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?"

8 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      Its one more nail in the coffin of an outdated model that serves as an example of a few industries that have failed miserably to embrace new technology and god forbid adapt to changing circumstances, and instead are abusing the courts to keep an outdated methodology in place, massively stifling innovation in the process.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 NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Funny

      You're the lawyer; You tell us!

      I've never before experienced such humility on Slashdot. You must be new here.

      --
      Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
    3. 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.

    4. Re:What do we think? We don't know! by gman003 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If I were a judge, this is what I would do.

      Go out, find what the commonly available price of purchase is for all the infringed songs. Don't bother trying to find "the best deal" or doing some big, exhaustive research on average prices. Just go out to Wal-Mart or go on iTunes, look up all the songs, see what it would cost.

      Move the decimal point over one place. If they stole one album ($14.99), their liability is $149.90. If they stole $100 worth of music, they owe $1000. If they're a repeat offender, move it over an additional place (ie. if this you've been in court for it before, that one album is now $1,499).

      If the defendant actively distributed it (not just "seeded their torrent", but actually posted it on new sites or made their own torrent or whatever), they're liable for both side's legal fees. Otherwise, each pays their own.

      Same applies to any other Intellectual Property. Steal a $60 video game? Pay them $600. Steal a $20 movie? Pay $200.

      The multiplier keeps damages reasonably bound to the actual value of the "goods", but also makes it far cheaper to buy instead of pirate. And the legal fees will make the MAFIAA go after the actual "distributors", not people who just download a few episodes of whatever TV show is popular right now. Economically, the only ones worth it are the distributors (because as long as you win, you have no costs), and the massive steal-every-song-made-in-the-past-century pirates who still rack up millions in damages, not the "I'm gonna give this song a listen before I buy it" crowd or the "piracy is *still* easier than buying" crowd.

    5. 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....

    6. 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.)

  2. when a dinosaur dies by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    it's tail thrashes around a lot, and does a lot of damage

    it's still going to be extinct very soon nevertheless

    you can't foist a business model from a dead era on us

    well you can try, and drain all of your coffers in the process, thereby speeding up your demise

    but economic reality has a way of being economic reality despite your protestations

    they call things like the Internet "disruptive technology" for a reason

    consider yourself permanently disrupted, media conglomerates

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it