Slashdot Log In
UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"
Posted by
timothy
on Thu May 15, 2008 08:10 AM
from the for-thee-and-not-for-me dept.
from the for-thee-and-not-for-me dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why would UMG, one of the four major RIAA members, consider an infringement award 'grossly excessive'? Naturally, because they were the ones ordered to pay it. While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs, they thought that being ordered to pay ten times the actual damages in Bridgeport v. Justin Combs was just too much. Then again, maybe that's why they didn't complain back when the increased statutory damages section was cut from the PRO-IP Act? Now if they could just cut the rest of the act."
Related Stories
[+]
Controversial Section of PRO-IP Act Cut 101 comments
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Rep. Berman (D-CA) has removed the controversial section 104 from his PRO-IP Act. That section would have multiplied the already excessive statutory damages for infringement in the case of compilations, making the damages for infringing upon the copyrights of a single average CD rise into the millions of dollars. This change came after proponents of the amendment were unable to cite even one case where the statutory damages recovered were insufficient. But don't let the article fool you into thinking that the PRO-IP Act is no longer controversial now that this one section is gone, the act still creates copyright cops who are authorized to seize people's computers."
Submission: UMG Calls Infringement Damages 'Excessive' by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Judge in Capitol v. Thomas Considers New Trial 234 comments
Jay Maynard writes "The judge in Capitol Records v. Thomas said today he's thinking about granting a new trial because he may have committed a 'manifest error of law' in his jury instructions. He says that his instruction that simply uploading music to a P2P network without any proof that anyone actually downloaded it may conflict with a case in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that said 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination.' Briefs are due by May 29, with oral argument July 1. The judge invited friend of the court briefs by May 29, as well." NewYorkCountryLawyer links to the Judge's order itself (PDF), in which the Judge notes that he may (in NYCL's words) "have overlooked controlling Eighth Circuit authority, the case of National Car Rental v. Computer Associates, which held that you can't have a violation of the 'distribution right' without an 'actual dissemination of copies or phonorecords.'" Update: 05/15 18:54 GMT by T : Note that while the linked story as well as Jay Maynard's summary use the term "upload," Thomas wasn't uploading the files themselves, only making them available.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Actually I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Their victims usually don't have the money to do the same. Though... should it ever hit me, before I hand over my life savings to them, I pump it into the courts. At least there it MIGHT somehow be used for good. After such a trial, you're broke and in debt for life anyway.
Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them (and some judges still have some semblance of sanity, so eventually they will hit one when they climb the judical ladder).
Don't your options run out after three tries (with the supreme court only rarely accepting cases anyway, so they cannot count on that)?
Their victims usually don't have the money to do the same. Though... should it ever hit me, before I hand over my life savings to them, I pump it into the courts. At least there it MIGHT somehow be used for good. After such a trial, you're broke and in debt for life anyway.
Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"
That's the mindset behind terrorism: people have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. So why not do something useful with your miserable life, and go and blow up some market or whatever to punish the infidels? Any solution for the middle east should somehow take this into account...
Re: (Score:2)
- You lose a case.
- You file an appeal at the local level.
- You file an appeal to the State Supreme Court.
- You file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (which as you stated, rarely takes cases).
There's a limit to how much taxpayer money you can waste in court. You only get so many times before a judge, and then you're done. The verdict is rendered.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
ANY solution for social problems should take that into account. No amount of force or surveillance has ever stopped a revolution from happening. Paris in 1789 was not unlike a police state, czarist Russia was one of the t
Re:Actually I wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How would the record industry react if people started freaking out for real?
How would the government react?
I think creating that environment is bad for our children and grandchildren.
However, the creeping oligarchy is bad too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"
That's a good point, seeing as how the large media companies say they're only
suing the most hardened criminals. Surely those mafioso grandmothers would know that
it's cheaper to hire a hitman or two than to fight a court battle? And a hardcore,
meth-addicted welfare mother would have access to heavy weapons, right?
c.
Re:Actually I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Suddenly realizing that they might have to pay these things causes the appeal to wane.
Its similar to software patents. Lots of big software companies were in favor of the patents until small patent troll companies started filing lawsuits against them for pretty much every new product.
Parent
Re:Actually I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, they have been successful thus far using very shaky technical experts and such, but that will fall apart quickly, and I'm betting that ISP cooperation with P2P makers and their arguments for throttling P2P traffic will remove all doubt as to the illegal nature of the **AA suits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the saying goes. I believe a couple of really sound, well placed offensive legal suits will put the **AA on defense to the point that they will be spending hundreds of millions trying to cover their tracks, and slowly their legal team will be dismissed and forgotten.
Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages. The school teacher in Russia that got sued for illegal copies of Windows is another example of wrong doing by well meaning laws, so the problem is not just the **AA. The DMCA and it's precedents seem to set the pace of wrong doing. We have seen the DMCA used against large corp. entities already, and in wrong ways. It is things like this that will lead to the halt of the **AA legal teams. As more technical knowledge is handed to the general public and, more importantly the legal system, their strategy will disappear.
We know that they basically have to flout the law to get your IP address/name connection and that will be shown. The legal system is slow and not all argument is germane to all cases, but it will happen. We need something like watergate to be uncovered so that their righteous position is removed, then all will sort itself out. They are a dying industry and are fighting death with all that they have. Even those resources are not inexhaustible. Several music groups are actually seeing no benefit in letting the RIAA continue their legal antics. Look at how much artists were paid from the Napster winnings.... zero! The cost of those legal teams is quite high, and they really aren't seeing anything from it. Every time they do anything it hits the news and more people see what asshats they really are. Bad PR is costing them quite a bit of money and I expect that we'll see it mentioned in upcoming financial reports. Loss of revenues eventually has to be blamed on market forces and those market forces are affected by bad PR.
It's a slow process, but losing badly in court sets the precedent that will speed it up. This is what the death bed of the RIAA looks like. To see more Google for SCO or just pop on over to Groklaw.
Non-obligatory bashing: MS is in a similar position but trying hard not to bleed out before the doctor gets out to the house to see how bad it is.
This is the way of business. Some folks just make bad decisions and the company and consumers have to live with it until things change a little at a time. The mere fact that they believe the award to be too high is a signal that I'm right. Of course they have to say that to continue to bolster their own position. The trouble is that they are now looking at what the hard place and the rock to see what they actually look like from a short distance. I imagine it will get a bit messier before it starts looking better. It will take a few more awards against them first.
Parent
Re:Actually I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually this stint should have landed Thomas Hesse [wikipedia.org] and some of his senior management SonyBMG cronies in the slammer for an extended stay.
The same, which would have happened to a pimply faced teenager from Iowa if he would have dared to pull a comparable stint and would have been rightfully convicted as a computer criminal.
It mystifies me until today how those douchebags got away that cheaply.
Parent
Regexp craptitiousness (Score:2)
Re:Actually I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
because Howlin' Wolf's label can (and did) sucessfully sue ZZ Top for the "how how how how" in La Grange, and george Harrison's label can be sued by the Chiffon's label for using the same three notes Ronald Mack used in "He's So Fine" [wikipedia.org].Modern copyright is so fucktarded that it's damned near impossible to write and perform a song without infringing someone's copyright.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I have attended some of these concerts which were later either televised or recorded and these recordings do contain my own work, mainly rythmic clapping and shouting but as yet I have to see a single penny from any of the record companies who, it seems to me, are intent on taking my own work and using it to sell records without paying me for any of the performance and composition rights I am owed.
If any lawyers would be like to comment and let me know how best to approach the companies in question with a view to getting my due royalties I would appreciate it.
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.
Parent
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:4, Funny)
You are absolutely correct.
I was at a Rockpile show at the Hollywood Palladium in the late 70s and Bob Ezrin got on stage and said he wanted to record us cheering for an upcoming Pink Floyd recording. So, I've put "The Wall" on my discography. Is that wrong?
Parent
Informed Consent (Score:3, Insightful)
Those conditions might not be prominently displayed before the ticket has been purchased. As such, one would wonder if the consent was properly given. Further, TicketMaster also has some language that they will not accept a return of the ticket. The same legal arguments that can be used to invalidate shrink wrapped EULA's would apply here as well. Essentially, you can't sell something to a customer with fine print locked inside that says: "If you open this, you agree to sell your house to me in exchange
Re: (Score:2)
audience singalong.
Now that would be fun, watching a record label hunt out every single fan at a concert and ask permission to use their vocal performance on a live album, and negotiate royalties for same.
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, they'll just sue the living hell out of you for singing a protected work without paying your dues.
Now bend over, the RIAA has their own idea of 'audience participation'.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't need one. In all countries who signed the Berne Convention or the WIPO Treaty, copyright is implied from the date of publication. Royalties can be ordered to be paid retroactively by a court of law in cases of copyright infringement.
Only if I grant you permission to
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:4, Informative)
As well as there being a clause on the back of the ticket (enforceable or not) there were signs at the enterence stating "Tonights performance is being recorded for the future production of a live DVD. By entering this arena, you grant license to to use your image, likeness, blah blah blah. If you do not consent to these terms, please see X person at Y gate for a full refund of your ticket."
Seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and yes I went
Parent
Re:Record Companies Owe ME ! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's most likely on the back side of the concert ticket has has framed and hanging above the fireplace.
The Laws (Score:5, Insightful)
Yours truly,
Big Media(tm)
Re: (Score:2)
If you think we care about individual customers, then you're grossly mistakien. It's the masses of sheep-customers that allow us to fuck individuals like you in the ass.
Regards,
- Big Media
P.S., We get your money anyway, your tax dollars fund our forays in the courts. Please come to our offices, and we will have an intern kiss your ass on our behalf.
One standard for you, one standard for me... (Score:5, Funny)
>cancel
>allow
Wow... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow... (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's excessive for them, it's going to be excessive for whomever gets nailed by their shenanigans.
Parent
Wait a minute (Score:5, Interesting)
IANAL, but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, knowing the RIAA, they'd try to find
Re: (Score:2)
The Golden Rule (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, ok. Technically, the rules aren't being made here, but this is just another example of the perversion of justice that exists among the elite in America. By and large, the America's "upper class", which include the wealthy, the politicians, celebrities, athletes, and corporations, aren't subject to the same blind justice as everyone else in this country.
If you have money and/or power, you have a way out.
Re: (Score:2)
I would disagree with this (though, not generally what you're saying).
.... they are absolutely establishing the 'rules' by which we all have to play.
:(
Getting courts to uphold your position becomes the law of the land. Between lobbying to get the laws passed in the first place, and getting court rulings which support the idea we pay thousands per song and they pay nothing
Unfortunately, the rules are heavily stacked in their favor.
Cheers
wth editors (Score:4, Insightful)
Wildly speculate much? From reading the material, the case they were complaining about was about explicitly punitive damages. The section cut out from the PROIP act was about treating individual copyright infringements rather than as compilation infringement (which, in itself, makes total sense). Two completely different things.
Seriously, we all know imaginary property doesn't exist and the laws are seriously corrupt and fubar. But sensationlism and hyperbole doesn't really help our case. But don't let that stand in the way of headlines.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ah, the irony.
To say "we all know" is hyperbole. And the phrase "imaginary property" is sensationalism.
I've yet to see any credible argument that intellectual property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties) is any more "imaginary" (or shall we say, any less real) than tangible property (a body of rights defined
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Intellectual property" is not the body of rights defined in law. Intellectual property is the subject of that body of rights. Just as real estate is the land, not the deed.
It's hard to see how a right to prevent othe
26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case (Score:5, Informative)
-the wholesale price per download is around 70 cents
-the expenses including royalties payable are around 35 cents
-therefore the profit per download is around 35 cents
-UMG & friends were awarded $9250 per song file
-9250 divided by
I.e., the Jammie Thomas award bore a ratio to actual damages of 26,428:1.
UMG contends anything more than 10:1 is unconstitutional.
Therefore the maximum permissible award in the Thomas case should have been:
24 songs x $3.50=
$84
Slight discrepancy there, 222,000 versus 84
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In Jammie's case, she's looking at statutory damages, not punitive, right?
I understand that the Supreme Court has already established guidelines regarding the constitutionality and proportionality of punitive damages. But have they done the same for statutory damages?
I'd think that is still a hurdle that needs to be overcome. Persona
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Just so you're aware: cost != loss of property. Loss of - whether it's peace of mind or potential sale, but not property!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Assholes (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
You ought to do some research before speaking (Score:3, Informative)