UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"

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."

Actually I wonder

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).

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:

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 u

Re:Actually I wonder

We'd call it wroshyyr's law, but no one could remember that. :P

Re:

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 what these guys [sco.com] did.

Re:Actually I wonder

Back when they were having their congressional pets write the law, they had no idea that it could ever be used against them.

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.

Re:Actually I wonder

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them.....

IANAL but I'd think that if even one person gets something like 13000 times the actual value for damages, then everybody who wants to sue them will ask for it too. It sets a precedent that they don't want to have to pay for. In fact, I expect that any week now someone's lawyer will come up with the right defense or technical argument to leave the **AA's legal strategy in tatters and they will then be open for multiple suits if not class action suits. With the growing volumes of legal opinion against them, it is only a matter of time until all judges are aware that the **AA legal team is operating on very thin legal ice.

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.

Re:Actually I wonder

Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages

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.

Re:Actually I wonder

Why are they against excessive damages?

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].

George Harrison was ordered to pay $587,000 to Bright Tunes Music (the owners of the song's copyright) in 1976, after a judge found him guilty of "subconscious" plagiarism of "He's So Fine" in regard to his 1971 hit "My Sweet Lord".[1] The Chiffons would later record "My Sweet Lord" to capitalize on the publicity generated by the lawsuit.

Modern copyright is so fucktarded that it's damned near impossible to write and perform a song without infringing someone's copyright.

Record Companies Owe ME !

I've been wondering how much certain record companies might owe me. They often sell live albums recorded when their artists have been on tour and these albums contain not only the protected intellectual property of the artist but also the protected intellectual property of the audience which they often use to fill in gaps between songs or fade in and out of the main song.

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 !

Read one of your tickets.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

You are indeed correct. However I own the copyright to the content thereof, and your recording would be a derivative work of my speaking. Without a license from me to reproduce that recording, your ownership of the recording is worthless to you. Its just like an artist who covers an already published song. They don't go to the studio or the original artists to get permission, they go back to the songwriters for permission.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

I've not been to a gig or concert in quite a long time, but I distinctly remember most (if not all) tickets having blurb on the back to the effect that you consent to being recorded and the recordings being used commercially, etc.

I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

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?

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

hunt out every single fan at a concert and ask permission to use their vocal performance on a live album

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'.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

I was at a concert recently where they were recording for future commercial purposes.

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 :)

The Laws

The laws (and associated penalties) apply to you, not us.

Yours truly,
Big Media(tm)

One standard for you, one standard for me...

You wish to engage in corporate hypocrisy:
>cancel
>allow

Wow...

...I never thought I would be rooting FOR an RIAA member in a copyright case.

Re:Wow...

Yeah, just remind them that if they DO win that they can't go back and ask for those insane damages again- you can't have your cake and eat it too; and neither should they.

If it's excessive for them, it's going to be excessive for whomever gets nailed by their shenanigans.

Wait a minute

What units are they using to make the comparison between the two cases? The 13,214 ratio is $damages/$song, while the 10 ratio is $damages/$song/number of copies. If they'd use the same $damages/$song ratio for Universal, the answer would be 5,000,000.

IANAL, but..

...isn't the UMG/Universal case worse? I mean, they were clearly using the unlicenced song for profit and an album version without it wasn't even available. Jammie Thomas, on the other hand, even it was true that she was sharing copyrighted songs, she wasn't profiting from it.

The Golden Rule

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

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.

wth editors

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.

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.

26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case

The way I figure it,
-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 .35=26,428.

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:Assholes

Well I'm pleased that they just got hit with a $107,834 [slashdot.org] attorneys fee award.