Even though Veoh is out of business the record companies lost a lot in this. Veoh may be gone but any attempt to treat someone else this way will cause severe penalties. You can run this scam once and then the courts get wise to it and punish you for trying to sue someone when it was made clear to you previously that you didn't have a case. Anyone else they sue will get attorney fees and the right to counter sue for harassment.
From your mouth to God's ears. (old Yiddish saying)
I worked for mp3.com from 1999 to them folding in 2003 from UMG's (and others) lawsuit. I worked for Veoh from 2008 to 2009 when they folded from UMG's lawsuit.
I HATE UMG.
Those were the most fun jobs I've ever had. The work was challenging, the environment was fun, and my co-worker were some of the smartest people I've ever met. I had the opportunity to write code that solved problems no one had every faced before. It was awesome.
UMG has screwed me out of 2 very fulfilling jobs.
Yes they really do detract from the quality of life. I'm thinking those big record companies are going downhill. The sooner they go out of business the better as far as I am concerned.
It's so sad that they can sorta "win" by pushing Veoh out of business via litigation. Even though Veoh won they still lost. Sad. The judge should have awarded fees.
Agreed. What's the good of a "safe harbor" if the courts allow the record companies to bring frivolous lawsuits which cost huge dollars to defend?
Big Grats on this Ray! I know you've been preaching this for a long time. Good to see it finally getting some traction with the Courts.
Am I also to believe that progress is being made with the improper joinder issue as well?
Absolutely, just today I posted another of many decisions granting severance and dismissal as to all John Does other than Doe 1:
While this is a great ruling, I've noticed a recent pattern: most of the cases where judges have come down hard on copyright trolls do not involve material from major studios. They involve pornography, often gay pornography. There are quite a few of these cases chronicled on TorrentFreak. I wonder to what extent the judges are letting their disgust of the underlying material come through in their rulings. Would they be making the same rulings if these people were accused of downloading mainstream music or films?
Good question. I don't know the answer. It certainly seems that the overt sleeziness of the current crop of plaintiffs -- as opposed to the camouflaged sleeziness of the RIAA plaintiffs -- has alerted the judges to the fact that there's something wrong here.
Moby, the thing is you're supposed to have done an investigation BEFORE bringing a federal lawsuit. When a lawyer signs his name to the complaint he's affirming that he's done that and has EVIDENCE that the DEFENDANT committed a copyright infringement.
In the federal rules there's no procedure for bringing a lawsuit against someone to give yourself the ability to conduct an "Investigation" with all the coercive powers of a court at your disposal.
This judge just called the plaintiff's lawyer's bluff, which is why the lawyer put his tail between his legs and ran.
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
LOL.
Now let's see, do I think it's fair? Hmmmm..........
Ever since I first got involved in fighting the RIAA's litigation campaign, and blogging about it, in 2005 [that's almost 8 years ago] I've been arguing that it is not a sufficient basis to bring a lawsuit against someone that an internet access account for which he or she pays the bill was used by someone for a copyright infringement. Even though I, and lots of other lawyers, and lots of other techies, and lots of other people from all walks of life knew this, I have never -- until this ruling -- seen a JUDGE dismiss a complaint because of this.
If those of you who are saying this is "not a big deal" or "was expected" know of any prior decisions like this, please show them to me. Otherwise, STFU about it not being big. After about 10 years and hundreds of thousands of frivolous lawsuits, finally a judge has pointed out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
It is one of the most newsworthy copyright posts I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Why do we care that she's of tribal descent? Are we now saying tribal American's are exempt from copyright laws?
I flatly refuse to redefine native they way the PC crowd does, if you were born in the US you are native. I happen to be of Cherokee linage as well, but that doesn't matter, I'm native because I was born here.
In this case, I personally believe that she was discriminated against by the jury, because she was a Native American. She was tried many many miles from where she lived and worked, and did not have a jury of her peers.
Was she really convicted of "illegal downloading?"
1. She wasn't "convicted" of anything; this wasn't a criminal case. She was found liable for copyright infringement by making copies through downloading, thus violating the record companies' exclusive reproduction rights. 2. She was also sued for "distributing" and "making available for distributing", but the judge threw out the "making available for distributing" claim, and there was no evidence offered of the "distributing" claim.
So yes, the only thing she was found liable for was downloading.
This case is Capitol vs Thomas, not RIAA vs Thomas. Capitol is a music publisher, and this case was about their works.
1. Capitol is but one of the plaintiffs. 2. The RIAA was in fact running the case, with the aid of the record company plaintiffs. 3. Capitol is a record company, not a music publisher. 4. The case was about the recordings of several different companies.
Thomas did not ruin the life of any of the involved corporation(s), nor did she ruin the life of any of their employees. It is simply not just to ruin her life in retaliation. That this goes on and is so widely considered legitimate is an example of our remaining barbarism.
I think most people, both in and out of the United States, see a result like this as absurd.
Nearly 10k per song is just dumb. If a CD is 12 tracks and costs ~15 bucks, its a bit over $1 per song. So this is a 1000000% penalty. one million percent. Just insane, no way that isnt unconstitutional.
The fines should be like 200, maybe 300% penalty, maybe even 1000% (10x). That's reasonable.
The punishment must fit the crime and all that.
That's the issue all right. And I think the Court's decision is absurd.
I noticed some pro-RIAA posts saying that defendant was liable for distributing, not just downloading. This is simply not so. Distribution, within the meaning of the Copyright Act, requires a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.... none of which occurred here. 17 USC 106(3)
What principle, exactly, is he fighting for? The right to flaunt existing copyright law and then lie about it? Or the right to destroy evidence?
No, constitutional due process... the principle that statutory damage awards are supposed to bear some reasonable relation to the actual damages sustained.
What is the State Farm/Gore test, and how is it conducted?
After the jury's verdict, if the judge finds the verdict for punitive or statutory damages to be out of all reasonable proportion to the actual economic harm sustained, it is supposed to reduce the verdict to a number that bears a reasonable proportion to the harm sustained. The Supreme Court noted that it will rarely be a number higher than 10x the actual damages. In finding the magic number, the court weighs various factors, such as the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct, etc. Regular copyright law also requires that copyright statutory damages bear some reasonable relationship to actual damages. In non-RIAA cases the courts usually sustained multiples of 2 to 4 times the actual damages.
In case you're interested in reading the arguments I made in 2009 in this case, as to why the verdict was in violation of due process, here they are (PDF)
Yes he could. But there's no point in doing it now, the case isn't over. He's fighting for a principle here. He has a right to appeal, and I believe the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will reverse this decision.
Slashdot Mirror
Even though Veoh is out of business the record companies lost a lot in this. Veoh may be gone but any attempt to treat someone else this way will cause severe penalties. You can run this scam once and then the courts get wise to it and punish you for trying to sue someone when it was made clear to you previously that you didn't have a case. Anyone else they sue will get attorney fees and the right to counter sue for harassment.
From your mouth to God's ears. (old Yiddish saying)
I worked for mp3.com from 1999 to them folding in 2003 from UMG's (and others) lawsuit. I worked for Veoh from 2008 to 2009 when they folded from UMG's lawsuit. I HATE UMG. Those were the most fun jobs I've ever had. The work was challenging, the environment was fun, and my co-worker were some of the smartest people I've ever met. I had the opportunity to write code that solved problems no one had every faced before. It was awesome. UMG has screwed me out of 2 very fulfilling jobs.
Yes they really do detract from the quality of life. I'm thinking those big record companies are going downhill. The sooner they go out of business the better as far as I am concerned.
And the real-world precedent of don't mess with the record companies even if you have the law on your side.
That's the message the record companies are trying to send.
It's so sad that they can sorta "win" by pushing Veoh out of business via litigation. Even though Veoh won they still lost. Sad. The judge should have awarded fees.
Agreed. What's the good of a "safe harbor" if the courts allow the record companies to bring frivolous lawsuits which cost huge dollars to defend?
Big Grats on this Ray! I know you've been preaching this for a long time. Good to see it finally getting some traction with the Courts. Am I also to believe that progress is being made with the improper joinder issue as well?
Absolutely, just today I posted another of many decisions granting severance and dismissal as to all John Does other than Doe 1:
While this is a great ruling, I've noticed a recent pattern: most of the cases where judges have come down hard on copyright trolls do not involve material from major studios. They involve pornography, often gay pornography. There are quite a few of these cases chronicled on TorrentFreak. I wonder to what extent the judges are letting their disgust of the underlying material come through in their rulings. Would they be making the same rulings if these people were accused of downloading mainstream music or films?
Good question. I don't know the answer. It certainly seems that the overt sleeziness of the current crop of plaintiffs -- as opposed to the camouflaged sleeziness of the RIAA plaintiffs -- has alerted the judges to the fact that there's something wrong here.
Moby, the thing is you're supposed to have done an investigation BEFORE bringing a federal lawsuit. When a lawyer signs his name to the complaint he's affirming that he's done that and has EVIDENCE that the DEFENDANT committed a copyright infringement.
In the federal rules there's no procedure for bringing a lawsuit against someone to give yourself the ability to conduct an "Investigation" with all the coercive powers of a court at your disposal.
This judge just called the plaintiff's lawyer's bluff, which is why the lawyer put his tail between his legs and ran.
But wait... is this really fair?
Are you kidding me?
These jerks abuse the legal system to conduct extortion. Several prominent trolls are facing serious jail time for their crimes, which are numerous. And here you are worried that they have to have actual proof before trying to ruin somebodys life?!
LOL.
Now let's see, do I think it's fair? Hmmmm..........
Uh......., yeah, I do.
Good to see you again, NYCL - it's been a while.
Nice to see you, too, Quasi :)
Ray, given that they withdrew the case, does that still make this ruling precedent? And on what level of precedent?
It's not binding precedent, but IMHO it represents strong persuasive authority.
That's what people have been saying for over two decades... Glad common sense has won out on this one.
Yup. And yup.
BTW, after this ruling, the plaintiff withdrew the entire case. Probably hoping to find a less intelligent judge somewhere else.
This ruling is huge.
Ever since I first got involved in fighting the RIAA's litigation campaign, and blogging about it, in 2005 [that's almost 8 years ago] I've been arguing that it is not a sufficient basis to bring a lawsuit against someone that an internet access account for which he or she pays the bill was used by someone for a copyright infringement. Even though I, and lots of other lawyers, and lots of other techies, and lots of other people from all walks of life knew this, I have never -- until this ruling -- seen a JUDGE dismiss a complaint because of this.
If those of you who are saying this is "not a big deal" or "was expected" know of any prior decisions like this, please show them to me. Otherwise, STFU about it not being big. After about 10 years and hundreds of thousands of frivolous lawsuits, finally a judge has pointed out that the Emperor is wearing no clothes.
It is one of the most newsworthy copyright posts I have ever seen on Slashdot.
Why do we care that she's of tribal descent? Are we now saying tribal American's are exempt from copyright laws? I flatly refuse to redefine native they way the PC crowd does, if you were born in the US you are native. I happen to be of Cherokee linage as well, but that doesn't matter, I'm native because I was born here.
In this case, I personally believe that she was discriminated against by the jury, because she was a Native American. She was tried many many miles from where she lived and worked, and did not have a jury of her peers.
Was she really convicted of "illegal downloading?"
1. She wasn't "convicted" of anything; this wasn't a criminal case. She was found liable for copyright infringement by making copies through downloading, thus violating the record companies' exclusive reproduction rights.
2. She was also sued for "distributing" and "making available for distributing", but the judge threw out the "making available for distributing" claim, and there was no evidence offered of the "distributing" claim.
So yes, the only thing she was found liable for was downloading.
This case is Capitol vs Thomas, not RIAA vs Thomas. Capitol is a music publisher, and this case was about their works.
1. Capitol is but one of the plaintiffs.
2. The RIAA was in fact running the case, with the aid of the record company plaintiffs.
3. Capitol is a record company, not a music publisher.
4. The case was about the recordings of several different companies.
She was sued for downloading, distributing, and making available for distribution.
1. No evidence of distribution was ever offered.
2. The court held that "making available for distribution" is not actionable.
3. So the only thing for which she was found liable was downloading.
Of course, the statutory damages are far too high to provide anything like justice; the amount should be based on actual damages.
Agreed
Thomas did not ruin the life of any of the involved corporation(s), nor did she ruin the life of any of their employees. It is simply not just to ruin her life in retaliation. That this goes on and is so widely considered legitimate is an example of our remaining barbarism.
I think most people, both in and out of the United States, see a result like this as absurd.
Nearly 10k per song is just dumb. If a CD is 12 tracks and costs ~15 bucks, its a bit over $1 per song. So this is a 1000000% penalty. one million percent. Just insane, no way that isnt unconstitutional. The fines should be like 200, maybe 300% penalty, maybe even 1000% (10x). That's reasonable. The punishment must fit the crime and all that.
That's the issue all right. And I think the Court's decision is absurd.
I noticed some pro-RIAA posts saying that defendant was liable for distributing, not just downloading. This is simply not so. Distribution, within the meaning of the Copyright Act, requires a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.... none of which occurred here. 17 USC 106(3)
What principle, exactly, is he fighting for? The right to flaunt existing copyright law and then lie about it? Or the right to destroy evidence?
No, constitutional due process... the principle that statutory damage awards are supposed to bear some reasonable relation to the actual damages sustained.
What is the State Farm/Gore test, and how is it conducted?
After the jury's verdict, if the judge finds the verdict for punitive or statutory damages to be out of all reasonable proportion to the actual economic harm sustained, it is supposed to reduce the verdict to a number that bears a reasonable proportion to the harm sustained. The Supreme Court noted that it will rarely be a number higher than 10x the actual damages. In finding the magic number, the court weighs various factors, such as the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct, etc. Regular copyright law also requires that copyright statutory damages bear some reasonable relationship to actual damages. In non-RIAA cases the courts usually sustained multiples of 2 to 4 times the actual damages.
In case you're interested in reading the arguments I made in 2009 in this case, as to why the verdict was in violation of due process, here they are (PDF)
Can't this kid just file for bankruptcy?
Yes he could. But there's no point in doing it now, the case isn't over. He's fighting for a principle here. He has a right to appeal, and I believe the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will reverse this decision.