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."
Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ... (Score:5, Funny)
Push the button on his back down to make him raise his hand to object! Push the same button up and he slides an affidavit full of unmarked bills across the judge's desk! Just like in real life!
Judge'sDeskAndNewYorkCountryLawyerVillainSoldSeparately. RIAADollVoidOutsideOfDesignatedUseAreasAndMayCausePermanentInjuryOr BankruptcyUponMissedPaymentInstallments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This may be what they are pondering over.
Surprise, big corporate suing little Nanny "Apple Pie" Buttons is not profitable.
Who would have guessed that one!?!?
Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ... (Score:4, Funny)
+1 preorder
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with Rasperin. Make it in the Objection! position, or possible to put in that position, and I'm game for one. Weird hairstyle is optional.
Re:NYCL Action Figure!! (Score:2)
I want one!
Forget Luke. He'd go next to my Jung figure.
Re: (Score:2)
Link [about.com]
Different cases, different tactics (Score:2)
Or do you suggest that you should be put out to pasture because every case is the same?
Total non-story (Score:4, Insightful)
Requests for extension of time are very common, and there's nothing unusual about the reasons given by the RIAA lawyers in the motions or for the length of extension requested. This seems like little more than an attempt to drive more pageviews to Mr. Beckerman's ad-laden site.
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
welcome to the internets.
Re:Total non-story (Score:4, Interesting)
And he has a think geek link to encourage /. to run the story.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I see ads above the post and all down the left sidebar, as well.
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Funny)
My God... It's made of ads!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I tried clicking the link, but my browser started slowing... curiously my laptop started playing "Daisy."
It might be time to switch systems...
Re: (Score:2)
curiously my laptop started playing "Daisy"
Were you pulling modules out of it at the time? If so why? Did it try to suffocate you?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a public broadcast licence for that?
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:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I wrote that article!
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
There's a big difference between "He told me to do this" and "He gave me information and I decided to do this." Considering how tight-lipped the legal profession is (presumably due to fears over the blurry distinction between legal advice and legal knowledge) I'm very appreciative of Mr. Beckerman's efforts. Most lawyers wouldn't even bother.
Correct. As mentioned in my bio, what I do here is not legal advice. Legal advice is where someone tells me their situation, I ask some questions, and give them some advice. Here I just discuss legal topics and litigation events... i.e. report on what is going on. I wouldn't know how to give someone advice without first establishing a one-on-one relationship.
Re:Total non-story (Score:4, Funny)
NOW you tell me that, on the eve of summary judgment of the case that could bankrupt me, while my brief consists solely of things I read of yours on slashdot???
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years
I don't think he would appreciate that claim, actually. If he's been giving legal advice to essentially anonymous internet posters in a public forum he has almost certainly breached the ethical rules for lawyers. It would probably also expose him to malpractice liability if anyone relied on the advice.
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 s
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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).
Thank you. I appreciate that. The reality is that I make almost no money from advertising. I just spend so much time blogging and microblogging that I figure if I could make a few bucks to offset some of that time it would be helpful. Hasn't really worked out, however.
Settlement (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
She did the right thing, though. If she had given up in court at 50k, the next person might have to start over in the millions.
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
This isn't about what her lawyer asserted, it's about what the judge ruled.
She's actually very clever to not take the settlement. Aside from the fact that there may well be someone behind her bankrolling that 25 grand difference anyway, she's more likely than not to end up paying nothing other than court costs.
The RIAA really doesn't want that 54k verdict to become official. It would set a legal precedent, one which would more likely than not be referred to, even in other jurisdictions. It's probably relatively close to a fair number(I can't recall the details of the case at the moment), but that's really not the point. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the RIAA ends up dropping the Thomas case. It'll cost them to do so, but it will severly limit their ability to extort and intimidate future defendents.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand why the RIAA would drop the case -- sure, millions sounds better in a headline, but for most people, $54k is seen as a heck of a lot of money. The RIAA is likely hoping that parents will see $54k and be worried about what their kids are doing on the net. In that respect, it probably has an effect near to what a
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
IANAL, and if it weren't for wikipedia, I wouldn't even know what an estoppel is. [wikipedia.org]
In fact, I still don't know what it means. I read it and my head hurts. I think I'll go back to my programming homework...
Re:Settlement (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
[From Wikipedia]
--
Re: (Score:2)
there would be no incentive for people to be honest and pay for their music.
The real world says otherwise [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, I think many people would have downloaded the album just to try it for free, precisely because it is a famous band and they are not short of cash. But most people seemed to have liked it and actually paid for it *a fair price*.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
Considering the damages caused by the crime, $500 would be the high-ball figure for a sane punishment. Considering the act of downloading and uploading files is at least as common as speeding and done by millions of otherwise law-abiding Americans, that should be taken into account -- it's a bad law.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
It's a good law, it's just being mis-applied. The copyright statutes were written with "piracy" meaning someone bootlegging your CD, stamping out thousands of copies, and selling them on the street corner. Be
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
aha, so because speeding is criminal, and occasionally deadly, it should have lower costs than a civil offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
A civil offense with no chance of causing physical harm is not a meaningful phrase. Contract disputes between two parties regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and they are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. Employment dispute cases include awards in the hundreds of thousands and
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
A civil offense with no chance of causing physical harm is not a meaningful phrase. Contract disputes between two parties regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and they are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. Employment dispute cases include awards in the hundreds of thousands and are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
I love it when plausible-sounding but completely wrong posts are modded insightful on Slashdot.
In every jurisdiction I know of, speeding is a misdemeanor. Granted, it's a very low-level misdemeanor, so minor that most people who ask about criminal convictions specifically except moving violations. But it is still technically a crime. If you want to, you can plead "not guilty" to the charge and demand a jury trial. (But note: you will almost certainly lose). And as for not having any chance of causi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the jurisdiction. Stealing a paragraph from a 2002 Maine Supreme Court decision:
Nugent’s second point on appeal, that he had a right to a jury trial in
this speeding infraction case, is resolved by our ruling in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d
703 (Me. 1983). In Anton a right to a jury trial in a speeding infraction case was
asserted, based on the Maine Constitution. We held that (1) “traffic infraction
proceedings are not ‘criminal prosecutions’ for which the right to trial by jury
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
You are only partially correct... as is Zordak. It depends on the state. Even then, other circumstances apply. In New York, it is generally but not always a Traffic Infraction. In New York, you may also be cited with another Traffic Infraction which is also a misdemeanor (at the same time) such as Reckless Driving (which may simply be because you were speeding in heavy rain and for no other reason; thus making your speeding the cause of you getting a misdemeanor charge even if it is listed for a separate infraction - or may be because you were driving like an idiot). Thus, in NY, even a "Traffic Infraction" (Reckless Driving) can also be a misdemeanor at the same time, and may result in the misdemeanor charge when you did nothing but speed (under the wrong conditions, over a certain speed, or whatever criteria the officer chooses).
One more example, in Virginia, speeding 20mph over the limit is automatically also a Reckless Driving charge... and again... whether "basic" speeding is an infraction or a misdemeanor varies per state. And some states move it from an infraction to a misdemeanor if the speeding is in excess of a certain number even if it does not come with a Reckless Driving charge attached (ie: speeding 1-15 over is an infraction, while speeding 16+ over is a misdemeanor).
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Not always true. Many states spend months or years doing traffic surveys to set speed limits. On my street alone, one such survey resulted in the speed limit being changed to 25mph (from 30mph) - and then later after another such survey, being changed back to 30mph and having stop signs added - which apparently seems to be the solution for the problem they were analyzing.
SOME speed limits are set by political forces perhaps, like the 55mph ones on highways near big cities in certain states, or the maximum speed limits set for roads of a certain type in a certain jurisdiction (like the town next to me, where any road not county or state owned cannot have a speed limit over 35mph, or NYC where the maximum speed in the city is capped at 50mph or less as posted).
If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
May? Sure, technically you are correct... but those deaths have occurred and are very real. With the amount of speeding related deaths out there, may increase (the risk of) becomes already has caused - a very real statistic - and the deaths and/or injuries involved are also very real.
With file sharing, unless the RIAA manages to buy some new laws, it never results in death (at least not in this country). But who knows? Maybe in a few years, the RIAA will have lobbied successfully to make music sharing a felony punishable by death... ;-)
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Informative)
True, she makes the RIAA guys look like the good folks.. and that's hard.
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.
Some background from the Wiki and http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars [arstechnica.com]
The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer.[when?] Thomas refused to settle, and was then sued on April 19, 2006, by several major record labels for copyright infringement.
In the trial, the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21, 2005, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The plaintiffs, however, sought relief for only 24 of these.
Two weeks after MediaSentry noted the infringement of "tereastarr@KaZaA" (and notified the user via KaZaA instant message that he or she had been caught sharing files) back in February 2005, Thomas-Rasset hauled her Compaq Presario down to the local Best Buy. There was a problem with the hard drive, so Best Buy replaced it under warranty.
That might sound like no big deal until you realize that Thomas-Rasset later provided this new hard drive—and not the one in the machine during the alleged February infringement—to investigators and to her own expert witness. It becomes an even bigger deal when you realize that she swore under oath—twice—that she had replaced the hard drive in 2004 (a full year earlier) and that it had not been changed again since.
Next up was Eric Stanley, who had been hired by Thomas-Rasset before her first trial to examine the same hard drive that was turned over to recording industry investigators. Thomas-Rasset at first told Stanley that the drive had been replaced in 2004, well before the alleged infringement, so this evidence looked like it would be great for Thomas-Rasset... until recording industry lawyers deposed Stanley and Thomas-Rasset on the same day. At some point during that day, Stanley heard something that led him to examine the physical drive once more during a break. It was then he found the sticker with a manufacturing date—of early 2005.
Stanley realized he was looking at a drive that had likely not even been in the machine when the alleged infringement took place.
So she refused a settlement offer at the very beginning even before being represented by a lawyer, then repeatedly lied under oath to judge and jury(no wonder the damages were soooooo high, juries hate being blatantly lied to and want to teach such people a lesson) and now is still being...well... a dick. Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught. On top of that, the $1/song is for downloading the songs, not uploading which has a bigger punishment under law since the plaintiffs potentially lost revenue. I am sure this distinction will be lost on most of the posters here again who will repeatedly say the actual damages are just $24.
Anyway this was one of the worst cases that should have gone to court against the RIAA. They sued wrongly lots of times but this one case should've been settled long ago by Thomas, she knew she was in the wrong and tried to weasel her way out of it by lying.
More, if you want to read:
Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software? And since no one else ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
I support her cause because they cannot prove any damages at all. Them downloading a song does not actually cause them any damage.
I also support her cause because, even if they could prove that her sharing resulted in X copies of the song being distributed illegally in a way which caused a loss of sale, then the actual damages to them would be something between X/10 and X dollars. Suppose X=25. Asking for $250 and the attorney fees would be just. Asking for $2500 would be an overkill, but they think they should get at least $25000 = 1000 times the damages, and that without ever proving the loss of a single sale.
Re: (Score:2)
If it is a civil case, then statutory punitive damages should not be awarded: it should be enough that the other party is compensated for their loss, which, again, they failed to show.
Re: (Score:2)
I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.
While I find her unsympathetic at best, and am somewhat inclined to not support her going to trial a third time, that's offset by the RIAA's willingness to go for a third trial simply because they don't want the reduced award of $54,000 to be made official. I'm kinda having trouble liking either side here, but since the RIAA (in court anyway) finds $54,000 to be too little an award for sharing some 24 odd songs, I find Thomas slightly more sympathetic.
Basically both sides are idiots and jerks, but the RIAA
Re: (Score:2)
We support her because even if - especially if - she is a scumbag, her losing the case to these insane damages would set a precedent that the RIAA would then use to hammer down less easy targets.
That's Business Goes To Court 101 - you hit an easy target first to establish the precedent you need to go after the real targets.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (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 (w
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
$54k is CERTAINLY excessive. As is $25k. This is not a criminal case. The payment is not a fine to discourage crime, it's a payment to cover the damages. She shared 24 songs. At $54k, that's more than $2k per song. And when you can buy those songs for $1 each, that's saying that she was personally and directly responsible for 2,000 people not buying each one of those songs. How is that in any way even possible? A single person sharing a single song will NEVER be directly responsible for _thousands_ of lost sales. It just doesn't work that way. And the RIAA has certainly not proven such a loss. And again, this is a civil case. The fine is not a punishment or deterrent, it is pure and simple restitution.
For a reference:
http://www.rbs2.com/cc.htm#anchor111111 [rbs2.com]
"In general, a losing defendant in civil litigation only reimburses the plaintiff for losses caused by the defendant's behavior."
Re:Settlement (Score:4, Insightful)
This still doesn't mean they should be significantly higher than the actual damages. They're currently several orders of magnitude higher than any reasonable approximation of actual damages. Difficult to calculate != set the figure high to punish people more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know what the songs she infringed go for on itunes or other online music stores?
Re: (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
Re: (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,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyway, $25k is not an enormous life ruining debt. Yes, it is not trivial, but it is surmountable.
What it is, is unconstitutional.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Heh... Yes, she will rue it. Rue it hard. [penny-arcade.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"Even $1.00 per track is too much to pay for music in the presently available low quality DRMed formats."
Actually, That's about what we paid for 45 RPM singles back in the day.
$0.99 for an iTunes track is perfectly reasonable.
I don't care a fat rat's ass about that track having some DRM on it. It plays on the Mac under iTunes and it'll play on my iPod (when I get around to buying a replacement for my dead 2nd Gen iPod)
If you don't like how the iTunes Store does business, don't buy anything from the iTunes S
Dropping mod rights to comment... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not settling (Score:3, Insightful)
Not settling will set the precedent for future RIAA damage?
54k seems excessive, but probably way less than what the RIAA lawyers would like to charge for their time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
54k seems excessive, but probably way less than what the RIAA lawyers would like to charge for their time.
The campaign has always been about fear, never about direct profit - the economic status of the defendants prevents the RIAA from possibly getting more than 100k anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It will set a precedent, but probably not a binding one. For it to even have a shot at being binding the next case would have to be heard in front of the same court, and even then it's not hard to wiggle away.
The reason? A precedent applies to the exact same set of circumstances. If I punch you in the nose and you sue me for $5,000, then I punch you in the nose again and you sue me again there's a precedent that the reward should be $5,000 (and let's assume it's heard by the same court and the preceden
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not settling (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Just be glad you are not of the biological persuasion. I've given up trying to discuss evolution and DNA biology around here.
I think the only knowledge base you can count on here at Slashdot is car analogies.
Re: (Score:2)
In Soviet Russia hating Slashdot learnt me to drive so much more...
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that logic is that they already have in front of them one of the worst offenders they are likely to sue. As part of this trial, they insisted that she pirated thousands of songs, that she lied on the stand, and that she destroyed evidence.
The judge as part of his ruling, went with the ~$2500 number, in part, because she lied. Someone who does not lie, should therefore have a lesser fine.
When you start looking at bringing similar suits to trial, if your target collection # is $20K, you are
Let's play this out to the end, shall we? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would like to see a definitive, ultimate outcome along the lines of the trend I'm seeing here -- reduction of Jammie's fine from the absurdly egregious down to a level she can afford without crippling her family financially for the rest of her life, over a few unlicensed uploads.
Yes she broke the law, there should be a penalty for the infraction, but all the settlements so far have been unjustly high. And yes, I'd like to see it played out to the point where a precedent will be set and honoured.
The RIAA are the worst of the world's ambulance chasers. They shouldn't be allowed to win these huge entitlements, simply because they can afford to make more noise.
Justice should be the outcome of rule by law, decent and upstanding law, not simply "rule by the loud".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Let's play this out to the end, shall we? (Score:4, Funny)
When the law is on your side, bang on the law.
When neither the facts nor the law are on your side, bang on the table.
Re: (Score:2)
And now what they want is the higher courts to adjudicate whether other cases where the supreme court has ruled that 10 times actual damages in the constitutional limit for punitive damages applies. If the higher courts rule that the limits congress set aren't legitimate in cases like these and that the 10X limit applies then her damages could be reduced by another couple factors. Assuming the 10X rule the actual damages in this case would need to be more than $5000 to justify even the lowered award. You wo
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no question in my mind that she's liable for damages, but those damages should be reasonable, at most a few thousand if you throw in the full punitive damages for someone that saw no economic benefit from the copying. It's simply insane for someone that did this for no profit to be hit with millions of dollars in penalties..
She was initially offered a few thousand dollars settlement and refused it so that she could go to court and lie under oath about replacing her hard disk in 2004 instead of 2005 among lots of other lies to weasel her way out. Her defense tried every trick in the book which drove up attorney costs for all concerned. After all this she claims that she's only liable for $24. And she's not dumb, she has a BS in Business Administration. I find it hard to feel pity for her.
Estimated actual damages (Score:5, Insightful)
Estimated actual damages
24 songs with a $.99 retail value. Assume the $.99 is the damage per song that a sale was lost on. (That's not the case actually as the wholesale price is the damage amount.) Assume every song downloaded is an actual lost sale. (Again not true, but simple for this calculation.) Assume a seed ration of 5, so for every song 5 copies were made. (Again not true, 5 is an insanely high ratio on P2P networks as 1:1 is common.) 24*.99.*5 = $118.80 actual losses incurred. 10 times that is the constitutionally recognized limit.
$1188.0
That's why RIAA doesn't want the constitutionality of the damages award adjudicated.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!)
Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred. Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work. I don't believe that's right. So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50. So, $11,000.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
At least it's good that you count the damages due to distributing, rather than just the initial downloading (as NewYorkLawyer insists on doing!)
No. What NewYorkLawyer is counting is exactly the same. Just using a 1:1 ratio.
Downloading costs RIAA nothing from you, because it is the one you are downloading from who is costing them money. You can't double dip. Choose which costs money, the downloading or uploading, or if you want, a ratio of the two.
Your 1:1 ratio is talking about number of bytes transferred. Your calculation then presupposes that the penalty for copying half a work be half as much as the penalty for copying a full work. I don't believe that's right. So I'd take the average number of peers that you upload to, which from what I've seen is usually closer to 50. So, $11,000.
In a P2P network, only the amount of data you share matters, not how many people you share with, as data flows freely between peers. In some non-P2P circumstances it may differ (copy 10 important pages of
Re:Estimated actual damages (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think $1188 fine would be better for RIAA, headlines with "millions in fine for copyright infrigement" while looking impressive is such a big number most people can't cope with it.
$1188 fine is something people can releate to, that's the new television they where saving up for, the repair bill for their car or something similiar.
Personally, if I got a fine for a bazillion dollars I wouldn't care, there is no way it would ever be repaid and they can't kill you, they might make life miserable, but there are ways around that - getting a fine for $1188 would suck hard, you can't justifiable go bankrupt, it doesn't pay to try to bail on it. Basically you would just have to suck it up and pay the damned thing.
Re: (Score:2)
see numbers, see numbers fly out of my ass with a side of rainbows and pink prancing ponies.
See astroturf fly in a pink RIAA sky. Are you a shill, dear Anonymous Coward?
Re: (Score:2)
As another example, New York has a bottle law - you must pay a nickel every time you buy a beverage in a bottle or can. When you are finished with it, you take the bottle to a retailer and get the nickel returned. If you return a bottle for which no deposit has been payed, you are subject to a civil fine of $100 for each can/bottle, or 2000 times the so-called 'damages'.
This made me curious. How do they determine if a deposit has been paid for that bottle? I understand the intent is to encourage recycling, but I don't see how this would be done in practice.
The courts are increasingly unfriendly to RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
Sooner or later everyone in the world will have heard music that they weren't entitled to hear, or seem movies that they weren't entitled to see, or read books that they weren't entitled to read.
At that point, it's going to be hard to convince a jury people that a multimillion dollar corporation should be able to bankrupt a single mother with children because they liked music.
Devil in the details (Score:4, Insightful)
The last line seems to me (as a non-lawyer, mind you) more fascinating than the headline. Offering a settlement looks like betting on a stock price: The RIAA was willing to sell its $54,000 judgement for less than HALF that amount. They must expect to ultimately get less than that.
And Ms. Thomas-Rasset (or rather her lawyer, since nobody would make a decision like that against their lawyer's advice) seems to share that view, since she refused the settlement. They must be confident that they'll pay less than $25,000, or even nothing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their problem is that they may not reach that goal in either of these cases.
They don't know which one they may lose face on first.
Re:OK, I'm dense (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA is trying to set precedent for high awards. Their problem is that they may not reach that goal in either of these cases.
That is correct. And probably Judge Gertner in Tenenbaum will award significantly less than even the reduced award in Thomas. Judge Gertner appears to be very knowledgeable about constitutional law, and the US Supreme Court has set a rough guideline that punitive awards should rarely exceed 4 times actual damages (i.e. $1.40 per infringed recording) and almost never exceed 9 times actual damages (i.e. $3.05 per infringed recording).
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, she should force the RIAA to accept the lesser judgment so that this case stands and is not settled, making it at least a little more difficult for them to try for such ridiculously large awards as in the earlier verdict.