DoJ Defends $1.92 Million RIAA Verdict 386
Death Metal points out a CNet report saying that the Justice Department has come out in favor of the $1.92 million verdict awarded to the RIAA in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Their support came in the form of a legal brief filed on Friday, which notes, "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed." It also says, "The Copyright Act's statutory damages provision serves both to compensate and deter. Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."
I am deterred (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen ex-RIAA attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department. President Obama assured us that rules were put into place to prevent this sort of activity, but apparently that doesn't matter. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that. Frankly, I think the Justice Department should have better things to occupy their time than civil lawsuits. That kind of bias ought to be considered malfeasance in office, or something else worthy of immediate dismissal. 1.92 million dollars for copyright violations by an individual? Now that's Justice for you. Personally, I've never believed that the law should be used to make examples out of people, no matter how distasteful their crimes. That simply breeds more disrespect for the law, which is something the RIAA is apparently unable to understand. They will continue to reap the rewards of that lack of understanding, regardless of what ultimately happens to Jammie Thomas.
What really goes on at DOJ, I can't say, but I will point out the following:
1. If President Obama's rules are being applied, the six or more ex-RIAA attorneys were recused from dealing with this case, and had nothing to do with the brief.
2. The brief's arguments are not dissimilar to the arguments made by the Bush administration when they filed their brief on this issue [ilrweb.com] (pdf) in 2007.
3. In the important Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings [beckermanlegal.com] case, the Solicitor General filed a brief which directly contravened [blogspot.com] the positions the RIAA's lawyers had taken in that very case. (See Slashdot discussion [slashdot.org].)
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:4, Interesting)
She is only responsible for the copies that people downloaded directly from her. Additional copies downloaded from those people are their responsibility, not hers.
So yeah, still an individual.
Aren't they required to? (Score:5, Interesting)
No deterrence, just a sign that the law is bad. (Score:5, Interesting)
If copyright law is so easily and repeatedly broken by tens to hundreds of millions of users, then that should be taken as a strong signal that this law is counter to the values of society and inherently anti-democratic.
Make the law fit reality, not the other way around.
Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed, but I don't agree that this is anywhere near reasonable. Realistically speaking, unless nobody else was seeding the same content, this person probably seeded only about ten or twenty copies each of 30 songs. The fact that they, in turn, made copies for other people is immaterial. One person cannot reasonably be held liable for the actions of another.
The retail cost of these songs, then, was likely about $300-600, but the effective value for legal purposes is a third of that ($100-200) because we're talking about revenue for the record companies, and that's what they would get after you subtract out the distributor and retailer overhead. The right fine for a first offense is probably the cost of the goods plus a $500 fine (paid to the government, NOT the record companies) and six months probation. Even the initially proposed settlement amount was absurdly more than is reasonable.
So in your fantasy world, someone who shoplifts a point-and-shoot digital camera should face a multi-million-dollar fine. That's more than a significant penalty. That's downright criminal.
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:1, Interesting)
It doesn't matter because she should only be responsible for what she did. If she allowed 107 people to download a song from her then should pay no more than 107 x $0.99 for that song.
What the third and fourth and nth generation P2Pers did is none of her concern and she can't in good conscience be fined for other people's actions.
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:1, Interesting)
I would point out that the on the internet everyone is on a level playing field and able to exercise choice. Publishers should take that into account before they publish a work on a medium that they dont have direct control over. The internet is not their personal store front, they are sharing their world with the rest of the human race hence not able to force people to act a certain way. It would be better if they found a way to work with what is instead of trying to change the internet into something that it isn't.
Letting go of control and finding ways to use this medium for the advantage of everyone is the only way to really benefit. Their will always be people who take with out paying, an their will always be people that want to support the efforts of others.
Re:DOJ asks court not to decide constitutional Q (Score:5, Interesting)
Confirmation that trolls cannot read. Please quote where NYCL said the proper fine was $.99 per song.
:) Thanks. I have no problem with the concept of statutory damages; I have been working with it for 35 years.
Thing is, as a matter of copyright law, the courts have consistently held that the statutory damages awarded must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages, must be "woven from the same bolt of cloth", and cannot be divorced from economic reality. Under that principle the judge should not have allowed the jury to come back with a verdict exceeding the statutory minimum of $750 per infringed "work". [p.s. 3 songs from 1 album = 1 work].
Then, as a matter of constitutional law, the verdict should have been struck down further to a number, consistent with the US Supreme Court's "due process" jurisprudence, which was less than 10 times the amount of the actual damages. Under that jurisprudence, UMG Recordings recently argued -- when it was a defendant in a Tennessee case -- that 10 times actual damage was unconstitional, and the Court agreed, concluding that the verdict could not exceed 2 times the actual damage.
It's a lottery, in reverse (Score:3, Interesting)
Deter? What makes them think it would deter anyone?
It's like a lottery, in reverse.
Download & benefit. Download & benefit. Download & benefit.
Multiply this my thousands... or millions.
And one poor, unlucky sod gets smacked with a fine for the same kind of money we see in lotteries.
Do the math. Do you feel lucky?
Hell, yeah.
Great, let's create more criminals! (Score:2, Interesting)
You are absolutely right that the fine is some life-ruining bullshit. If I was hit with a fine like that for an act that impacted society less than something that's actually dangerous, like reckless driving, then I think I'd be inclined to do everything in my power to deliver an equal amount of disruption to those who imposed the fine on me.
I have no doubts that individuals have chosen to disappear for far less than $2 million. Once someone is out of sight, there's a lot of nasty things they could attempt to do with little risk of being caught. That means that this decision not only damages the guilty individual, but could also potentially create a whole new set of problems for the RIAA, the government, and the general public.
Re:8th Amendment (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt8_user.html [cornell.edu]
Re:Artists aren't distributed by multiple labels (Score:3, Interesting)
If you like a particular artist, you have to buy that artist's work from their label. It's not like Walmart and Target where if you don't like the price of Coca-Cola at Walmart then you can just buy it at Target. If your favorite artist's work is locked up with DRM, which you want to avoid, your only choice is to violate the DMCA. Or you can violate copyright and download it for free. What other choice do you have? Download YouTube videos of someone doing a bad cover version of the songs you like? There is no other choice.
How about not buying anything at all? Will your life come to a sudden end if you cannot listen to a handful of tunes? Not buying that music, not listening to that music, is a choice as well. And it has the major advantages that (1) it is legal, and (2) it stops putting money in the pocket of the record companies, giving them less power to corrupt laws on a worldwide scale.
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:3, Interesting)
Legislation is not a popularity contest, nor should it ever be.
In general, art that becomes public domain becomes worthless to consumers. The value of art is virtually entirely derived from promotions. If there is no profit from promoting it, it goes unpromoted and vanishes from interest, most especially in the case of music. When music becomes public domain people will stop downloading or even listening to it, in favor of the big flashy new crap they see on MTV that people are getting sued and jailed for pirating.
The fundamental human trait at the heart of the music industry is not musical appreciation, it's vanity. The most valuable aspect of music to consumers is how it can shape how others perceive them. That, not the music itself, is what is being sold, and why people are buying it, and also why people are pirating it. It is frightfully expensive to create the demand for music, and those who do it successfully deserve to be rewarded for as long as the demand exists. Public domain kills that demand and devalues the music completely unnecessarily.
If that doesn't make sense to you, you have no business criticizing the law or how it is applied. If you disagree with it, you're in abject denial. Just look at the top-selling music in the world [top40-charts.com], it's almost all rap or dance, virtually devoid of musicality, but fraught with glamor and hype. It's more fashion show than music.
Re:Not exactly a surprise ... (Score:1, Interesting)
Yawn, I am not afraid of lawsuits, I have no assets they can take. So I keep giving my customers 20gig of MP3 when they ask and I am proud of it.
Oh, and I live where silly laws like these simply dont exist.
I reckon my MP3 collection is in tens and possible hundreds and thousand of PCs now, copied direct not downloaded.
I worked in the music industry for some years and anything that has a bad effect on the rotten bastards that run record companies is a good thing, and a great pleasure for me.
I make sure eveytime I read of the RIAA doing this another 10 copys are distributed. I have never paid a cent for any of it and I never will.
Fun days!
When the RIAA starts to behave ethically so will I.