hand the business over for the balance owned, then the US Government should tax the RIAA for $1.5T. The IRS should track every penny of that money down as vigorously the RIAA hunted down LimeWire and make sure there isn't any funny accounting going on.

  20. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by MoonBuggy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Or they 'graciously' settle for 1% and still laugh all the way to the bank.

  21. RIAA shoots self in foot, I think by Aim+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think about it. The RIAA's usual claim is that every downloaded file is a lost sale. and damages should be calculated based on that. Now by asking for this ludicrious figure, they've just put the lie to that previous assertion, since there is absolutely no way in hell that the general public could, or would have paid for $1 trillion worth of their products.

    On the other hand, they've just claimed that Limewire has increased the net digital wealth of the world by something of the order of well over $1 trillion, something the RIAA could never have done by themselves. Way to go, Limewire!

  22. We've been laughing at you for years... by fantomas · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "This has got to be the point where sane people around the world finally say "What? That's a joke, right? Please say that's a joke."
    Trust me buddy, lots of us round the world have been having a good laugh at what the crazy Americans do for years. We'll just add it to the long list of why we think your nation is mad.

    Nothing personal, we know most of you are lovely fine folk. But you've sure got your share of idiots that we're happy are an ocean away from us.

    It just gets scary when our leaders import daft ideas they hear from your idiots, so please keep them quiet. Our politicians keep on copying them and try to better them. Please don't give our politicians any more ideas.

    1. Re:We've been laughing at you for years... by McDutchie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It just gets scary when our leaders import daft ideas they hear from your idiots, so please keep them quiet. Our politicians keep on copying them and try to better them. Please don't give our politicians any more ideas.

      In other words, we Europeans are just as crazy as the Americans, but we don't even have the courage or the wits to be original about it. Instead we are content to be America's docile little lapdog. That's hardly a cause to boast, is it?

    2. Re:We've been laughing at you for years... by ctsupafly · · Score: 4, Funny

      It just gets scary when our leaders import daft ideas they hear from your idiots, so please keep them quiet. Our politicians keep on copying them and try to better them. Please don't give our politicians any more ideas.

      Hello, I represent the BCAA (Batshit Crazy Americans Association) and understand that you are in violation of several of our copyrights...

  23. Re:Comparing the damages. by bb5ch39t · · Score: 2, Funny

    NO, NO, NO. BP does not owe anybody anything. The residents of the states owe BP for the oil that their land is illegally impeding from being delivered to Europe via a non standard shipping method!

  24. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by gravis777 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What should be considered is, if filesharing were not around, at ALL, would their losses equal $1.5 trillion. Do their lawyers understand what a trillion is? I wonder if, in the entire history of the music industry, if they have taken in that much.

  25. Only 1,500,000,000,000 dollars? by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That's not too bad. It's only like 40% of the US Federal Budget for 2009.

    That'll only buy them:
    100 F-35 (9 billion)
    100 F-22 (15 billion)
    3 Gerald R Ford class carriers (27 billion, carries 225 planes)
    4 Virginia class submarines (11.2 billion)
    10 Zumwalt class destroyers (33 billion)

    And then they'll "only" have 1,400 billion dollars left. That should keep them in crew for a while as well.

  26. Hey RIAA!!! by Progman3K · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'LL pay your 1.5 trillion...
    But first, you need to wire me some transfer money so I can send you the 1.5 trillion.
    Wire me 2 million and it should be OK.
    Then I will send you your winnings, I mean money.
    Thanks

    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  27. Many flies with one hit: ban everything! by imrehg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's not just the enormity of the demanded money, but how shamelessly they try to get EVERYTHING done in one go, flying under the radar. They want to have injection against Limewire, and EVERY "comparable system", which is defined as:

    (i) any system or software that is substantially comparable to the LimeWire System and Software, including but not limited to FrostWire, Acquisition, BearFlix, Cabos, Gnucleus/GnucDNA, Gtk-gnutella, KCeasy, MP3 Rocket, Phex, Poisoned, Shareaza, Symella, BitTorrent, uTorrent, Vuze/Azureus, BitComet, Transmission, Deluge, BitLord, KTorrent, eDonkey, eMule, aMule, MLDonkey, xMule, Ares Galaxy, MP2P, Manolito, isoHunt, or Piratebay, as those systems or software existed before or as of the date of this Permanent Injunction;

    I mean, come on! I'm lost for words...

  28. 200 million "works"!? by 91degrees · · Score: 2, Interesting

    the $750 per infringement is per work, not per file. Are they really claiming that they have identified 200 million separate works?

  29. Re:Right... by esten · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But the record industry only made 13.7 billion in 2001. If we use that figure limewire would have to have been going almost 110 years if it took away all of the record industries sales to even get close to 1.5 trillion, if we did actual damages.

  30. RIAA? by Sarcileptic · · Score: 2, Funny

    RIAA is an acronym designed to allow these companies to harm people anonymously. Can't we come up with a better acronym from the 'big 4': EMI, Sony, Universal, and Warner? How about: WSUE - all lawsuit radio

  31. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by AltairDusk · · Score: 2, Funny

    Perhaps we'll get lucky and it will turn out they feed on record executives...

  32. Lesser damages by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder if they shoot for the huge numbers in case the court decides to award lesser damages.
    For example, if they were shooting for $1m, and the court said "ok, well your arguments weren't perfect so we'll only award you 30% of that" (300k)... but if they're going for a trillion then suddenly a "lesser amount" of a few million may - to some - seem more sane by virtue of simply sounding less insane...

  33. That's horseshit by Montezumaa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No private entity in the world has that much in holdings. Only governments are in possession of such amounts(I am talking liquid holdings). Let us not forget that there are major labels that have been found to be ripping off Canadian artist for billions, and probably up to trillions(as we probably are not aware of how far their "criminal" activities go), in stolen music for CDs made for sale in the United States(http://boingboing.net/2009/12/07/major-record-labels.html).

    If I were looking at a case against me, especially at this level, I would bring this up in court. It is time that organizations, like the RIAA, be put out of business for tactics like this.

  34. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder if, in the entire history of the music industry, if they have taken in that much.

    They would have if it wasn't for the evil tape recorder/cd-burner/napster/p2p users. The record industry would have made trillions of dollars but for that technology and the taxes on their earnings would have paid off the national debt three times over by now.

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
  35. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by Arthur+Grumbine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or they 'graciously' settle for 1% and still laugh all the way to the bank.

    $15 billion? From Limewire LLC?! Methinks you're off by a couple orders of magnitude...

    --
    Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
  36. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Funny

    That value seems out of range, considering that you could finance two wars, clean up the BP spill and probably have enough left over to coat New Orleans in gold leaf...

    That's their goal, it was going to be a nice surprise for the rest of us, but now you've kind of ruined it...

  37. Yes, because LIMEWIRE stole 1.5 trillion. by TechProbCC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Saying Limewire owes the RIAA anything for helping people to pirate music is like saying Ford owes governments and peoples billions for aiding robbers and criminals get to and from crime scenes. It's total BS. In addition, there is no way that everyone would download as many songs if they had to pay for them. I, and many of my friends have 4000 songs plus. Do we really have 4K to spend on music? Not a chance! I might have the budget for $100, 2.5%. Therefore, if one could logically deduce that Limewire owes the RIAA, if anyone for that matter, then 37.5 billion would be much closer, which for the RIAA, probably isn't very much. But even then, piracy helps to advertise certain music, and increases concert revenue, so even if Limewire caused the the music industy to make 37.5 billion less from iTunes and CD sales, they likely made that back in the increased popularity of bands, and therefore higher attendance and higher ticket prices at concerts, and the increased sale of band merchandise.

  38. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    While we are talking about putting that value in perspective, 1.5 trillion is just over 10% of the US GDP in 2008.

    The idea that Limewire somehow owes damages equivalent to 1/10th of an entire year's output of the economy of the United States boggles the mind.

  39. And I was getting replies suggesting I was nuts... by jimicus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This morning I posted the opinion that if you believe the figures churned out by those that are heavily anti-piracy (BSA, RIAA, MPAA), eliminating piracy would double the GDP of the entire planet overnight. Hyperbole? Well, I didn't think so, though I had one reply that implied it might be.

    And this afternoon, we have the RIAA demanding approximately the GDP of Brazil on the basis of damages from one product.

  40. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Also, unless my inflation adjustments are wrong, 1.5 trillion in 2009 dollars is Four Times the value in 1921 dollars of the war reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles.

    Yup, being a third-party facilitator to some file-sharing is four times as evil as WWI...

  41. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by cowscows · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GDP is a pretty fuzzy number and hard to conceptualize for me. Perhaps a simpler way of looking at it, in the last fiscal year, the US collected just over a trillion dollars in income taxes.

    This guy is arguing that on top of all the money people did spend on music, we would've chosen to spend an additional amount well larger than the IRS managed to collect last year with the force of law and by automatically deducting from most people's pay checks?

    There's just no way they can seriously be suggesting this. They have to be trolling.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  42. Re:1.5 Trillion?! huh by MartinSchou · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, how much gold does 1.5 trillion dollars buy?

    Well, gold is around 1,235 USD/ounce at the moment. So we could buy 1,21 billion ounces. That's 34,432 tonnes. And to put that into perspective, it is estimated that throughout humanity we have mined between 140,000 and 160,000 tons, so that'd be 21 to 24% percent of all gold ever mined.

    At 19.30 g/cm^3, that's 1.618 × 10^9 cm^3 or 1,618 m^3.

    But what about gold leaf then? Well, that's about 0.1 micrometer in thickness. And 1,618 m^3 of gold could be made into 16,180 km^2 of gold leaf. That's enough to cover the land of Delaware and Rhode Island twice. New Orleans is trickier - it's only 467.6 km^2 land, but the metro area is 9,726.6 km^2. There's plenty to cover it, but how much should be covered?

    However - we're talking about the RIAA here. They wouldn't want to gild a city. But maybe skin in an attempt to kill the evil pirates? We have enough gold leaf to cover 16,180,000,000 m^2 of skin, and the average adult has about two m^2 of skin. In other words they could completely cover 8,090,000,000 people in gold leaf. Plenty more than there are people in the world.

    At least now we know how they ended up at the 1,500,000,000,000 dollar figure.