RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download 305
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Informative)
"Yes your honor, we encode the bits into a 1 oz. gold coins and mail them to our other office where they are melted down and made into a plaque for this specific case"
Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
I guess the next question is to actually ask if these statutory damages are constitutional or not, which is being asked now. Really, what else is there?
Re:Am I the only one? (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever paid attention to all of those 10,000 page "free trade" treaties we keep signing? Almost every treaty has a provision regarding copyright. Generally each treaty requires stronger and stronger copyright provisions. If congress actually did come to their senses and balance copyright law, we would be in violation of tons of treaties and subject to massive economic sanctions.
Balanced copyrights will require a worldwide effort and support from the heads of state of dozens of countries...just to get started.
Re:This is really slow (Score:5, Informative)
2. It took us 6 months to get the revenue information. Now it's been 4 1/2 months so far to try and get the expense information.
Re:That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:5, Informative)
iRATE Radio will be relaunched soon (Score:5, Informative)
So if you find that iRATE doesn't work well for you today, give it a week or two and it should work much better.
More than 10 to 1 ratio of damages is improper (Score:5, Informative)
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:3, Informative)
no go (Score:2, Informative)
encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/ne/Negligence
but also are "Damages awarded in addition to actual damages when the defendant acted with recklessness, malice, or deceit."
https://www.legalexplorer.com/AM/Template.cfm [legalexplorer.com]
Punitive can be and are usually significantly higher than an infringement's monetary value because they are meant to PUNISH and DETER future infringement.
Even if the actual cost is revealed, the damages will not decrease. If anything, it is an opportunity for them to INCREASE the amount of statutory damages that they can collect.
They are not stupid, they are in more control of what happens than it may seem because they have control of the cases. If they come across someone who they think could possibly beat them or damage their cause, all that they have to do is simply drop the case from court. Conversely, because they are the ones filing the suits, they can hand pick the courts that they want to take their cases to. Thus allowing them to not only collect minuscule and essentially irrelevant monetary damages from the victims of their suits but simultaneously re-write copyright case law to their hearts content!
Re:Explicit encouragement of promotion? (Score:3, Informative)
Creative Commons has the Attribution-ShareAlike license. Which is sort of like the GPL for non-code.
There is also the Free Art License:
http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en/ [artlibre.org]
I put my stuff under CC BY-SA as well:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=%22drew%20Roberts%22 [archive.org]
And people use it:
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22Peter%20Rodgers%22 [archive.org]
http://www.archive.org/search.php?query=creator%3A%22drew%20Roberts%2C%20Thorsten%20Wilms%22 [archive.org]
Plus, a group of people on the Linux Audio Users mailing list is starting up to make music together under a CC BY-SA license.
Does that help you at all?
all the best,
drew
Re: 99 cents by 750 copies... (Score:2, Informative)
This is an interesting ruling to me because I guess the claim is that the RIAA companies are providing the music to some of the services at around seventy cents per download "wholesale", but we all know that their actual cost is much lower. Their cost was incurred by the production of the music and it's marketing, but the cost of downloading the music is born by the folks at each end of the wire, i.e. the person who shared the file and the person who downloaded it. The existence of the music on a shared drive doesn't even prove that a cost of downloading was incurred. So the rulings on this part of the trial are interesting in terms of not just this lawsuit but others which may follow.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:2, Informative)
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:3, Informative)