Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$616.57 Three Strikes Verdict Cost RIANZ $250,000

Posted by Soulskill on from the gotta-spend-money-to-make-money! dept.

Dangerous_Minds writes "On Wednesday, we discussed news that RIANZ convicted its first file-sharer under the New Zealand three strikes law. While the fine totaled $616.57, a New Zealand Herald report points out that in order to get that fine, RIANZ had to spend $250,000. Freezenet makes an interesting point that HADOPI (France's version of the three strikes law) faced similar problems when the Socialist party commented that 12 million euros was a lot of money to pay 60 agents to send out 1 million e-mails. The question raised is whether or not this money pit trend will continue when the Copyright Alert System starts processing strike notices in the United States."

14 of 131 comments (clear)

  1. Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is, it's worth $250K to MAFIAA. Every head publicly displayed on a pike serves a purpose: "pour encourager les autres". It's an advertising expense. Pay up, or this could happen to you, too.

    1. Re:Heads on pikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400. Would you contribute a buck to legally cost the RIAA/MPAA a real $400, not a fake imaginary potential $400?

      Then honeypot them with lots of tiny 1-2 file shares that will result in similar very tiny payouts. At that rate they will be bankrupt or give up within a year.

    2. Re:Heads on pikes by nabsltd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If the guy is actually guilty,

      There is some question as to whether the girl (I know, RTFA is a crime on /.) is guilty of any infringement. She admitted to downloading one song, and that song was listed twice in the lawsuit for some reason. She says she never downloaded the other song. There was no indication that any uploading took place, but the RIANZ never had to even try to prove it, as it was assumed she had uploaded because she had been sent a notice.

      and the fine is not excessive,

      More than 150x actual damages (since she only downloaded two songs, not three) isn't excessive?

      why is it immediately necessary to attack the copyright group?

      Maybe because they are stupid for spending $250K to recover $600?

      Is there anything in this article that indicates a wrong was done to the "convicted file-sharer"?

      Because there was no "conviction". There was merely an accusation, which under the "three strikes" law is a presumption of guilt. If other laws worked that way, all I'd have to do to put you in jail for life is to say you murdered some person, without even having to prove the person was dead (or even existed in the first place). Don't like that analogy because it's criminal? OK, then you have infringed on my patent, please pay me $600, because I say so, and my accusation is proof enough that you are guilty.

    3. Re:Heads on pikes by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Like I said.... good luck with that.

      What basis do you have for believing that such a fund could realistically hope to cover the costs for enough cases that it might bankrupt those companies?

      And even by offering to cover such costs in advance, it might be argued (they do have good lawyers, after all) that the person infringing on copyright with advance knowledge that the fine they could expect to pay has been given economic incentive to do so (even if not a monetarily profitable one), elevating it to the level of commercial infringement, where the damages will be orders of magnitude higher. Oh, and the organizers of the fund could end up being liable for deliberate contributory infringement as well, since they would have already admitted that they intended to pay such fines.

      So.... tell me. How many volunteers do you think you are liable to get, that are willing to take the financial risks involved with financially supporting copyright infringers?

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    4. Re:Heads on pikes by thoughtfulbloke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You asked "When they *lose* money, what then?".
      They bill the artists the costs of "protecting the artist's copyrights"

  2. Like policians care by crazyjj · · Score: 5, Informative

    Citizens see the cost situation like this:

    Cost to pursue and prosecute these cases -(is greater than)- The return in fines + the benefit to society.

    Politicians see it like this:

    Donations to my campaign from the media industries + Future support from my party -(is greater than)- Any backlash from voters about the cost

    --
    What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
    1. Re:Like policians care by bzipitidoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's what Hollywood Accounting is for. They simply deduct that $250,000 expense from the artists' revenue, without asking if the artists thought that was money well spent. To add to the insult, they likely also reduce their own taxable income by that same amount.

      Still, the money they owe artists isn't enough to cover too many such court cases.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  3. Defense costs by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This works both ways. If it cost $250,000 to prosecute in NZ, it will probably cost $250,000 to defend against in the US. Any interaction with the justice system in the US is likely to ruin one, financially if not emotionally.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    1. Re:Defense costs by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the end, only the lawyers win.

    2. Re:Defense costs by Technician · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder if this is more record labels bookeeping. We wond the case but we can't pay the copyright owner because our expenses exceeded our income.

      Anyone have an itemised list of the expenses.. What was this money spent on anyway? Sounds steep to me.. Now if only the city had to pay that rate to issue a redlight camera or photo radar ticket..

      --
      The truth shall set you free!
  4. IANAL by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    But is it? What if someone set up a fund? Every $1 you contribute costs them roughly $400

    I am not a lawyer, but I now feel a strange urge to become one.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  5. Bastard child of the lobbying industry by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Insightful

    These cushy arrangements are the result of blatant political corruption. "Fund my campaign, and we'll see to it that you get these bullshit unfair laws to prop up for decaying business model and undermine the free market"

    Lobbying == legalized political corruption.

    The American disease is spreading, first to the Anglo countries, and developing countries with weak governments, then Europe, then everyone else.

    Too bad the anti-corruption movement, e.g. Lawrence Lessig's Rootstrikers can't getting any critical mass.

  6. Yeah, but all things considered... by davidbrit2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    You can't spell "Pyrrhic victory" without "victory"! Yay!

  7. -1, Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative
    eh? even the fucking summary says says "RIANZ had to spend" not "the taxpayer had to spend" .. and if you rfta the first damn line:

    The local body representing big record labels claims to have spent around $250,000 chasing alleged music pirates

    then later:

    Rianz says it has sent out around 6000 notices to alleged pirates, for which the music industry body must pay a $25 fee each for internet companies to send on to their customers.

    that's $150k right there, plus $100k to employ people to hunt/send stuff and lawyers is hardly unreasonable .. how the hell is this "insightful" when it's contradicted by the summary