How RIAA Case Should Have Played Out 296
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "If a regular 'country lawyer' like myself had taken a case like the RIAA's in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset to court, he or she would have been laughed out of the courthouse. But when it's the RIAA suing, the plaintiffs are awarded a $1.92 million verdict for the infringement of $23.76 worth of song files. That's because RIAA litigation proceeds in a parallel universe, which on its face looks like litigation, but isn't. On my blog I fantasize as to how the trial would have ended had it taken place not in the 'parallel universe,' but in the real world of litigation. In that world, the case would have been dismissed. And if the Judge had submitted it to the jury instead of dismissing, and the jury had ruled in favor of the RIAA, the 'statutory damages' awarded would have been less than $18,000."
Re:I think you have it backwards (Score:2, Interesting)
No, see, you think of Ray as some sort of amazing lawyer, because he's popular around here. But he was wrong about this. Plain and simple. Lawyers from both sides, and judges, and juries, all looked at this case, and the conclusion was that she was in the wrong and had to pay. For him to claim that all those people did it wrong, and his conclusion must be the best... it's the height of arrogance (or maybe just a play for more views for his blog).
Ray's not an amazing lawyer but he's a good guy and has helped inform us on Slashdot more than once. What he did in this article is point out some rudimentary laws and facts that he thinks should have not only influenced the trial but changed the outcome drastically. I think this interesting and shows one of two things: 1) the RIAA is definitely in bed with the judicial system on many levels and/or 2) the emergence of a new technology can often have differing effects on certified lawyers and lawmakers upon its advent. In our case, we have the amazing thing that is the internet and while some people are using one set of archaic laws to deal with it and keep it under control, other peoples might use other archaic laws. Some might even go so far as to posit that no archaic laws have been made that fairly address the internet.
I think if you read Ray's posts, he may not be an amazing lawyer but he is a certified lawyer who is offering you a different professional view of the current state of things. I gotta admit, what he says makes a whole lot more than what I read about in the papers. $80,000 a song [slashdot.org] as an award in the latest trial? What?
One hell of a monopoly set (Score:4, Interesting)
From Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge:
> The newer (September 2008) editions have a total of $20,580
That wouldn't go far to pay off $1.9M. Perhaps if you had the most valuable set ever:
> The Guinness Book of World Records states that a set worth $2,000,000 and made of
> 23-carat gold, with rubies and sapphires atop the chimneys of the houses and hotels,
> is the most expensive Monopoly set ever produced.
but just barely!
Re:NYCL (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a company that makes blow-up car passengers to help scare off rapists. Do you really believe that they should rape people to make sure their product sells well, or do you think you might have forgotten about ethics somewhere along the line? ;)
Monday morning quarterbacking (Score:5, Interesting)
The blog post ignores the fact that a trial is a dynamic process. Had he made the arguments he lists, then RIAA lawyers would quite likely have countered them with appropriate arguments and evidence. For example:
Liability-Reproduction right
Plaintiffs failed to introduce an iota of evidence that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had made a single copy using Kazaa.
Result: directed verdict on reproduction right.
If he made that argument at trial, the RIAA would almost certainly have introduced evidence that bit-for-bit identical copies of the songs in question are available on Kazaa, that such an identical copy is unlikely to have occurred if she ripped the song herself, and that she didn't own the albums in question. Circumstantial evidence, perhaps, but probably enough to get the issue to the jury instead of a directed verdict.
Some of his statements are questionable as a matter of law:
The jury should have been instructed that a "work" is an album, and that multiple mp3's from one album constitutes a single "work".
There is not particularly strong precedent on this issue. Some courts have held that this is the case, it's true, but as best I can find they were only district courts and not in the same circuit as Minnesota (where the Thomas case was held), further diminishing their already merely persuasive authority. I do not believe there is any mandatory authority on this point for the District of Minnesota, which means that the RIAA lawyers may well have been successful in persuading the judge to adopt a one song, one work basis for calculating statutory damages.
Some of his statements sound impressive but wouldn't have made a difference:
The jury could have been instructed that no statutory damages could be awarded as to any work whose copyright registration effective date was subsequent to the date of defendant's commencement of use of Kazaa
A quick check at the US Copyright Registry of a random selection of the songs that Ms. Thomas infringed shows that they were registered many years ago, in some cases over a decade ago, and easily predated any infringement by Ms. Thomas.
Ultimately, this is about drumming up interest in his law firm and ad revenue from his blog, which Slashdot happily hands him about once a week or so. It also does a lot to poison the potential jury pool for future copyright litigation, which is of great interest to a lawyer who works those kinds of cases on the side of the defense. One should take everything Mr. Beckerman says about these issues with a grain of salt appropriate to the magnitude of his self-interest.
In short, this is nothing but Monday morning quarterbacking, and not particularly good quarterbacking at that. It should also tell one something that most of his legal arguments are not backed up by citations to relevant authorities.
I imagine a parallel universe sometimes, too (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sad to see this judgment turn out the way it did. But I can't help but wish Ray had reported with a little bit less spin. Every time he had a story submission, it was like it was a guaranteed fact that the RIAA was on the ropes and there was no way Thomas would lose. I understand the PR world and how you want to leave the overwhelming impression that there's no way you can lose because sometimes that actually helps you win. But I don't think the slashdot crowd was very well served. I would have liked a more neutral point of view where from time to time they said things like, "yes, this bit DOES suck but it's likely it will apply based on other court judgments."
I know Ray pointed out several things that he thought were just plain wrong, but I start feeling like I'm not sure if I'm reading the neutral factual opinion or the press release version. As it stands, the laws are pretty stacked against the way most of on slashdot wish it was. Until we get those changed, I see little hope for courtroom victories.
Advertise (Score:3, Interesting)
The first thing that comes to mind is that there are scads of advertisements from the MPAA and the RIAA that go to great lengths to equate copyright infringement with criminal theft (a very successful campaign I might point out based upon ignorant comments on this very website). What the world needs right now is not love, but balance. We're lacking *any* kind of counterpoint regarding consumer digital rights. I'd be thrilled to pieces to see one shred of advertisement (a billboard ad, paid ad time on network TV, etc.) that presented the opposition to the RIAA and the MPAA.
In short, if someone were to take the lead and head up a group that took funds from the public that were then used in a campaign of this sort, then I would be the first person in line to donate some cash.
I know, the EFF is *supposed* to be leading the charge on this, but I've seen not one physical manifestation of their efforts. Advertising on the Internet is cheap...but obviously not as effective as a commercial that equates stealing a car with downloading a song.
Anyone?
NYCL? Why not take up the cause directly? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure I am not alone in wondering why NYCL hasn't taken up the cause directly. It is a problem of venue or being licensed somewhere specific? If the case could be won "easily" then I have to wonder why it isn't being done?
Re:I think you have it backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
There are several issues that need to be determined.
First - suppose you run a store, and some kid comes in, steals a candy bar, and eats it. You call the law, you call the parents, everyone shows up. Most definitely, someone owes you SOMETHING. The candy bar has a street value of about a dollar. (Oddly, that's pretty close to the street value of a single soundtrack.) What do you demand as recompense? Most store owners don't want the dollar, because they are pissed off. Most store owners don't demand a million dollar payoff, either. Among other reasons, neither the parents, nor the cops, nor a judge, nor any jury is going to go along with such a thing.
So - what is reasonable? Personally, I make the KID pay for his candy bar, by working it off. Tell the parents that he can work in the store for a week, cleaning, mopping, or whatever, OR, you'll take the matter to court.
Compare that to RIAA. They want THOUSANDS of dollars for a ripped off song which has a similar street value to my candy bar. Do you not think that is preposterous? Do you not think that there are issues that need to be resolved here?
In my most honest opinion, Jammie owes the record companies a couple dollars to pay for her downloaded songs. She owes something in the way of punitive damages. 24 songs, at a buck apiece, is 24 bucks. Drawing on ancient tort law, let's treble the damages, so she now owes 72 bucks. If she had been offered this deal from the get-go, her conscience might have convinced her that 72 bucks was a good deal, and paid it.
Even if it goes to court, and a hard fought case goes to RIAA, no sane judge is going to award a million bucks. I invite you to check out your own court system in your own home town. First time offenders convicted of petty theft generally pay restitution, a small fine, court costs, and community service. If there is no lawyer involved, total cost is maybe $1500 bucks. Paying a lawyer in my home town would add 500 bucks to the bill, your mileage may differ.
Personally, as I've said, Jammy probably is guilty of something. But, guilty or not, the penalty has to be something within the realms of reason.
HOWEVER!!! Illegal evidence has never been admissable in a criminal court, nor should it be encouraged in a civil court. RIAA has a lot to answer for, regarding their "investigative" techniques. MediaSentry, among other things, has been shot so full of holes, it resembles the Titanic. Forensic evidence is never properly obtained, documented, or presented. The courts don't even seem to understand what all this evidence is SUPPOSED to mean, let alone examine it to determine if it's legal, and technically correct.
Bottom line, RIAA are a bunch of parasites who manage to get by because they shout "THIEF" more loudly than their victims can.
Let's put RIAA out of everyone's misery, then we might all get together to come up with some sane laws. Note, I don't even say "fair laws". For the sake of this argument, I only require "sane".
A fix for the world economy (Score:4, Interesting)
First, note that a single download is worth 3 and a third dead people. [apina.biz] Obviously something is a bit out of kilter here, but let's assume at this point that it is the valuation of dead people.
At $80,000 per song, I estimate the value of my hard drive at $1.8 BILLION dollars. Yes, billion with a B. By that logic, I should be able to copy my collection onto cheap external hard drives (Seagate's outlet store was just selling them for $25) and mail them out to five people. Those people would then pass on the billions of free dollars to five others, and so on, and so on, and so on... Just think about it, no more foreclosed homes, no more poverty, no more hunger!
What you say? It's imaginary money? But the judicial system just ruled it real!
ALL YOUR BASS ARE BELONG TO US.
Mal-2
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
I've started to wonder what the real value of "Jamie's playlist" really is.
Maybe some interested investigative journalist can find out how much money a British newspaper typically pays for the right to add a CD with say twenty similar songs to each single copy of their newspaper. Distribution of about one million. That is one million real copies, not one million imaginary copies.
Now I would say that if some newspaper made such a CD without permission, then we could take the customary rate, maybe double it, and that would be a fitting punishment for making a million copies. Now adjust that for the best estimate of the number of copies that were actually made of "Jamie's playlist".
Re:I imagine a parallel universe sometimes, too (Score:4, Interesting)
The major roadblock that I see is the RIAA has no evidence that she actually shared the files with anyone, other than mediasentry. Furthermore, it is extremely unlikely she knew that she was actually offering to share those files with anyone. Is she guilty of illegally copying music? Yes, probably so (but the RIAA should be required to show that!). Is she guilty of purposely distributing millions of songs? Probably not. Did she actually distribute those songs? Probably, since that's how Kazaa works (besides being something of malware), but probably not millions of copies, and she probably wasn't aware of what Kazaa was doing. She probably wasn't aware of the other bad things Kazaa was doing, either.
Re:I think you have it backwards (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary. It's a very good argument. If we were in the middle of a violent revolution, a nuclear holocaust, the aftermath of an asteroid impact, etc. in the U.S. and people were killing each other just to stay alive, it would be difficult to argue that one particular shooting deserved murder charges unless it involved killing some famous public official or something. It's not a question of how many times it has happened over time, but rather a question of whether the people committing the crime are a small enough minority that punishing them all is practical. If even a quarter of the population does something illegal, prosecuting them all is impractical, and prosecuting a few to "set an example" is unlikely to be effective. Thus, unless the goal is to make revenue (speeding tickets, catching tax cheats, etc.), it just doesn't make sense.
You Bet Your Life (Score:3, Interesting)
If you're ever on a jury in the United States, the legal system will wrongly try to convince you that they're either guilty or not guilty, but there is a third way: nullification or veto powers.
God.
This is dumb.
In a civil trial the jury makes a simple finding of fact for the plaintiff or defendant.
The entire process of a modern jury trial is intended to strip a case of its emotion. It doesn't always work that way, of course.
But Hearts and Flowers it ain't.
The juror will be typically be middle aged, middle class, small-C conservative.
In the federal system, the panel will more or less be a creation of the judge - and a judge almost by definition is a middle aged small-C conservative. He is looking for men and women who have come to do a job and not to play the system.
The size of the federal jury pool and the element of randomness in its selection does not favor the lone nullifier.
He probably won't get a case he gives a damn about. He almost certainly won't give a damn about you.
Nullification - of course - has always cut both ways.
The black American through almost the whole of our history could tell you that much.
But I have always been a little bit puzzled about why the geek thinks a jury will be any way inclined to throw a lifeline out to him.
The geek builds castles in the air. He whines. He wheedles. He lies like a rug. He could have settled this business quickly and cheaply and saved everyone a lot of trouble.
Re:RIAA (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.riaaradar.com/ [riaaradar.com]
[files]:
[pdf]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pdf [downhillbattle.org]
[MS Publisher]: http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/sticker.pub [downhillbattle.org]
^^ the above are formatted for Avery 5160 labels, but I in no way suggest you to do anything specific with those stickers. For educational purposes only, view what others have done here http://downhillbattle.org/riaa/ [downhillbattle.org]
Re:It isn't a parallel universe, sadly (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree about the cruelty inherent in the U.S. legal system, and in fact in U.S. culture. Unfortunately, telling Americans to grow a backbone will not help, as many Americans are convinced that it is only because they have backbones and love God that they can be sufficiently cruel to those whom they suspect of doing wrong, or at least of having done something they don't quite understand so it must have been very bad.
Trying to reason with these people is pointless, because after all they have been educated in American schools, which for the last 100 years have been actively involved in retarding intellectual growth. (This is absolutely true - the people who set up the system even wrote books about how they were going to prevent the children of the lower classes from becoming doctors and lawyers because there were already plenty of those.) Any reasoned argument is met with furrowed eyebrows and looks of suspicion, and the more "righteous" they are, the quicker you'd best walk away.
Re:Are the songs really worth that much? (Score:3, Interesting)
Nope. That's what baffles me about this. The jury found that she committed copyright infringement, but there was absolutely no evidence presented by the RIAA that showed she ever uploaded to anyone except MediaSentry. It makes no sense.
Actually, there was no showing that she uploaded anything to anyone, and their expert witness admitted as much under cross-examination.