RIAA Confusion In Tenenbaum & Thomas Cases? 229
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota, and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. In both cases, the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time. In Thomas-Rasset, they've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $54,000 the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum's motion for remittitur. What is more, it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict, the RIAA offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $25,000, but she turned them down."
OK, I'm dense (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Total non-story (Score:4, Interesting)
And he has a think geek link to encourage /. to run the story.
Re:Total non-story (Score:1, Interesting)
And he has a think geek link to encourage /. to run the story.
i heard he has one of those caffeine quilt-covers! they GLOW IN THE DARK!
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Interesting)
The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot. He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him. For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service. The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair.
I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases. If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Interesting)
I was doing moderation - but I must reply here.
COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies. From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION. In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar.
When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world. If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW. But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation.
Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small. Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law. The motive is profit.
Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven.
Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation.
My two cents.
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
In Australia, there are no statutory damages at all for non-commercial infringement, stricter rules about actually suing the right person, and a loser-pays system, and not one person has been sued by the recording industry in the last 15 years for file sharing. Since damages are limited to actual damages, you are actually better off to pirate, get sued (in the small claims court), and pay up than you are buying the files legitimately (assuming you download enough to cover the lawyers fees). Despite this, in the three nearest significant shopping centres to me, there is at least two record shops, and several of the smaller ones have one, not counting target etc. who all sell music and DVDs. From this, I assume the industry is still profitable.
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
I was thinking $50 or $100 per song would be a "reasonable" fine so that would be about $1,200 to $2,400. (tho you could make an arguement for $50 / $100 per "album" if all the songs were from the same album).
I think people forget that they are breaking the law and get themselves into trouble.
While copyright has been perverted, even the original terms gave 28 years of protection. Without a reasonable but stiff fine, you don't have the original 28 years of protection.
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
A little while ago I calculated how much I would have spent on various media if I'd paid for everything I consumed in the way that I should have. After revising the £20 000 to closer to £30 000 ($48 426.85) because I missed out e-books and various foreign media, I would like to point out that I do not have £30 000. I never have had £30 000. If I took all the money me and my girlfriend get in a year, and didn't bother taking out bills or rent or anything, I would just about have half that. Except that I live in North London, so after rent and bills we have pretty much nothing.
I also added another interesting mental excercise - since I can't buy many of the films I want on anything smaller than a DVD I would need an extra room in my flat to keep all of them. And since I don't have time to keep them in order and archive them properly, with notes and cards and such, I would need a part-time archivist to come in and keep it tidy. After those expenses, we're talking around £50 000 ($80 000+) that I don't have.
How can people forget so quickly that the people who pirate are the ones who spend a large portion of their disposable income on media, and most people who spend a large portion of their disposable income on media also pirate, because the large majority of people in even fairly wealthy countries don't make £120 000 (before tax etc.)? I find the idea that I have somehow stolen £50 000 from someone preposterous, since I didn't take anything from them. I find the argument that I should have paid preposterous, since I don't have any money to pay them with. And I find the idea that I should do without if I can't pay preposterous, since I'm not a socially-right-wing nutjob.
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
I was doing moderation - but I must reply here. COPYRIGHT law was never meant to apply to little people sharing and making personal copies. From it's earliest conception, copyright law was meant to apply to BUSINESS COMPETITION. In effect, if there was a dollar to be made from an idea, a song, a writing, then the AUTHOR should make that dollar. When no financial gain is at stake, it's a whole different world. If I made a thousand copies of each of my songs/movies/softwares, and GAVE THEM AWAY, I would not be in violation of the SPIRIT OF COPYRIGHT LAW. But, if I profited just one penny on each copy, then I would be in violation. Copyright law was, and should be, aimed at for-profit businesses, large or small. Producing copies of the Household Mover's Guide, and selling them for $20 at a truckstop late at night is a clear violation of copyright law. The motive is profit. Setting up a site where Joe Sixpack can download music for ten cents or ten dollars per month is also profit driven. Sharing a few songs via P2P is NOT PROFIT DRIVEN, and shouldn't even be in court as a copyright violation. My two cents.
Very insightful. In the old days of copyright law (pre-RIAA madness) you never saw cases against the CONSUMER of the copyrighted material.
E.g., if there was a flea market vendor selling unauthorized copies of something, the companies might go after the vendor but would probably go after the flea market, but would NEVER have even thought of suing the people who bought the copies.
It took some degenerate record company sociopaths, who'd totally missed out on the meaning of the internet and digitalization, and who were afraid of losing their jobs, to come up with this desperate idea of suing ordinary working people.
Re:Total non-story (Score:1, Interesting)
Actually I found this very interesting, and not due to the request for extension. The interest lies in their reason for extension.
They may have to PROVE their damages. Good luck with that RIAA.
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Interesting)
see http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/1634117011.shtml [techdirt.com] for a list of some other people you have never heard of making money by giving their music away.
being honest is paying what i feel the music is worth, since $15 for an album is too much i haven't bought an album in 4+ years(i may have bought one or 2 at a concert in that time) I have not downloaded music in that time either. Good thing http://www.pandora.com/ [pandora.com] and the radio exist, otherwise i'd be listening to the same music i had from 10 years ago.
Re:OK, I'm dense (Score:4, Interesting)
I've seen the idea floating around /. that the actual damages are not the purchase price of the song, but instead the price of a distribution license. Is the RIAA pushing that argument? I imagine the fact that "making available" was never proven would be a problem there.
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Interesting)
"Now, "Here's what I'm telling them," says Jammie. "You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages. "You're going to be lucky to prove more than $24 " I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman."
Well for one, on this point, she is absolutely correct. When I've had disputes (both ways) damages had to be PROVED. There are damages here, but the damages don't come close to $2,000 per song. When was the last time you even paid $10 per song (which I would argue is for than enough for both damages and as a future deterrence).
As to why I support her, I'd argue that I don't. I support this case setting a logical precedent that ends the RIAA campaign of distortion once and for all.
I'd also like to add that I am extremely thankful that NewYorkCountRyLawyer is providing us all with insight into these cases. I would only hope that as a domain expert Congress and the Senate would look at him for advise in balancing the rights of consumers, rather than solely looking to RIAA stooges.
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Interesting)
If I went to a foreign country where speeding was punishable by a million-dollar fine, I am pretty sure that the instant someone sent me a letter saying "I caught you speeding, expect a bill shortly," I would be willing to lie, cheat, and steal to escape accusation. Not, mind you, because I am by nature someone who likes to lie, cheat, and steal (or so I hope), but because, faced with a million-dollar ticket my options would be criminal enterprise or jail anyway. I would get my plates changed and paint my car. And if someone came up to me and said "Hey, is this your car? We're pretty sure we caught you speeding," I would bald-facedly answer "nope, couldn't have been me, man."
Besides the "nothing left to lose" element of things at that point, I would not feel guilty about trying to escape an unjust law. If I knew the million-dollar ticket existed because a powerful speed-gun manufacturing lobby had bought the law from congress, I would have no moral compunctions about breaking the law, or about doing otherwise innocent things to escape the law.