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."
$750 (Score:4, Interesting)
I've always been amazed by the gall they have quoting that number. What other type of copyright infringement can claim 757.6 times the value of the product as damages? When the SPA goes after companies using pirated commercial software they don't look at an old copy of Windows 98 and try claiming $8000 as damages, do they?
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:5, Interesting)
Thankfully their firm is downtown boston so tons of stupid companies go to them daily. These patent trolls are losing money quickly and it's great to see the RIAA is running into the same issue.
They need to update thier business model or face becoming extinct.
Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music (Score:5, Interesting)
You can find many other such artists, and free, legal music hosting sites in my article Links to Tens of Thousands of Legal Music Downloads [goingware.com].
This is really slow (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Interesting)
They were in a lose-lose situation before they started. Ignore the problem, and the copyright law is useless. Try to enforce your rights, and the legal protections degrade, as you observed.
Fighting the mob is very difficult — but they are trying. At least, a watered-down law may still be a law they may be able to enforce...
The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
Every time a story like this comes up I read as many comments as I can and think, "Well fuck, if it's this obvious to everyone here that what's happening is out of line and in some cases illegal, why can't that message be communicated more broadly?"
I have an extensive list of information I've been saving from Slashdot just on the off chance I ever get an RIAA letter in the mail (I d/l maybe an album per month, 90% of the time I buy it after listening). If I find myself facing one of these suits, I would immediately turn over to my lawyer everything I've compiled to be sure they're aware of what should be argued and what RIAA claims are total BS.
Is there an existing repository for information like this, or is it time people like us Slashdotters created one?
Can't scare New Yorkers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:The Slashdot crowd and the RIAA (Score:5, Interesting)
He is a second year student at USC (University of Southern California)
The attorney letter is from Holm Roberts & Owen LLP from their Denver office.
The school passed on the letter and when I called the school's Acting Litigation Manager - was told that the school would pass on student info if a lawsuit is filed and the school receives a subpoena.
To say I am disappointed at the school's passive position is an understatement. California has very strong laws requiring schools to protect the privacy of students - and if there should be legal action would be compelled to act in protecting student privacy.
Since the school has very strong ties with the recording / film industry, and the LA basin is full of attorneys and judges that are graduates, the lawyer I consulted suggested settling.
hummmm
That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:3, Interesting)
So their argument is, and I think quite reasonably, that the fines are just unconstitutional. Remember: Laws have to be legal too. Plenty of times in this country idiot legislators pass laws that are in contradiction to higher laws. Just because there is a statue setting damages at a minimum of $750 per song, doesn't make it right.
Punitive Damages and Unusual Punishment (Score:5, Interesting)
"statistical studies by law professors and the Department of Justice have found that punitive damages are only awarded in two percent of civil cases which go to trial, and that the median punitive damage award is between $38,000 and $50,000.[7]
In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."
If the song costs $1, and punitive damages of $749 are assessed, it's almost certainly unconstitutional. So why should it be legal statutorily?
Re:That's what is being asked, more or less (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Stay out of trouble by downloading legal music (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:$750 (Score:2, Interesting)
"The minimum should only apply to the complete fine, not each item. And then even $750 would make sense."
That's an interesting idea, but it's a bit like the flat tax: the large-scale pirates would get off easy, and the little guys would get the rough end. Can you imagine what the record labels might do if the law were changed so that the minimum statutory were $750 total? They might start suing college students with one song in their share directory. And, your hypothetical fellow distributing 10,000 songs might only be liable for a $750 fine.
I'd try the "small minimum, reasonable maximum" idea, but I'm no longer sure there's a legal solution that doesn't imply changing the copyright laws so they can't build any case they need, to break the punishing side.
Bittorrent and fair use? (Score:2, Interesting)
Torrents are made up of a bunch of little pieces. Could someone even prove that you actually had a substantial amount of a specific file if you were in a swarm of seeders? Could you claim fair use given the fact that you might only have a piece of a file in question? Just a thought...
Re:Punitive Damages and Unusual Punishment (Score:2, Interesting)
But I think a little critical thinking could topple that argument. It's easy to see that across a P2P system, the average number of times each copy of a song has been uploaded is 1. The number of uploads is by necessity exactly equal to the number of downloads. So in order for it to be plausible that the defendant uploaded a particular song 75 times, the defendant would have to be uploading that song *much* more than average. I don't think there's any evidence to prove that, though I might be wrong.
The RIAA might then argue that any uploading by the defendant was done with the expectation that the recipient would further upload the song to other people, and therefore uploads done by those people should factor in. Also, if this argument succeeded in reducing the damages, the RIAA would start collecting evidence on things like connection speed and uptime, and start suing people on fast pipes with 24/7 availability, using that as evidence that they uploaded more than average. There are plenty of those people to sue, and taking them out preferentially would kill P2P networks faster anyway.
Re:Wouldn't it be ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
for a song download cd for $5 and get a hard copy sent for $10 total. With album art !
software lets say a game , seed a torrent sell the cd key via email for $10 or $20 ! no cd needed in the drive.
movies $8 download $12 physical disc and $15 for Hd version your choice.
how about movies sent to a tivo or music to a tivo ? There are so many solutions but no one wants to use them because they would make less per sale.
It scales well. Business on the web are about bringing down costs. If you want the cd fine go to the store and get it for same cost as it would be to get it delivered.
They shouldn't be price fixing and they should learn to evolve with technology.
Re:oh don't worry.... (Score:1, Interesting)
Not that I believe this is a valid argument of course.
Prove the song was downloaded 750 times (Score:4, Interesting)
IANAL, but I can't think the courts would refuse to admit a methodologically sound series of independent experiments into evidence, whereby the experimenter seeds a number of files (of varying popularity) with unique, recognizable bitprints, then measures and documents their distribution. The RIAA probably holds the position that a filesharer is responsible not only for the direct downloads he generates, but for subsequent distribution of the file as well. 10 * 10 * 10 gets you over 750 pretty fast.
Admitting the study into evidence might make them have to adjust the damage amounts to consider each song's popularity, but it could conceivably justify an average of 750 copies in circulation * $0.99, over time.
Re:Prove the song was downloaded 750 times (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing "ironic" (Score:3, Interesting)
"Are we down to mob rule where if the mob doesn't want to pay then they don't have to?"
Yes. We've been there. Prior to 'now' there were physical restrictions in place holding the mob (or, general public) at bay from getting what they want for nothing (shoplifting laws and penalties, quality degradation from analog copies, etc.). Those restrictions have been largely removed. The legal threat is now akin to the speed limit. Once someone buys any one thing, and shares it, it will be available to everyone for nothing. No pricing scheme can defeat that. "come on, after you download it, buy the album/movie anyway, support the artist" is a lame attempt at rationalizing the freeloading. Soon, the entire music 'industry' will consist of charity donations to the artist from dedicated fans, while the majority get whatever they want for nothing. Something akin to 'abuse of the commons' will take over. Music for profit or as a viable career/industry will seriously diminish. Money will only be made through live performance, maybe songwriters could get money from licensing their songs to live performers, but recording music will likely go the way of long distance telephone rates.