RIAA Agrees To Take $200-Per-File In Texas Case 154
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a San Antonio, Texas case, Maverick v. Harper, in which a young woman was accused of having committed copyright infringement at the age of 16, the Judge denied the RIAA's summary judgment motion this summer, saying there were factual issues as to whether the defendant qualified for the 'innocent infringement' defense. He offered the record companies a way out, however, saying he would grant them a judgment if they agreed to take only $200 — as opposed to the $9,250 they sought from Jammie Thomas or the $750 they usually seek — per infringed recording. We have recently learned that, after the Judge denied the RIAA's reconsideration motion and scheduled a trial date, the RIAA filed papers agreeing to take the $200-per-recording amount. While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages, it's better than paying 26,000 times the actual damages, which is what the RIAA tried to squeeze out of Ms. Thomas."
This is a reversal of the RIAA's rejection of the $200 award per song last month.
She'll be fine. (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, the RIAA simply suggests you drop out of school [mit.edu] to pay your fine.
So in this case, I'm sure they'll suggest she not go to post-secondary school and spends her school savings to pay them.
This is why I haven't bought an RIAA registered CD since 2001, and won't. Douchebags.
http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com] ftw.
Justice system as a revenue stream (Score:3, Interesting)
What happens? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Judge can reason evidence, can he administer? (Score:2, Interesting)
Hey you foreign weirdo, this is the land of the fee and the home of the rave, and don't you forget it. Surely you are not suggesting that the MAFIAA ruin a perfectly good legal extortion scheme by being forced to prove actual damages? Why, that's un-American. Or un-CorporateAmerican, anyway. CorporateAmericans are a protected minority, the poor things have had such a rough time of it. Nobody likes them.
Appeal Appeal Appeal (Score:5, Interesting)
1: 600X actual damages is constitutionally excessive.
2: Attempted Distribution != Distribution. Or in other terms: Making Available != Distribution.
On a side note, while the judge seems like a nice guy here, he's a moron for buying the RIAA's line that while we can't prove she ever provided a file to anyone except our own hired, paid, and completely unlicensed investigators, she's guilty anyway.
Real question (Score:5, Interesting)
"While $200 is still about 600 times the amount of the actual damages"
And how do you know?
10 songs a CD, 15 dollars a CD, would equate to 1.50 a song. 600 times that would be... Wait, your using new math?
Seriously, how can someone come up with a dollar figure for copyright infringment.
I used to run a courier group. At one point, we where ranked #1 in the US, and ranked .eu fairly high, according to CWS, USCR, etc. (this is dating me).
I couldn't tell you how much damage our MP3 group did, per song. Neither can NYCL, neither can RIAA or any other entity, because you DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE LEECHED FROM HER, AND IN TURN, FROM THE ORIGINAL LEECHERS.
I haven't had a problem with the dollar figures they put out, simply because, YOU CAN'T QUANTIFY the dollar amounts, because nobody knows.
So, seriously, how can you be taken seriously, when you are spouting dollar figures as well that don't add up?
Serious question, NYCL. I want to know where your dollar figures came from and your percentages.... If only in case someday the past comes to haunt me :) lol.
--eighteen double zero
Re:What happens? (Score:5, Interesting)
$4.00 for infringement is more like it.... (Score:4, Interesting)
If the standard for judgment is actual damages plus treble damages, i.e $0.99 per song and $0.99 * 3 for damages, that's more like it.
While I don't mean to incite violence, but I'm really starting to think that "we the people" need to find a way to rid ourselves of these parasites who write the laws, pay the legislatures to pass the laws, pay the executive branch to sign the law, "influence" the judiciary to uphold the laws, and destroy the lives of defenseless citizens.
Sorry, but they suck, and they all need to be on a plane that crashes in the ocean.
Re:Real question (Score:1, Interesting)
Here is a long, unecessary post. If you disagree, good for you.
I would assume it would be based on actual cost, not based on sales price. Like any other cost of damages suit.
By the way, its $200 per infringement, which would be per song, not per cd. That would, under your theory, put the cost at $5 a cd, which sounds about right if you include such things as shipping, shrink, r&d, overhead (employee salaries, warehousing and such), cost of litigation, marketing, purchasing store sales space (yes, even if the cd can be purchased online).
To be fair, "making available" is not illegal. It is making available with the intent to distribute that the RIAA is obligated, on behalf of its shareholders, to fight back against. Distribution, however, is a legal gray area. To begin with, the artist has the contract for distribution, so the artist should be bringing forth distribution lawsuits, not the RIAA. The artist is contracting the RIAA to distribute, market, etc, exclusively. If you contract with an accountant to do your taxes, but then someone else does, you should sue your accountant. If you hire a caterer for your wedding, but on the big day a lesser caterer shows up, you sue your caterer. These distribution lawsuits are being brought against the wrong defendent. But what if I have purchased the item I am distributing? Of course I should be allowed to download and share with others who have also purchased. If I go on vacation and forget my toothbrush, my hotel will provide one for me. The cost is negligible, and it is not forseeable to the hotel that I am lying about staying there explicitly to get a toothbrush for free. Along the same lines, If I forget my cd when I go on vacation, why shouldn't I be able to download that cd? And in a sense of fairness, I should be able to distribute that same cd to someone else who has the right to it. Certainly, I will not go around assuming that people do not have the right to use a legal file sharing service, anymore than I will lower the volume of my xm radio account so that only I hear the music (unless one of my coworkers asks me to lower the volume because I am disturbing them).
If you would argue against this method, then you claim that purchase of music does not = ownership. In this case, people should outright steal from the RIAA. Honestly, if you can't own something through a purchase agreement (which cannot be determined whether it is purchase or lease until after money has exchanged hands, and right of return is known to be false), then you cannot show any damages for "theft" of that item. It isnt possible.
The total cost of distribution is a variable cost. As more people buy the product, the cost per item goes down. Especially since the cost of distribution depends on the method. It could be as high as $1 to ship a cd somewhere (using private mail labels, like fedex or UPS) or it could be about 10 cents for bandwidth costs (again, per album, not per song).
The RIAA knows exactly what they are doing in charging $20 for a new cd. They are propping up a false value to a marginal product. They keep the vast majority of the money. And it is their right to do so. It is your right to purchase or not purchase.
If you listen to music 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, and dont like repeating songs, then you most certainly cannot afford to buy RIAA music. Think for a minute here, you aren't entitled to do so.
Dont misunderstand, if you actually pay the $20 for your cd, you damn well better be able to use it however you want. If you want to put it on any music player, you should be able to do so. If you want to resell the item, in such a way that you no longer have access to it (under right of first sale), then by all means, sell it for what the market will give you. If you want to take your media with you to a friends house and let them listen to your music (but not burn a copy), then you are in the right to do so.
Personally I have an XM radio account. I can listen to whatever music they want to distribute, and I get access to
copyright infrigement != stealing (Score:3, Interesting)
Test your logic:
A. Stealing == mv(1). (as in: mv /riaa/somefile.mp3 /home/mycollection)
B. Infringing copyright == cp(1). (as in: cp /riaa/somefile.mp3 /home/mycollection)
C. mv(1) != cp(1). (because with mv, /riaa/somefile.mp3 is gone, while with cp, it's still there)
Ergo: Stealing != Infringing copyright.
Re:Real question (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's how you can put a dollar amount on things:
I'm a professional commercial photographer. I do advertising work, editorial (newspaper/magazine) and documentary work.
For an in-the-clear commercial infringement, I typically seek the cost of the shoot plus 5x the 'market rate' for the run of the photo; and any lawyers' fees I'm entitled to recoup.
Why? To get fairly compensated for what was taken from me, and to make it painful enough to the infringer (usually a company, occasionally a mom-and-pop publisher/advertiser) to realize that next time, they're better off paying market value than 'borrowing' someone else's work to make a buck.
But then, I'm not a parasite. I wouldn't sue you for downloading a picture and making it your desktop wallpaper. I would sue your ass off if you downloaded an image, and used it to sell your business, illustrate your book/publication or sell art prints of the same.
Technically, I would be legally in bounds to sue for infringement if the work appeared on your Web site under a lot (granted, not all) of circumstances. Most of the time, I don't care. Unless you're directly or indirectly profiting from having the work there, toss me a credit, link and an email asking permission.
Copyright is an act of moderation, and I firmly believe in letting the punishment fit the crime/infraction.