The success or failure of the RIAA's actions isn't measured by how much they collect from the people they sue. It is measured by how much they collect from the people they don't sue.
Yes, except -- if you haven't noticed -- their numbers are way, way, way down.
I think so. And I think the executives of the Big 4 recording companies tried to cover up their lack of ability to do business on the internet by scapegoating alleged p2p file sharers, as though that were the cause of their downward spiral.
Dont worry, the lawyers have a new plan and this one is SURE to get the RIAA a decent return: Suing iPod owners who only listen to one earphone and let a friend pirate the music through the other without paying a dime!
You have a great future in the music recording business. You're they're kind of people.:)
will the RIAA see greater collection in the future, based on more recent court cases setting precedent for amounts to be awarded to the RIAA?
There are only 2 precedents on the challenge to the RIAA's damages theory. Both are lower court cases, so neither is binding. In both cases the defendants were found to have infringed deliberately and wilfully, and to have engaged in additional conduct to cover up their actions.
In both cases the Court found the maximum recoverable to be $2250 per infringed work.
In both cases the Court noted that it probably would have awarded less than $2250 were the decision the Court's, rather than a jury's.
Since most RIAA cases involve 6 or 7 allegedly infringed mp3's, and since it costs hundreds of thousands to litigate a federal case, I doubt the RIAA is thrilled with these decisions.
the companies that support the riaa just want money so make sure you check riaaradar.com to make sure the music you buy does not help a company that supports the riaa. While they continue to waste their money on lawyers stick it to them one lost sell at a time.
Exactly. We should not patronize the companies that support this reign of terror.
Well it's the law that the judge is supposed to look for ways to avoid the constitutional "showdown", and Judge Gertner explained why the RIAA's litigation posture made it unwise to do so here. The RIAA has proved her point, by refuse to accept the Court's "remittitur" in Minnesota, as it said it would almost certainly do in Massachusetts.
So, Mister County Lawyer, explain to us why statutory minimum damages are unconstitutional, and why every judge in the country seems painfully unaware of the fact?
Well Mr. fm6,
(a) the $750 miminum as applied to an unauthorized download of an mp3 single is unconstitutional because it is over 2000 times the maximum actual damages sustained, and in the neighborhood of 14,000 times the actual damages sustained, and (b) so far only one judge has decided the issue, one way or the other.
So, other than being completely wrong, you are 100% right.
Where was this in the opinion? I see where she says "Nevertheless, the awards in such cases are generally no more than "two to six times the license fees defendants 'saved' by not obeying the Copyright Act"--a ratio of statutory to actual damages far lower than the ratio present in this case" (pages 40-41) where she'd discussing the disparity between public performance cases and this one, but I do not see where she concludes as a matter of law the statute only permits that range for the instant case, just that the disparity suggests egregiousness.
You have quoted her correctly, but I think you nit picking a little here. Obviously she did not "conclude[...] as a matter of law the statute only permits that range...." But she never explains why it's ok to award 2250 times actual damages against a college kid, while the recovery against UMG Recordings when it's being sued is limited to 2 times actual damages, nor does she explain why an award should be so far out of the normal range of copyright statutory damages. She simply (a) never dealt with the issue of why the minimum statutory damages of $750 is constitutional, and (b) gave no legally cognizable explanation for trebling it.
1. It is not "ignoring congress" to declare a statute to be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is the "big daddy" of statutes, from which the powers of the president and congress to enact a statute derive. It has been part of US federal law for ~200 years that the courts are empowered -- indeed are required -- to ensure that statutes comply with the Constitution.
2. You could not have read the decision very carefully, for the judge was very careful to review all of the applicable authority on both sides as what standards were to be applied to determining the constitutionality of the statute.
I've been telling people for over a decade that the actual value of a downloaded mp3 is something in the area of 4 cents, and I've almost always gotten deeply incredulous responses--even from supposed nerds!
It's gratifying that someone as useful as yourself has come to a similar sort of calculation:-)
Please keep up the good work!
Thanks. It is beyond dispute that the maximum damage is in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 cents. That would be the damage if every unauthorized download represented a lost sale. It would take statistical evidence to determine what the proportion is, but I'm guessing it's in the neighborhood of 1:7 or something like that, which would put it at around a nickel.
You quoted from the summary. The summary was written by NewYorkCountryLawyer, who is (if I remember correctly) an actual lawyer.
Unfortunately, you are right about that. I probably should have been a computer programmer, but I was a little intimidated by those tall machines with whirring wheels and punch cards, which they had in those days.
2250 times what exactly? The price of an mp3 or the value of unlimited international distribution rights?
There was no evidence of an actual "distribution" with in the meaning of the Copyright Act, let alone of him acting as a dispenser of "unlimited international distribution rights".
Come on, 2250 times the actual damages for copying music. Here the court (and the law I might add) is out of balance. The law should treat each case on merits and what damages there actually were, having the punishment fit the crime. Our system of justice is not supose to treat people as examples, without regard to what the effect of the judgement is going to be on the individual, the punishment to the individual needs to fit the crime, Here it does not. Corporate profits have trumped our laws and our politics. We need a change.
I don't think this result was consistent with existing law. The judge conceded that under existing law a copyright infringement statutory damages claim should not exceed 2 to 6 times the actual damages. Had she applied that principle to her overly generous appraisal of the actual damages as being $1 per infringed work, and had she decided to "throw the book" at Mr. Tenenbaum and award 6 times the actual damages, the total judgment would be $180.
When UMG was sued for copyright infringement, the punitive damages were reduced from 10x actual damages to 2x actual damages.
But when it is suing some kid for copyright infringement, it's allowed to collect 2250x actual damages.*
Doesn't sound like equal justice to me.
* Even Judge Gertner's $1 actual damages figure is wildly overstated. 70 cents lost revenue minus 35 cents saved expenses = lost profit of 35 cents, IF you wanted to assume that every unuathorized download represents a lost sale, which it certainly does not. Most likely the real actual damages is 5 or 10 cents on an mp3 download.
I have been following this case as closely as anyone
No, you have not. Pretty much every reporter who has covered this case for pretty much every tech blog (CNET, Ars Technica, Engadget, etc.) has followed the case far more closely than you have.
Wow, I can't believe you are that ignorant.
Oh wait, perhaps you work for a record company or the RIAA or their lawyers, since you claim to know the amounts of the settlement proposals; in that case, ignorance isn't a problem for you.
Would you mind telling us where you are getting your information as to the amounts of the settlement offers? I have no such information, and I am not aware of anyone other than the participants having such information. And the numbers you keep bandying out sound quite unrealistic, based on my information about other RIAA cases.
unless my math's off the RIAA was offering to settle for less than the reduced judgement the court was still holding as valid
Are you saying that someone disclosed the amount of the RIAA's settlement offer? Can you cite to a source for that, or are you just referring to a rumor?
every time they offer to settle for a low amount (as low as around $3-5k), she refuses and insists she will never settle
What is the source of your information on that? Do you work for the record companies or their lawyers? I have been following this case as closely as anyone, and I have no information as to who made what offers, and who refused what offers.
They offered to settle for an amount much lower than they were likely to get at trial. She refused, and when on to perjure herself while under oath, try to frame her kids, and try to destroy evidence. Any suffering she is undergoing is her own fault.
Again, how would you know what settlement offers were made, or what was rejected, and what information do you have leading you to believe Ms. Thomas-Rasett perjured herself. It sounds to me like either (a) you do work for the record companies, or their lawyers, or (b) you're just making this stuff up, and have some personal agenda which you haven't shared with us.
Slashdot Mirror
My dad always told me that a lawsuit is like two people setting themselves on fire and lawyers warming themselves with the flames.
I must remember that one. Your dad is a wise man.
I've often described it to my clients as a transfer of wealth from their family to my family.
The success or failure of the RIAA's actions isn't measured by how much they collect from the people they sue. It is measured by how much they collect from the people they don't sue.
Yes, except -- if you haven't noticed -- their numbers are way, way, way down.
Shareholders' opinions matter to executives now?
I think so. And I think the executives of the Big 4 recording companies tried to cover up their lack of ability to do business on the internet by scapegoating alleged p2p file sharers, as though that were the cause of their downward spiral.
Dont worry, the lawyers have a new plan and this one is SURE to get the RIAA a decent return: Suing iPod owners who only listen to one earphone and let a friend pirate the music through the other without paying a dime!
You have a great future in the music recording business. You're they're kind of people. :)
Now if only the RIAA could find some way to make cloned human copies of their lawyers
I've met their lawyers.
Are you sure they haven't already tried that?
I've met their lawyers.
Are you sure they haven't already tried that?
will the RIAA see greater collection in the future, based on more recent court cases setting precedent for amounts to be awarded to the RIAA?
There are only 2 precedents on the challenge to the RIAA's damages theory. Both are lower court cases, so neither is binding. In both cases the defendants were found to have infringed deliberately and wilfully, and to have engaged in additional conduct to cover up their actions.
In both cases the Court found the maximum recoverable to be $2250 per infringed work.
In both cases the Court noted that it probably would have awarded less than $2250 were the decision the Court's, rather than a jury's.
Since most RIAA cases involve 6 or 7 allegedly infringed mp3's, and since it costs hundreds of thousands to litigate a federal case, I doubt the RIAA is thrilled with these decisions.
the companies that support the riaa just want money so make sure you check riaaradar.com to make sure the music you buy does not help a company that supports the riaa. While they continue to waste their money on lawyers stick it to them one lost sell at a time.
Exactly. We should not patronize the companies that support this reign of terror.
Well it's the law that the judge is supposed to look for ways to avoid the constitutional "showdown", and Judge Gertner explained why the RIAA's litigation posture made it unwise to do so here. The RIAA has proved her point, by refuse to accept the Court's "remittitur" in Minnesota, as it said it would almost certainly do in Massachusetts.
So, Mister County Lawyer, explain to us why statutory minimum damages are unconstitutional, and why every judge in the country seems painfully unaware of the fact?
Well Mr. fm6,
(a) the $750 miminum as applied to an unauthorized download of an mp3 single is unconstitutional because it is over 2000 times the maximum actual damages sustained, and in the neighborhood of 14,000 times the actual damages sustained, and (b) so far only one judge has decided the issue, one way or the other.
So, other than being completely wrong, you are 100% right.
Where was this in the opinion? I see where she says "Nevertheless, the awards in such cases are generally no more than "two to six times the license fees defendants 'saved' by not obeying the Copyright Act"--a ratio of statutory to actual damages far lower than the ratio present in this case" (pages 40-41) where she'd discussing the disparity between public performance cases and this one, but I do not see where she concludes as a matter of law the statute only permits that range for the instant case, just that the disparity suggests egregiousness.
You have quoted her correctly, but I think you nit picking a little here. Obviously she did not "conclude[...] as a matter of law the statute only permits that range...." But she never explains why it's ok to award 2250 times actual damages against a college kid, while the recovery against UMG Recordings when it's being sued is limited to 2 times actual damages, nor does she explain why an award should be so far out of the normal range of copyright statutory damages. She simply (a) never dealt with the issue of why the minimum statutory damages of $750 is constitutional, and (b) gave no legally cognizable explanation for trebling it.
The judge isn't supposed to just ignore congress
1. It is not "ignoring congress" to declare a statute to be inconsistent with the Constitution, which is the "big daddy" of statutes, from which the powers of the president and congress to enact a statute derive. It has been part of US federal law for ~200 years that the courts are empowered -- indeed are required -- to ensure that statutes comply with the Constitution.
2. You could not have read the decision very carefully, for the judge was very careful to review all of the applicable authority on both sides as what standards were to be applied to determining the constitutionality of the statute.
I've been telling people for over a decade that the actual value of a downloaded mp3 is something in the area of 4 cents, and I've almost always gotten deeply incredulous responses--even from supposed nerds! It's gratifying that someone as useful as yourself has come to a similar sort of calculation :-)
Please keep up the good work!
Thanks. It is beyond dispute that the maximum damage is in the neighborhood of 30 to 40 cents. That would be the damage if every unauthorized download represented a lost sale. It would take statistical evidence to determine what the proportion is, but I'm guessing it's in the neighborhood of 1:7 or something like that, which would put it at around a nickel.
You quoted from the summary. The summary was written by NewYorkCountryLawyer, who is (if I remember correctly) an actual lawyer.
Unfortunately, you are right about that. I probably should have been a computer programmer, but I was a little intimidated by those tall machines with whirring wheels and punch cards, which they had in those days.
When statutory damages are 750 times actual damages, the statutory damages are clearly unconstitutional. There's no explaining that.
No there is no explaining it. The decision never makes a rational transition to its conclusion.
1.Law: statutory damages should be 2 to 6 times actual damage
2.Actual damage found to be $1
3. ??????????
4. $2,250 profits for RIAA.
I for one welcome the administration of justice by our corporatist overlords.
If 3 times the statutory minimum is 2 thousand times the actual damages, then the statute is clearly unconstitutional. What logic could justify that?
None.
2250 times what exactly? The price of an mp3 or the value of unlimited international distribution rights?
There was no evidence of an actual "distribution" with in the meaning of the Copyright Act, let alone of him acting as a dispenser of "unlimited international distribution rights".
Come on, 2250 times the actual damages for copying music. Here the court (and the law I might add) is out of balance. The law should treat each case on merits and what damages there actually were, having the punishment fit the crime. Our system of justice is not supose to treat people as examples, without regard to what the effect of the judgement is going to be on the individual, the punishment to the individual needs to fit the crime, Here it does not. Corporate profits have trumped our laws and our politics. We need a change.
I don't think this result was consistent with existing law. The judge conceded that under existing law a copyright infringement statutory damages claim should not exceed 2 to 6 times the actual damages. Had she applied that principle to her overly generous appraisal of the actual damages as being $1 per infringed work, and had she decided to "throw the book" at Mr. Tenenbaum and award 6 times the actual damages, the total judgment would be $180.
When UMG was sued for copyright infringement, the punitive damages were reduced from 10x actual damages to 2x actual damages.
But when it is suing some kid for copyright infringement, it's allowed to collect 2250x actual damages.*
Doesn't sound like equal justice to me.
* Even Judge Gertner's $1 actual damages figure is wildly overstated. 70 cents lost revenue minus 35 cents saved expenses = lost profit of 35 cents, IF you wanted to assume that every unuathorized download represents a lost sale, which it certainly does not. Most likely the real actual damages is 5 or 10 cents on an mp3 download.
This does seem to be pretty much what the safe harbor provisions are about.
Exactly. The motions should not even have had to be made. If I were the judge I would be considering sanctions against the plaintiffs.
I have been following this case as closely as anyone
No, you have not. Pretty much every reporter who has covered this case for pretty much every tech blog (CNET, Ars Technica, Engadget, etc.) has followed the case far more closely than you have.
Wow, I can't believe you are that ignorant.
Oh wait, perhaps you work for a record company or the RIAA or their lawyers, since you claim to know the amounts of the settlement proposals; in that case, ignorance isn't a problem for you.
Would you mind telling us where you are getting your information as to the amounts of the settlement offers? I have no such information, and I am not aware of anyone other than the participants having such information. And the numbers you keep bandying out sound quite unrealistic, based on my information about other RIAA cases.
is it possible for your posts not to be modded up to 5?
Yes, but I'd have to suppress my natural charm, erudition, and fine sense of humor.
unless my math's off the RIAA was offering to settle for less than the reduced judgement the court was still holding as valid
Are you saying that someone disclosed the amount of the RIAA's settlement offer? Can you cite to a source for that, or are you just referring to a rumor?
every time they offer to settle for a low amount (as low as around $3-5k), she refuses and insists she will never settle
What is the source of your information on that? Do you work for the record companies or their lawyers? I have been following this case as closely as anyone, and I have no information as to who made what offers, and who refused what offers.
They offered to settle for an amount much lower than they were likely to get at trial. She refused, and when on to perjure herself while under oath, try to frame her kids, and try to destroy evidence. Any suffering she is undergoing is her own fault.
Again, how would you know what settlement offers were made, or what was rejected, and what information do you have leading you to believe Ms. Thomas-Rasett perjured herself. It sounds to me like either (a) you do work for the record companies, or their lawyers, or (b) you're just making this stuff up, and have some personal agenda which you haven't shared with us.