Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Listen to the RIAA's Appeal In Jammie Thomas Case

Posted by timothy on from the call-your-bookie-with-your-winner dept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The RIAA doesn't really like free mp3 files floating around but here's one you can access legally — the audio file of the June 12, 2012 oral argument of the RIAA's appeal in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset. At issue in this case are (a) the RIAA's 'making available' theory and (b) the constitutionality of large statutory damages awards for download of an mp3 song file. The lower court rejected the making available theory, and reduced the jury's verdict to what the judge considered the maximum possible award of $2250 per file. I'm predicting the Court will affirm. After listening to the oral argument, what do you think?"

5 of 225 comments (clear)

  1. What do we think? We don't know! by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    A lot of the numbers, arguments, evidence etc. don't make a jot of sense to us. It's all pie-in-the-sky hyperbole and backwards Hollywood accounting, where a song which makes $0.99 per sale from a retailer is worth $150,000 if downloaded and shared.

    You're the lawyer; You tell us!

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    1. Re:What do we think? We don't know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its one more nail in the coffin of an outdated model that serves as an example of a few industries that have failed miserably to embrace new technology and god forbid adapt to changing circumstances, and instead are abusing the courts to keep an outdated methodology in place, massively stifling innovation in the process.

    2. Re:What do we think? We don't know! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      you think the RIAA made music-at-our-finger-tips possible?

      you are a schmuck.

      you know what made it possible? consumers.

      consumers that said "fuck your model"

      the music industry only begrudgingly made changes.

      it's taken decades.

      we don't need the RIAA or the industry, they need us.

    3. Re:What do we think? We don't know! by MitchDev · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd like to see an "Intellectual Property Tax" passed on the rights holders, I bet the songs aren't valued by the holders at 150,000 per track anymore at that point....

    4. Re:What do we think? We don't know! by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hate to jump on this war, but wow... you are so wrong! The historical stifling is hopefully something that no reasonable person can deny-- the attacks that the RIAA made on Mix-Rip-Burn, the adherence to the album model long after it was dead, and killing sites that made it possible for people to discover music and become music consumers again.

      Even today, the RIAA doesn't like the model that is out there-- they really want to push a limited catalog of super-hits, and generate ongoing revenue from their back catalog that has been purchased over and over again based solely on the need to media shift. They also are responsible in a large part for the complexity in international music sales, the challenges of internet radio, Pandora, and the like. They serve to promote formulaic music that is most likely to be successful.

      While I can't speak for everyone here, the real problem isn't just the RIAA, but the MPAA and whatever the comparable association is for television. Copyright extension to its current level is one of the biggest problems, but their push for additional revenue streams is even worse. All three associations need to regroup (RIAA has come the farthest) and re-align themselves to the brave new world.

      (And yes, I realize the RIAA does not do anything, they are simply a trade group for the labels. The transgressions of the labels and RIAA are much more easily lumped under a single umbrella.)