Limewire Being Sued For 75 Trillion

DarthVain writes "13 record companies are trying to sue Limewire for $75 Trillion. The NYC judge in the case thinks it is 'absurd'. Its almost like these media companies are their worst enemy trying to make themselves look ridiculous. From the article: "The record companies, which had demanded damages ranging from $400 billion to $75 trillion, had argued that Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act provided for damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable. For a popular site like Lime Wire, which had thousands of users and millions of downloads, Wood held that the damage award would be staggering under this interpretation. 'If plaintiffs were able to pursue a statutory damage theory predicated on the number of direct infringers per work, defendants' damages could reach into the trillions,' she wrote. 'As defendants note, plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877.'"

Comments

Yeah....

[Mongoose Disciple]

I'm sure that stone will start producing blood any time now. Lots and lots of blood.

75 trillion

[Anonymous Coward]

TROLOLOOLOLOL.

Re:75 trillion

[halfEvilTech]

and out of curiousity what is the current combined GDP of every country on the planet? I am fairly sure it would be less than this.

I guess they will never be truely satified with their revenue stream until every last penny, yen, euro, etc is in their infinite pockets.

Re:75 trillion

[adonoman]

According to Google it's $58 trillion. So yes.

Re:75 trillion

[zill]

Stop being so pessimistic. This is a very good thing if you look at it from a different perspective: "RIAA doubled mankind's GDP with a single lawsuit"

Re:75 trillion

[hairyfeet]

I think the only proper reaction to such an idiotic figure would have to be this one

That said I'm personally all for this, as the more complete idiocy and court wasting the *.A.As do the more likely we are to wake up the average Joe from their slumber and get them to realize what a total fucking joke the copyright system has become. I mean for the love of Pete Walt Disney's first works are STILL under copyright and the man has been a corpse for longer than many of us have been on this earth.

Now how in the hell does that promote "progress of the arts and sciences"? Answer: it doesn't, it is simply a way for a "leecher class" to make eternal checks off locking up the entire culture of a race. How many works have already been lost simply because nobody could legally make a copy and the copyright holders couldn't figure out a way to "monetize the IP" and just let it rot?

As someone who has tried dealing with the minefiled that is copyrights (had an idea with an engineer friend of mine to have "DOSbox...on a stick" where we would take rare old DOS games and have them preprogrammed to run on a USB stick, no muss, fuss, or hassle, run the games anywhere on any hardware) I can tell you that many of the "IP" is forever locked in a maze of dead companies and murky rights and the few we actually found would rather the games be lost forever than to get less than 80% or 6 figures for a game that frankly wasn't even a third stringer, which means that by the time the copyrights on these early games expire in another 80 years or so all copies will have long since been lost forever.

How does this enrich us as a culture? How does this help us preserve our history? We need to go back to the original 25 years and have a "use it or lose it" clause where if you don't sell a product for three years after release it goes PD so that we aren't losing our history as what is happening now. And it isn't just games, rare old bootlegs and artist's early demo releases before they made it big, early show and movies that some now defunct studio couldn't figure out how to monetize ALL of these things are being lost on a daily basis because of nothing but sheer greed by the leecher class and it needs to end.

Lenin says "a capitalist will gladly sell you the rope with which to hang him" and let's hope the greed of these leechers will help to destroy the bloodsucking business they've created. Because as it is our entire culture is being locked behind paywalls and anything the lecchers can't figure a way to make buckets of cash on is left to die, and it is frankly disgusting and wrong.

And sorry about the length, but as a musician who hopes to make a living plying his trade I find the leechers a disgusting drain and barrier to access to the world. I uploaded the singles from my last 2 bands to P2P and I'll upload this newest one as soon as we get it mastered as we want you to hear us and hopefully come to the shows, by a shirt, hell we'll even put your name in the raffle to win one of our guitars if you buy the CD (which will have a link to download the entire album in MP3 as well as some not released tracks in the liner notes) and I have NO doubt that like my last two bands we'll make damned good money by treating people right instead of dealing with the lechers. Personally the sooner that whole payola system DIAF the better.

Re:75 trillion

[PaladinAlpha]

This is an important right. Surely you won't argue that an artist shouldn't have the right to sue to protect their own intellectual property. So what we're talking about here is duration and damages. The way it's setup now -- it's plain to see that the duration is too long and the damages are too high. But that's what courts do: they decide what's appropriate. It doesn't matter what the labels say. Because Limewire probably says they want to go home scot-free with their attorney's fees paid for. How is that any less of a total over-reach? The right answer is some place in-between. And that place will be decided by the courts.

This could not be more wrong.

The courts have never extended copyright. They have nothing to do with this. At all.

All copyright extensions have resulted from legislation, meaning Congress. Which makes the curious inability of copyright to ever expire seem a bit strange.

Also, I've been waiting my whole life for someone to justify 80+ year copyright terms, in any way at all. That's an open invitation. I'd settle for someone justifying 20+ year terms. In any capacity. My opinion is you can't, because it doesn't make any sense.

maybe they'll settle

[bugs2squash]

for only 40 Trillion

Re:maybe they'll settle

[MrEricSir]

Then, out of the goodness of their hearts, the RIAA will use that money to pay the national debt.

PR Stunt

[chemicaldave]

They're just trying to show the public how much "lost revenues" "pirating" has cost them.

Re:PR Stunt

[cpu6502]

Didn't seem to bother them when they "pirated" artists works for Greatest Hits CDs, and then never paid the royalties. They Canadian record companies owe trillions of dollars.

A case of "Laws don't apply to we, but they apply to thee." Double standard. Class system.

Re:PR Stunt

[Opportunist]

Nope. They're used to it.

For the longest time, there were two things teenagers spent their allowance on: Fashion and music. And for 50% of the teens, the male portion, it was mostly music for the longest time in our last half decade. Everything else was covered by your parents, wasn't it?

That changed a decade or so ago. Computer games ain't exclusively a geek pastime anymore and neither are game consoles. Cellphones compete as well, having become an important part of our teens' interests. And with them a lot of new gadgets and services vie for the allowance of our teens. They simply don't have that much money to spend on music anymore.

The music industry doesn't care. It's worked in the past and it has to work today. They react very slowly and often wrongly to the changing markets of today, and now they blame their customers, and rather than offering me a product that I'd want to buy, they react in such a way that the bought item is worth less to the consumer than the one ripped (for reference, see crippling copy protection and unskipable ads).

What the content industry fails to see with such lawsuits is that the "shock and awe" effect is worthless with their target audience. A teenager can neither imagine the amount of a million nor a trillion dollars. It's just "a lot". And whether you try to sue him for either or for just 40k nets you the same outcome, he cannot pay either, so he doesn't care.

Punishment, and its severity, has never worked as a deterrent. Or do you think the average train of thought of a burglar is "for 5 years I'll do it, but for 10 I'll rather not rob them"?

Re:PR Stunt

[swanzilla]

They Canadian record companies owe trillions of dollars.

I'd consider the score settled if they took back Celine Dion and Beiber.

Re:PR Stunt

[UnknownSoldier]

> I hate the RIAA as much as the next fellow, but people need to be paid for things they produce.

Why?

I question your basic underpinning of "need" philosophy.

In my spare time, I work on open-source, produce music, create art, and I don't feel a "need" to be paid. The only reason people need money is because society literally "bought" into some lack of scarcity argument, and to 'survive' in the "modern" you need money, because everyone else demands it.

The sun, earth, plants, and animals all freely produce for us, but yet it is only us 'advanced' humans that demand payment from one another. Of course I expect to compensated for my time & skill but that is only to be able to "afford" my basic needs. Once those are met, I am able to produce for the benefit of everyone -- money is just a bonus -- I am already living my joy by creating. The day is coming when every man, woman, and child will have as much electricity as they need, as much food as they need, and their basic physical needs are all freely provided. Until we get to that point in a few centuries, we should be questioning: What exactly is money? Why is it needed? What would it be like to live in a world where it isn't needed?

Food for thought.

Re:PR Stunt

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, I have to ask. What's the deal with this Bieber kid and why do people hate him so much?

1) Manufactured pop star.
2) Incredibly fake-sounding music.
3) The "rush to stardom at an early age and cash in" mindset the recording industry has adopted recently.
4) Basic human dignity; taken from an entirely humanitarian aspect, we've all seen what this has done to other early-age manufactured pop stars (i.e. Britany Spears), so people with a concern for human life at its basest sense are appalled.
5) We hate the ear-grating sound of large groups of prepubescent girls shrieking like banshees continuously until they collapse from exhaustion or self-induced asphyxiation.
6) Look at him! Just look at him already! We grew up as nerds and social outcasts, and we all agree that's just the sort of face WE would punch in!

Just highlights to absurdity of these cases

[elrous0]

In many of these cases, the RIAA and media companies making the absurd assumption that everyone who hosts a song on a P2P network is somehow costing them tens of thousands of $ in CD sales, as if everyone who downloads a pirated song would have run out to buy the CD otherwise (leading to a scenario where someone who downloads 10 songs from the same CD would have logically bought ten copies of the same CD, if only for those darned pirates). Following that logic out, if it weren't for the pirates, the music industry would be the largest and richest entity in the world--with revenues bigger than that of the U.S. government.

Re:Just highlights to absurdity of these cases

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

...making the absurd assumption that everyone who hosts a song on a P2P network is somehow costing them ...

No. Damages are not awarded based on what it *costs* the RIAA and media companies. This isn't a contract case (which would be closer to that model). This is based on a statutory damage award, where the statutory damages are hugely inflated. The theoretical reason they are inflated is to discourage people from pirating, and to make it worthwhile to enforce copyrights. Obviously those rationales don't apply when you're dealing with limewire to the extent they do when dealing with an individual defendant--as a result, the statute is ridiculous in this case. Unfortunately, there isn't a constitutional provision that laws have to make sense. It would be an interesting argument that money damages this high constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" of a corporation, but almost certainly wouldn't actually get you anywhere.

Re:Just highlights to absurdity of these cases

[The Grim Reefer2]

The real thing harming music companies (and radio) is the internet and the fact you can access almost anything at anytime you desire. Maybe they should try suing that. (LOL)

Obviously they have no grip on reality, so please stop giving them additional stupid ideas. If they think suing Limewire for $75 trillion is rational, obviously the internet, as a whole, must be worth exponentially more money. When this happens and they shut down the internet, I'm blaming YOU.

Re:Just highlights to absurdity of these cases

[MightyMartian]

There is, however, a Constitutional amendment that deals with statutes that create absurd hardships... Strikes me that the time is ripe for an Eighth Amendment challenge. If you statutory damages can create a situation in which a complainant can receive payment in excess of the total dollar value of the world economy, I think even the more "business-friendly" Supreme Court Justices can probably connect the dots.

the court should reply:

[Thud457]

There aren't seventy five trillion dollars. Now go away until you have a reasonable grievance.

This is good

[ravenspear]

Because it does highlight the absurdity of the statutory damages for copyright infringement.

Dr. Evil would be proud....

[WoodburyMan]

Dr. Evil would be proud...

I'll go ahead and cover this one.

[FSWKU]

I assume THIS will suffice for payment? I do, however, expect them to return the proper amount of change to me. If they are not able to handle denominations this large, then I will assume the debt to be null and void as it has been proven the funds are available, but they are refusing to take the money.

Re:Wow... what an honor

[Wyatt Earp]

75 trillion dollars is more than the GDP of the planet in 2010.

62 trillion dollars was the total global GDP in 2010 according to the IMF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)

Is That More Than a Brazillion?

[theodp]

Donald Rumsfeld is giving the president his daily briefing. He concludes by saying: "Yesterday, 3 Brazilian soldiers were killed." "OH NO!" the President exclaims. "That's terrible!" His staff sits stunned at this display of emotion, nervously watching as the President sits, head in hands. Finally, the President looks up and asks, "How many is a brazillion?"

Some perspective

[AliasMarlowe]

Putting this figure into context, $75 trillion is about $250000 per person in the USA. If the rest of the world wants to shoulder its share, it becomes a mere $12000 per person over the entire planet.

Re:Some perspective

[Seumas]

More accurately, it's about $750,000 per tax-payer in the USA. And ridiculously more when you break down the people who only pay a small percentage of the taxes.

A bundle of $100 bills totaling 75 trillion bucks would weigh 10,000 tons (20 million pounds). It would be what you see in the linked photo below (notice the human for size comparison, in the very left bottom corner) . . . MULTIPLIED BY 75 MORE PILES HIGH.

http://media.mercola.com/imageserver/public/2009/March/pallet_x_10000.jpg

Re:Some perspective

[Chowderbags]

Even more accurately, $75 trillion is the GDP of the whole fucking planet. Even $400 billion is more than the GDP of Belgium.

The only thing I can possibly assume is that they'll try to act like they're really hurting to "only" sue for a few tens of billions, then when they don't get paid, they'll find some way to write it off on their tax returns for the next INTEGER_OVERFLOW years so that they won't have to pay a cent of taxes ever again. Heck, they might come crying to the government saying that their balance sheets show a loss of trillions of dollars, so they need a bailout. I so very much want to see a judge listen to their entire argument very calmly, then just chuckle.

Re:Some perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the CIA's World Factbook, $75T is also $0.51T more than the 2010 GDP of the world using its Purchasing Power Parity algorithm. That's $510B short, if _every single dollar made in the entire world_ last year was paid out (including, of course, the record industry's own profits).

I do wonder, though: if the record industry somehow managed to successfully sue someone for more money than the entire world combined made last year and also magically managed to get payment in full, how much would the artists who made the content under dispute get?

Re:Some perspective

[Patch86]

To add more fun statistical context, the CIA World Factbook tells me that Planet Earth's entire money supply coincidentally equals (at the broadest estimate) $75.86 trillion.

So, the music industry is basically asking Limewire for all of Earth's money. I hope their lawsuit is backed up by a frickin' "laser" on the moon.

Re:Some perspective

[ThePromenader]

The record companies' "losses" == "money we 'could have' made": a falacious argument for many reasons, but even if piracy never existed, how can they claim that every downloader would have gone out and bought a cd?

Re:Some perspective

[Eivind]

It's actually a lot worse than "money we could have made", because actual sale-price, assuming every downloader would ALWAYS buy the song, is on the order of $1/song.

Meanwhile, statutory damages for copyright-infringement is between $750 and $30,000 per infringement, at the discretion of the court, but willfull infringement can be up to $150.000.

These absurd numers is thus the results of claiming up to $150.000 of damages, for a copy that, if legally bought, would have cost a maximum of $1. (and in the real world, offcourse, only a small fraction -would- have bought the same amount of music if copying wasn't possible)

Claiming "money we could have made" would merely be ridicolous. But they're one-upping that - they're claiming damages equal to 150.000 times what they would have made if everyone bought all the music.

This isn't the RIAA - this is US Congress

[MobyDisk]

Stop blaming the RIAA for this stupidity. The law lists a fixed amount of statutory damage per infringement. So their calculations are correct. Even though the RIAA lobbied for these stupid laws, the ultimate blame lies with the "representatives" who voted for it.

I would just love one of these Senators, or their family members, to get hit with one of these lawsuits. As long as they are above the law they can pass this crud without fear.

Re:This isn't the RIAA - this is US Congress

[DoofusOfDeath]

Stop blaming the RIAA for this stupidity. The law lists a fixed amount of statutory damage per infringement.

Are you serious? The RIAA wrote the relevant laws.

The penalty for an excessive lawsuit should be =

[ron_ivi]

The penalty for an excessive lawsuit should be >= the difference between the claimed damage and the actual damage.

In my dream-world legal system the court would rule that "yes, limewire contributed to some copying, so they owe the record companies $50K or so in actual lost sales --- but the record industry should be fined $75-trillion-minus-that-$50K for wasting taxpayer money having the justice-system hear that absurd suit."

The law says that's the amount

[h00manist]

And you don't think that some crappy mp3s of Michael Jackson are worth every penny that?!?

The scariest (or most interesting) part of this is that it's not so much that the lawyers said so, but the law itself says that is the amount. So if anyone is wrong here, it's the law. The plaintiff is indeed simply asking for the damage amounts based on what is described in the law at the proper calcuation method. .

Re:The law says that's the amount

[frosty_tsm]

And you don't think that some crappy mp3s of Michael Jackson are worth every penny that?!?

The scariest (or most interesting) part of this is that it's not so much that the lawyers said so, but the law itself says that is the amount. So if anyone is wrong here, it's the law. The plaintiff is indeed simply asking for the damage amounts based on what is described in the law at the proper calcuation method. .

I believe that law was written back when copy-write offenders were guys with tables on the street selling bootleg VHS tapes; back when "piracy" was for profit.

Re:The law says that's the amount

[sortius_nod]

The worst thing about these laws is that they aren't logical.

It is akin to charging a bank robber for every note they stole, not for the crime as a whole. Or suing someone for defamation per word.

Sure, Limewire exposed themselves to being sued, but suing per download is just farcical. All this will do is damage brands and end up turning fans against the record companies.

This is really good news

[Khopesh]

I strongly approve.

The RIAA assumes that each copy of each song is worth a dollar and is independently covered by copyright violation fines. This couldn't be farther from the truth. People end up with freely obtained music that they would never (in any world) pay for. Separately, the immature behavior of the RIAA (primarily their scare tactics and markup) couples with the enormity of copyleft content now freely available to spell a significantly reduced value (supply and demand). We're heading towards a new media paradigm that just doesn't have room for the RIAA.

I think by calculating the value as perceived by the RIAA, we have this on display for all to see. The press and the courts will have no choice but to see this for the fear-mongering death flails of a dying industry.

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot — they may have just blown off their whole leg — and the ground they stood on.

Re:$75 Trillion

[Lanteran]

...and we will sue limewire for.. *raises pinky to lip* 75 trillion dollars!

Limewire execs: *much laughing* hahahaha, it's 2011, that amount of money doesn't even exist!

*RIAA exec gestures to cut off transmission*

Well, shit...

*reopens transmission*

We don't care.

Re:Wow... what an honor

[Sir_Sri]

To be fair. wealth and GDP are not the same.

The only figures I have are for 2005, but the UK had worth of 5.8 trillion pounds (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/value-of-uk-plc-rises-to-163100000-for-each-man-woman-and-child-500266.html), with a GDP of 1.2 trillion, giving a roughly factor of 5 difference. Assuming that ratio roughly holds for 2010/2011 and to other countries, the total net worth of the world is about 300 trillion dollars (nominal but I'm not sure on PPP it would be much different).

It's not like they are claiming damages for just one year, so we probably shouldn't claim total economic output for just one year.

I mean, obviously the music business is worth nearly 1/4 of everything on the planet, food, cars, TV's aircraft, computers, houses, and limewire must have scurried away all that money. Put another way, the total inhabited land area of the planet is 150 million square kilometres, so the music business is worth approximatedly 1/4 of that, which is the total area of russia, the USA and china combined.