UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why would UMG, one of the four major RIAA members, consider an infringement award 'grossly excessive'? Naturally, because they were the ones ordered to pay it. While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs, they thought that being ordered to pay ten times the actual damages in Bridgeport v. Justin Combs was just too much. Then again, maybe that's why they didn't complain back when the increased statutory damages section was cut from the PRO-IP Act? Now if they could just cut the rest of the act."

Actually I wonder

[Opportunist]

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them (and some judges still have some semblance of sanity, so eventually they will hit one when they climb the judical ladder).

Their victims usually don't have the money to do the same. Though... should it ever hit me, before I hand over my life savings to them, I pump it into the courts. At least there it MIGHT somehow be used for good. After such a trial, you're broke and in debt for life anyway.

Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"

Re:

[johannesg]

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them (and some judges still have some semblance of sanity, so eventually they will hit one when they climb the judical ladder).

Don't your options run out after three tries (with the supreme court only rarely accepting cases anyway, so they cannot count on that)?

Their victims usually don't have the money to do the same. Though... should it ever hit me, before I hand over my life savings to them, I pump it into the courts. At least there it MIGHT somehow be used for good. After such a trial, you're broke and in debt for life anyway.

Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"

That's the mindset behind terrorism: people have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. So why not do something useful with your miserable life, and go and blow up some market or whatever to punish the infidels? Any solution for the middle east should somehow take this into account...

Re:

[electrictroy]

That's true.

- You lose a case.
- You file an appeal at the local level.
- You file an appeal to the State Supreme Court.
- You file an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court (which as you stated, rarely takes cases).

There's a limit to how much taxpayer money you can waste in court. You only get so many times before a judge, and then you're done. The verdict is rendered.

Re:

[DustyShadow]

For copyright cases, there is no state court involvement. So the path would be: 1. Federal District Court (trial); 2. Appeal to the Federal Circuit Court; 3. Appeal to the Supreme Court.

Re:

[Opportunist]

And how many law abiding people have the money to survive those trials, financially? Don't forget that as long as an appeal is pending, the verdict is usually pending as well, meaning you don't get a cent. Your lawyer(s), though, want his or their money.

So you get a worthless title giving you a bazillion bucks. And of course an appeal that will drag out for a year or a decade. And you get a settlement offer for a few crumbs compared to the cake. Question for 500: How many will take it and how many have the

Re:

[k33l0r]

You're likening fighting RIAA lawyers (purely in a figurative sense) to terrorism? In the fourth comment in this thread?

How long until somebody invokes brings up the Hitler and Nazi comparisons? Godwin's law for anybody?

Re:

[wroshyyr]

I propose a Section 2 to Godwin's Law which get's invoked when someone mentions 9/11, terrorism, or the middle east.

Re:Actually I wonder

[Ahnteis]

We'd call it wroshyyr's law, but no one could remember that. :P

Re:

[Opportunist]

That's the mindset behind terrorism: people have nothing, and therefore have nothing to lose. So why not do something useful with your miserable life, and go and blow up some market or whatever to punish the infidels? Any solution for the middle east should somehow take this into account...

ANY solution for social problems should take that into account. No amount of force or surveillance has ever stopped a revolution from happening. Paris in 1789 was not unlike a police state, czarist Russia was one of the t

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Mostly because I would be worried about accidentally taking out the mail man and/or janitor.

Re:

[Opportunist]

In today's language I think the appropriate term is "collateral damage".

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"

That's what these guys [sco.com] did.

Re:

[Maxo-Texas]

It's interesting that people would consider killing for songs and movies rather than not download them or forgo purchasing them for 12-15 months until they are reasonably priced.

How would the record industry react if people started freaking out for real?
How would the government react?

I think creating that environment is bad for our children and grandchildren.

However, the creeping oligarchy is bad too.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Killing for songs? Nah. Nothing worth killing for being produced today. Killing for having my future destroyed? Oh, revenge can be a mighty motivator. At the very least, I'd try to adjust the crime to suit the verdict.

Re:

[c]

> Honestly, I wonder why nobody followed the thought train of "Hmm... my
> life's wasted now anyway. Why not blow up the joint and go out with a bang?"

That's a good point, seeing as how the large media companies say they're only
suing the most hardened criminals. Surely those mafioso grandmothers would know that
it's cheaper to hire a hitman or two than to fight a court battle? And a hardcore,
meth-addicted welfare mother would have access to heavy weapons, right?

c.

Re:Actually I wonder

[Tridus]

Back when they were having their congressional pets write the law, they had no idea that it could ever be used against them.

Suddenly realizing that they might have to pay these things causes the appeal to wane.

Its similar to software patents. Lots of big software companies were in favor of the patents until small patent troll companies started filing lawsuits against them for pretty much every new product.

Re:Actually I wonder

[zappepcs]

Why are they against excessive damages? They can easily afford going into revision again and again until a judge agrees with them.....

IANAL but I'd think that if even one person gets something like 13000 times the actual value for damages, then everybody who wants to sue them will ask for it too. It sets a precedent that they don't want to have to pay for. In fact, I expect that any week now someone's lawyer will come up with the right defense or technical argument to leave the **AA's legal strategy in tatters and they will then be open for multiple suits if not class action suits. With the growing volumes of legal opinion against them, it is only a matter of time until all judges are aware that the **AA legal team is operating on very thin legal ice.

Yes, they have been successful thus far using very shaky technical experts and such, but that will fall apart quickly, and I'm betting that ISP cooperation with P2P makers and their arguments for throttling P2P traffic will remove all doubt as to the illegal nature of the **AA suits. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so the saying goes. I believe a couple of really sound, well placed offensive legal suits will put the **AA on defense to the point that they will be spending hundreds of millions trying to cover their tracks, and slowly their legal team will be dismissed and forgotten.

Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages. The school teacher in Russia that got sued for illegal copies of Windows is another example of wrong doing by well meaning laws, so the problem is not just the **AA. The DMCA and it's precedents seem to set the pace of wrong doing. We have seen the DMCA used against large corp. entities already, and in wrong ways. It is things like this that will lead to the halt of the **AA legal teams. As more technical knowledge is handed to the general public and, more importantly the legal system, their strategy will disappear.

We know that they basically have to flout the law to get your IP address/name connection and that will be shown. The legal system is slow and not all argument is germane to all cases, but it will happen. We need something like watergate to be uncovered so that their righteous position is removed, then all will sort itself out. They are a dying industry and are fighting death with all that they have. Even those resources are not inexhaustible. Several music groups are actually seeing no benefit in letting the RIAA continue their legal antics. Look at how much artists were paid from the Napster winnings.... zero! The cost of those legal teams is quite high, and they really aren't seeing anything from it. Every time they do anything it hits the news and more people see what asshats they really are. Bad PR is costing them quite a bit of money and I expect that we'll see it mentioned in upcoming financial reports. Loss of revenues eventually has to be blamed on market forces and those market forces are affected by bad PR.

It's a slow process, but losing badly in court sets the precedent that will speed it up. This is what the death bed of the RIAA looks like. To see more Google for SCO or just pop on over to Groklaw.

Non-obligatory bashing: MS is in a similar position but trying hard not to bleed out before the doctor gets out to the house to see how bad it is.

This is the way of business. Some folks just make bad decisions and the company and consumers have to live with it until things change a little at a time. The mere fact that they believe the award to be too high is a signal that I'm right. Of course they have to say that to continue to bolster their own position. The trouble is that they are now looking at what the hard place and the rock to see what they actually look like from a short distance. I imagine it will get a bit messier before it starts looking better. It will take a few more awards against them first.

Re:Actually I wonder

[CaptainZapp]

Technically, Sony's rootkit should have brought entirely more damages

Actually this stint should have landed Thomas Hesse [wikipedia.org] and some of his senior management SonyBMG cronies in the slammer for an extended stay.

The same, which would have happened to a pimply faced teenager from Iowa if he would have dared to pull a comparable stint and would have been rightfully convicted as a computer criminal.

It mystifies me until today how those douchebags got away that cheaply.

Re:

[Opportunist]

The pimple faced teen doesn't hold a few jobs in your country hostage. You know "Well, it would be a shame if we had to close that plant and rebuild it in China, because our head manager is in jail..."

Re:

[ultranova]

It mystifies me until today how those douchebags got away that cheaply.

Aristocrats aren't subject to the same laws as commoners. Hesse is an aristocrat, the pimple-faced teen is a commoner. That these positions are not formally encoded in law by those names does not make them any less real now than in the Dark Ages.

Regexp craptitiousness

[mdm42]

Actually that's not **AA, but ??AA or, even better, (MP|RI)AA though I suppose I would allow [MR][PI]AA to pass...

Re:

[Opportunist]

I think they should fusion. The "Music And FIlm Association of America" has a certain ring to it, don't you think?

Re:

[monxrtr]

You mean the Music And Film Industry Association of America.

Re:

[Opportunist]

Yes, of course. I noticed as soon as I hit the submit button.

Re:Actually I wonder

[sm62704]

Why are they against excessive damages?

because Howlin' Wolf's label can (and did) sucessfully sue ZZ Top for the "how how how how" in La Grange, and george Harrison's label can be sued by the Chiffon's label for using the same three notes Ronald Mack used in "He's So Fine" [wikipedia.org].

George Harrison was ordered to pay $587,000 to Bright Tunes Music (the owners of the song's copyright) in 1976, after a judge found him guilty of "subconscious" plagiarism of "He's So Fine" in regard to his 1971 hit "My Sweet Lord".[1] The Chiffons would later record "My Sweet Lord" to capitalize on the publicity generated by the lawsuit.

Modern copyright is so fucktarded that it's damned near impossible to write and perform a song without infringing someone's copyright.

Re:

[halcyon1234]

Modern copyright is so fucktarded that it's damned near impossible to write and perform a song without infringing someone's copyright.

The Ongoing History of New Music [ongoinghistory.com] did a good show about this, called "Plagiarism or Unfortunate Cosmic Coincidence?". They're the 2nd and 3rd entry down the list. Worth a listen to.

Re:

[NotBornYesterday]

John Fogerty's old CCR songs ended up the property of Saul Zaentz [wikipedia.org], who later sued Fogerty for sounding too much like his old self.

Record Companies Owe ME !

[CmdrGravy]

I've been wondering how much certain record companies might owe me. They often sell live albums recorded when their artists have been on tour and these albums contain not only the protected intellectual property of the artist but also the protected intellectual property of the audience which they often use to fill in gaps between songs or fade in and out of the main song.

Now I have attended some of these concerts which were later either televised or recorded and these recordings do contain my own work, mainly rythmic clapping and shouting but as yet I have to see a single penny from any of the record companies who, it seems to me, are intent on taking my own work and using it to sell records without paying me for any of the performance and composition rights I am owed.

If any lawyers would be like to comment and let me know how best to approach the companies in question with a view to getting my due royalties I would appreciate it.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

If any lawyers would be like to comment and let me know how best to approach the companies in question with a view to getting my due royalties I would appreciate it.

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording.

Next, -- wait, what do you mean you didn't sign a contract?

Oh well, too bad for you then.

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

Re:

[Keyper7]

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording. Next, -- wait, what do you mean you didn't sign a contract?

He didn't sign a contract giving them rights to record his participation and profiting from it, either.

Re:

[Carewolf]

If you haven't signed a contract it just means the record company is not allowed to use your performance at all. The only question here is if clapping is considered a performance, if it is worth anything, and if the recording doesn't fall within fair use.

Re:

[Compholio]

If you haven't signed a contract it just means the record company is not allowed to use your performance at all. The only question here is if clapping is considered a performance, if it is worth anything, and if the recording doesn't fall within fair use.

In some states (California is the big one I remember from going to some conferences) they can't even use a picture of you unless you sign a contract.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Tim C]

I've not been to a gig or concert in quite a long time, but I distinctly remember most (if not all) tickets having blurb on the back to the effect that you consent to being recorded and the recordings being used commercially, etc.

I don't know if that would hold water, but next time you buy a ticket check it and/or the conditions of sale.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[DannyO152]

You are absolutely correct.

I was at a Rockpile show at the Hollywood Palladium in the late 70s and Bob Ezrin got on stage and said he wanted to record us cheering for an upcoming Pink Floyd recording. So, I've put "The Wall" on my discography. Is that wrong?

Informed Consent

[Cassini2]

Those conditions might not be prominently displayed before the ticket has been purchased. As such, one would wonder if the consent was properly given. Further, TicketMaster also has some language that they will not accept a return of the ticket. The same legal arguments that can be used to invalidate shrink wrapped EULA's would apply here as well. Essentially, you can't sell something to a customer with fine print locked inside that says: "If you open this, you agree to sell your house to me in exchange

Re:

[m.ducharme]

Two words for you:

audience singalong.

Now that would be fun, watching a record label hunt out every single fan at a concert and ask permission to use their vocal performance on a live album, and negotiate royalties for same.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording.

You don't need one. In all countries who signed the Berne Convention or the WIPO Treaty, copyright is implied from the date of publication. Royalties can be ordered to be paid retroactively by a court of law in cases of copyright infringement.

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

Only if I grant you permission to

Re:

[maxume]

Tickets usually say something like "by entering the venue, you agree blah blah blah".

Of course, the blah blah blah is a bunch of language explaining how you don't have any rights and that you grant a worldwide license, etc.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

Of course, the blah blah blah is a bunch of language explaining how you don't have any rights and that you grant a worldwide license, etc.

Such "agreements" are usually held to be unenforceable, since there was no meeting of the minds, you never signed anything, etc. It's like those signs at skating rinks, etc., that say "at your own risk" or "you waive all liability", etc. You can't sign away your rights involuntarily.

Re:

[maxume]

Entering the venue is usually pretty voluntary. They probably even disclose the terms prior to purchase.

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

Have you ever been to a concert that was or might be recorded? They typically don't, they just rely on the generic crap on the ticket.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Samalie]

I was at a concert recently where they were recording for future commercial purposes.

As well as there being a clause on the back of the ticket (enforceable or not) there were signs at the enterence stating "Tonights performance is being recorded for the future production of a live DVD. By entering this arena, you grant license to to use your image, likeness, blah blah blah. If you do not consent to these terms, please see X person at Y gate for a full refund of your ticket."

Seemed pretty clear-cut to me, and yes I went :)

Re:

[monxrtr]

Also note that if he indeed did factually have a case, there would be no statute of limitations applicable to his lawsuit, even though the civil damages event originally occurred (or perhaps "began" is the better complaint word) over 20 years ago, because copyright protection is ongoing for his lifetime plus 70 years. Perhaps just a cease and desist of the sale of that work would suffice or an injunction against the sale of any live concert until his crowd contribution is removed (along with the statutory c

Re:

[maxume]

It depends on what you consider disclosure. If they post the agreement that they consider the ticket to be issued under and make it fairly clear that the agreement exists, they have a pretty good argument for disclosure, even if they don't shove it in your face and make you sign something stating that you have read and understood the terms.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[Ares]

By the way, if I make a recording of you speaking, guess who owns the copyright to that recording? Hint: it's not you.

You are indeed correct. However I own the copyright to the content thereof, and your recording would be a derivative work of my speaking. Without a license from me to reproduce that recording, your ownership of the recording is worthless to you. Its just like an artist who covers an already published song. They don't go to the studio or the original artists to get permission, they go back to the songwriters for permission.

Re:

[d34thm0nk3y]

You are indeed correct. However I own the copyright to the content thereof, and your recording would be a derivative work of my speaking.

That is incorrect. Copyright only covers fixed media so your speaking is not copyrighted until it is fixed, in this case onto tape or something. Now, if you were reading from a published manuscript that would be different and would cover your example of the original songwriter.

Re:

[MarkGriz]

First, dig up your copy of the contract you signed granting you royalties for your participation in the recording

I know the OP was just being funny, but he probably DOES have the contract, which specifically waives any rights he claims.
It's most likely on the back side of the concert ticket has has framed and hanging above the fireplace.

Re:

[tacet]

you'll get sued for public performance of copyrighted work.

Re:Record Companies Owe ME !

[maxume]

Read one of your tickets.

Re:

[Talderas]

How could a ticket hold up in court if the contract is printed on the backside of the ticket? You're being required to pay for something without being able to read the fine text. So unless the location selling tickets makes a note that there is a contractual agreement when you purchase a ticket and provides a copy of that contract before you purchase the ticket, how can it be considered a valid contract?

Re:

[maxume]

You think that they don't have sufficient notice at the ticket sale location? Sure they do, because they have lawyers who tell them to do stuff like that.

Re:

[struppi]

Copyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it [wikipedia.org]

The key words in here are original work. Are you sure your rhythmic clapping to someone elses song is an origninal work, worth of protection? Probably not. That's why they might owe you... nothing.

Re:

[monxrtr]

How is a work "original" if it incorporates a public domain word into the lyrics, incorporates a note previously played, or incorporates a previously played chord progression?

So is it a new "original" work if I rap over a copyrighted song, adding new words?

Define original, as it pertains to copyright, citing law, cases, and theory. You have 1 hour to complete your post. This post will account for 100% of your moderation.

Re:

[Spy der Mann]

I'm sure the concert tickets have a fine print stating "By purchasing this ticket, you agree to let yourself be recorded and/or filmed without retaining any royalties.... blablabla".

The Laws

[whisper_jeff]

The laws (and associated penalties) apply to you, not us.

Yours truly,
Big Media(tm)

Re:

[morgan_greywolf]

The laws (and associated penalties) apply to you, not us.

Dear Big Media,

If you think you're going to ever get a dime out of my pocket, you can kiss my ass.

Thanks,
MG

Re:

[MrNaz]

Dear Morgan Greywolf,
If you think we care about individual customers, then you're grossly mistakien. It's the masses of sheep-customers that allow us to fuck individuals like you in the ass.
Regards,
- Big Media
P.S., We get your money anyway, your tax dollars fund our forays in the courts. Please come to our offices, and we will have an intern kiss your ass on our behalf.

One standard for you, one standard for me...

[GBC]

You wish to engage in corporate hypocrisy:
>cancel
>allow

Wow...

[Darundal]

...I never thought I would be rooting FOR an RIAA member in a copyright case.

Re:Wow...

[Svartalf]

Yeah, just remind them that if they DO win that they can't go back and ask for those insane damages again- you can't have your cake and eat it too; and neither should they.

If it's excessive for them, it's going to be excessive for whomever gets nailed by their shenanigans.

Wait a minute

[Anonymous Coward]

What units are they using to make the comparison between the two cases? The 13,214 ratio is $damages/$song, while the 10 ratio is $damages/$song/number of copies. If they'd use the same $damages/$song ratio for Universal, the answer would be 5,000,000.

IANAL, but..

[Keyper7]

...isn't the UMG/Universal case worse? I mean, they were clearly using the unlicenced song for profit and an album version without it wasn't even available. Jammie Thomas, on the other hand, even it was true that she was sharing copyrighted songs, she wasn't profiting from it.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

..isn't the UMG/Universal case worse? I mean, they were clearly using the unlicenced song for profit and an album version without it wasn't even available. Jammie Thomas, on the other hand, even it was true that she was sharing copyrighted songs, she wasn't profiting from it.

Yes indeed it was much worse. They are contemptible hypocrites.

Re:

[Kierthos]

Yes indeed it was much worse. They are contemptible hypocrites.

Which should not really come as a shock to anyone who has been paying attention to the various shenanigans put on by the RIAA, including, but not limited to: Suing children, suing dead people, suing people who barely know how to use computers, suing people who don't even own computers, the "work for hire" controversy, price fixing, fudging the stats on piracy numbers, and possibly not using licensed investigators in their attempts to prove that

Re:

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything preventing someone who is ordered to pay up to the RIAA to appeal and quote verbatim from UMG's arguments in this case in their appeal? I seem to remember something about court filings being part of the public record and therefore not copyrightable, but I figured I'd ask a real lawyer. That would certainly make things interesting, as you'd basically be forcing the RIAA to argue against one of their member's statements.

Of course, knowing the RIAA, they'd try to find

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

As TechDirt observed, this brief will come back to haunt them many times.

The Golden Rule

[southpolesammy]

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Well, ok. Technically, the rules aren't being made here, but this is just another example of the perversion of justice that exists among the elite in America. By and large, the America's "upper class", which include the wealthy, the politicians, celebrities, athletes, and corporations, aren't subject to the same blind justice as everyone else in this country.

If you have money and/or power, you have a way out.

Re:

[gstoddart]

Well, ok. Technically, the rules aren't being made here

I would disagree with this (though, not generally what you're saying).

Getting courts to uphold your position becomes the law of the land. Between lobbying to get the laws passed in the first place, and getting court rulings which support the idea we pay thousands per song and they pay nothing .... they are absolutely establishing the 'rules' by which we all have to play.

Unfortunately, the rules are heavily stacked in their favor. :(

Cheers

Re:

[Lunarsight]

"He who has the gold, makes the rules."

Right, so the answer to weakening UMG considerably is to take away their gold.

In order to do that, one must ask themselves where UMG gets their gold from, and if there's anything that can be done to cause the goldpile to atrophy.

We all know the answer to that ------->

No album sales = smaller pile of gold.

wth editors

[visible.frylock]

Then again, maybe that's why they didn't complain back when the increased statutory damages section was cut from the PRO-IP Act? Now if they could just cut the rest of the act.

Wildly speculate much? From reading the material, the case they were complaining about was about explicitly punitive damages. The section cut out from the PROIP act was about treating individual copyright infringements rather than as compilation infringement (which, in itself, makes total sense). Two completely different things.

Seriously, we all know imaginary property doesn't exist and the laws are seriously corrupt and fubar. But sensationlism and hyperbole doesn't really help our case. But don't let that stand in the way of headlines.

Re:

[mea37]

Seriously, we all know imaginary property doesn't exist and the laws are seriously corrupt and fubar. But sensationlism and hyperbole doesn't really help our case.

Ah, the irony.

To say "we all know" is hyperbole. And the phrase "imaginary property" is sensationalism.

I've yet to see any credible argument that intellectual property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties) is any more "imaginary" (or shall we say, any less real) than tangible property (a body of rights defined

Re:

[russotto]

I've yet to see any credible argument that intellectual property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties) is any more "imaginary" (or shall we say, any less real) than tangible property (a body of rights defined in law with specific protections and penalties).

"Intellectual property" is not the body of rights defined in law. Intellectual property is the subject of that body of rights. Just as real estate is the land, not the deed.

It's hard to see how a right to prevent othe

Re:

[mea37]

"Intellectual property" is not the body of rights defined in law. Intellectual property is the subject of that body of rights. Just as real estate is the land, not the deed.

Real estate is the land. The concept of real estate as "property" is a legal construct -- a body of rights defined in law. As is all property. That's what property is.

The land, the house, the various items of chattel in the house... these can all exist independent of any concept of property or ownership. That's not to say that they s

You're confusing property rights with property.

[Xenographic]

> The land, the house, the various items of chattel in the house... these can all exist independent of any concept of property or ownership. That's not to say that they should, but they can. They are not inherantly property. The law makes them property.

Yes, they are inherently property because I can guard them, I can take them back when someone takes them from me, and I can transfer them. The only part of IP that's in any sense property are the rights themselves, NOT the work they "protect"!

So we really

Re:

[mea37]

A line of non-sequitars is not a proof.

I can guard and take things that aren't mine, too. That has nothing to do with their status as property.

You can "transfer" land? The only interpretation where that makes sense -- "transfer ownership" -- is circular, because "own" is a concept of property (which is to say, a concept of law). Laws make it property, and laws provide for how to transfer it. Property, ownership, and transfer are all concepts of law, nothing more.

(And, by the way, I can transfer copyrigh

Just because you CAN call it 'property' ...

[Xenographic]

You're ignoring the reasons WHY land is property. Because of the inherent rivalrousness (which was the point of all the examples you called "non sequiters" after misunderstanding them).

With IP, only the rights themselves are rivalrous. The actual underlying idea is not. You can take a copyright away from someone, but you can't take an idea away from them.

So thinking of IP in terms of "property" is dangerous because it simply doesn't work that way. It's not that I disagree that the law can make any damn

Re:

[mea37]

"You're ignoring the reasons WHY land is property."

I'm not ignoring anything. In fact, it's an ironic thing to charge, since you still haven't even tried addressing my argument.

"the point of all the examples you called "non sequiters" after misunderstanding them"

That they do not lead me to your conclusions, does not mean that I misunderstood them. I reached different conclusions because I find your reasoning to be incorrect.

"With IP, only the rights themselves are rivalrous. The actual underlying idea is

Then I shall confront those issues head on.

[Xenographic]

> That is no more or less correct, than the statement "With land, only the rights themselves (to use or occupy the land) are rivalrous. The actual underlying land is not." The only thing different is how accustomed you are to the relationship between the land and the rights, as opposed to the relationship between the music (or other protected item) and the rights.

That's ridiculous! You can't say that the underlying land is non-rivalrous, because we can't possibly both build a house on exactly the same s

Re:

[mea37]

You are still just repeating yourself without actually addressing my arguments.

"That's ridiculous! You can't say that the underlying land is non-rivalrous, because we can't possibly both build a house on exactly the same spot, nor do anything else."

I guess you didn't notice how when you mentioned something we can't both do, you started talking about rights to use the land, not the land itself.

"There's no real difference between an idea and using it, because ideas that are never communicated to others in som

Wall? You have me thinking of Platonic solids...

[Xenographic]

> I guess you didn't notice how when you mentioned something we can't both do, you started talking about rights to use the land, not the land itself.

Wait. So you're saying that we can use the land itself to build two houses on the same spot? That's beyond incoherent. Imagine there are no land rights whatsoever. How do we BOTH use the same land?

> Air to breath is there without being created by someone. Music to distribute is not.

You evaded that point nicely. The point was that we have little need

Re:

[visible.frylock]

Correct, although it's hyperbole in jest. And in the context of this readership that should be understood. The real difference is that I'd never put something like that in an article submission.

Re:

[mea37]

Meh. Fair enough.

Re:

[MrNaz]

That's because nobody is arguing that there should be no such this as intellectual property, just that the conception of it today is totally broken.

People and organisations should have the fruit of their efforts, artists should be paid and their work attributed to them, electronics manufacturers should not have to compete with clones that don't need to recoup substantial development costs, web designers should be able to publish without their work being ripped off by rival designers, software writers should

Re:

[mea37]

That's because nobody is arguing that there should be no such this as intellectual property

Nobody is arguing it? Maybe it's not what you would argue, but before you talk about "nobody", you should have a look at russotto's argument [slashdot.org] on the matter. He (or she) certainly doesn't seem to think the concept should exist.

Re:

[nyet]

A temporary monopoly is not property

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

But hyperbole is the best thing EVER!

So....

[Anonymous Coward]

You admit that there were "actual costs..."

"While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs,..."

I guess that settles the argument about whether "sharing" is theft or not.

Re:

[Skye16]

Costing someone something and stealing something from them are different. After all, I may upset you so badly from a bad breakup that it costs you a few thousand dollars in bills for seeing a therapist. You're going to be hard pressed to find any court that awards you damages for "theft of sanity".

Just so you're aware: cost != loss of property. Loss of - whether it's peace of mind or potential sale, but not property!

Re:

[L4t3r4lu5]

You've not been to America, have you...?

Re:

[DragonTHC]

we know where the real theft is. forcing someone to pay thirteen thousand times its value is theft.

I haven't purchased a Cd in years...

[Il128]

As long as the RIAA continues to cry like babies when they violate laws they themselves wrote and go crazy on customers they can .sevlesmeht kcuf og

26,428 times actual costs in Thomas case

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The way I figure it,
-the wholesale price per download is around 70 cents
-the expenses including royalties payable are around 35 cents
-therefore the profit per download is around 35 cents
-UMG & friends were awarded $9250 per song file
-9250 divided by .35=26,428.

I.e., the Jammie Thomas award bore a ratio to actual damages of 26,428:1.

UMG contends anything more than 10:1 is unconstitutional.

Therefore the maximum permissible award in the Thomas case should have been:

24 songs x $3.50=

$84

Slight discrepancy there, 222,000 versus 84

Re:

[slcdb]

Just looking for clarification here... after reading part of the appeals court's opinion, wasn't UMG et. al. arguing that it was the punitive damages that were unconstitutional?

In Jammie's case, she's looking at statutory damages, not punitive, right?

I understand that the Supreme Court has already established guidelines regarding the constitutionality and proportionality of punitive damages. But have they done the same for statutory damages?

I'd think that is still a hurdle that needs to be overcome. Persona

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

If you read the briefs in UMG v. Lindor [blogspot.com] you'll see judicial authority and scholarly authority for the view that the punitive damages due process analysis should be applied to statutory damages analysis, particularly in the area of p2p file sharing.

They're All Thieves

[Nom du Keyboard]

They're all thieves, and I hope they eat each other to death.

Re:

[Devout_IPUite]

I think the world would be a much better place without them.

Re:Assholes

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Well I'm pleased that they just got hit with a $107,834 [slashdot.org] attorneys fee award.

You ought to do some research before speaking

[BLKMGK]

Suggest you seek more facts on the McDonalds case. Like for instance the fact that the coffee served by that establishment was significantly hotter than that served by all of the surrounding establishments by a significant amount and that McDonalds had received more than 700 complaints of injuries across their chain. The temperature was some 50 degrees hotter than a normal home coffee pot would serve it at. You might also learn that the woman simply wanted her medical costs attended to (that's $15K) and tha