Supreme Court May Tune In To Music Download Case 339
droopus writes "The US Supreme Court is weighing into the first RIAA file-sharing case to reach its docket, requesting that the music labels' litigation arm respond to a case testing the so-called 'innocent infringer' defense to copyright infringement. The case pending before the justices concerns a federal appeals court's February decision ordering a university student to pay the Recording Industry Association of America $27,750 — $750 a track — for file-sharing 37 songs when she was a high school cheerleader. The appeals court decision reversed a Texas federal judge who, after concluding the youngster was an innocent infringer, ordered defendant Whitney Harper to pay $7,400 — or $200 per song. That's an amount well below the standard $750 fine required under the Copyright act. Harper is among the estimated 20,000 individuals the RIAA has sued for file-sharing music. The RIAA has decried Harper as 'vexatious,' because of her relentless legal jockeying."
Look (Score:4, Insightful)
We all know the girl was a bit stupid ("I didn't know it was illegal"? Seriously? That's your defense?) What should be focused on is the judgement...$750 per track? What's bad is that's on the low-end compared to some of their other lawsuits :/
Re:Look (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Look (Score:4, Interesting)
Who else can you award it to? The state? So that the state would then have an interest in finding for one side?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Public cash burning?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Burn the money. Then it increases the value of the dollar and helps everyone.
Re:Look (Score:4, Funny)
Burn the money. Then it increases the value of the dollar and helps everyone
Federal Reserve Notes are created so the Federal Reserve can pay for Treasury Notes the federal government forces on it. Burning or otherwise destroying cash just means there is less in circulation to be taxed to buy back the T-Notes. And since work had to be done somewhere along the line to earn the cash, destroying it when its in the private sector erases the wealth created by doing work and that hurts everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do parking tickets go?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
To the city, typically. But cities have a legitimate interest in parking control.
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but the government does have a legitimate interest in copyright control as well. Or else we wouldn't have copyright laws in the first place, ostensibly. And supposedly we have protections in place to prevent punitive traffic fines from becoming cash cows for cities.
Punitive fines are just that: a form of punishment to deter rules violations. When you go to jail for 2 years for breaking into an Ikea, you don't go to Ikea jail where they make you build crappy Swedish furniture for their profits. If you shoplift from Ikea, you're hit with a fine that goes to the state, not Ikea. Why is it, then, that if you shoplift from the RIAA, you're hit with a massive punitive fine that goes straight to the RIAA?
Re:Look (Score:4, Interesting)
First, traffic fines are a cash cow for cities, that's why they invest so much in enforcement. Whether or not that should be, it is.
I, personally, find there to be a meaningful difference between a two party issue (finee vs state, decision to be made by state in parking enforcement), vs a three party issue (finee vs copyright holder, decision to be made by state). If the state is motivated financially to find for the holder, we may as well roll up the holder into the state formally, and let us all vote on how we want copyright enforcement to work, rather than having those decisions made by a private organization.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You've never seen the dirty crap tricks that shithole towns in the US pull. Signs "hidden" till it's way too late to manage a 20mph-or-better slowdown (at least not without being hit by people behind you) over perhaps 50 feet abound.
For that matter, the cops in these jurisdictions just lie their ass off anyways - claim either they "paced" you, or "estimated your speed" visually so that there isn't a record you can use to contradict them. You want to fight it? Be prepared to appeal, the county judge is also
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't prevent them from experiencing perverse incentives, and it doesn't mean we can trust them to allocate parking space and enforcement in a way that's motivated only by concerns of public usefulness and not by the city's unrelated budget headaches.
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Look (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory Obviousness:
The RIAA is an association; An umbrella front man. Essentially a litigation middle man for various recording industries.
The RIAA does not need to collect "damages"; since the RIAA does not own copyrights; it's members do.
Personally, I would spin it this way: The purpose of copuyright is to promote the creation of createive works. The recording industry's recording equipment does not produce creative works; It is used to fascilitate the creation, BY artists.
Thus, the purpose of copyr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Who else can you award it to?
Education. Just evenly distribute it to school districts per-capita.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree the sum awarded is excessive. If she appealed that in the Supreme Court she can get it reduced as the Constitution does place a 'reasonable amount' on damages and fines.
The case of McDonalds v. the Coffee in Lap Lady for example.
McDs appealed the million plus dollar ruling and had it reduced to $300,000. The Supreme Court decided it was excessive to award over a million for her injuries.
From a Business Law standpoint my professor taught me this. Check to see IF they can pay the fine AND then sue. It
Re:Look (Score:5, Informative)
The case of McDonalds v. the Coffee in Lap Lady for example.McDs appealed the million plus dollar ruling and had it reduced to $300,000. The Supreme Court decided it was excessive to award over a million for her injuries.
No they did not. It was the trial judge who reduced the punitive damages (from 2.7 million dollars to 480,000), and while McDonalds did appeal, as did Liebeck, they eventually settled out of court anyway.
I hope your professor didn't teach you the facts of this case, because he got it wrong. Also...the jury in the case decided their punitive damages based on 2 days worth of McDonalds coffee sales. Ironic, no?
Re:Look (Score:4, Informative)
I agree the sum awarded is excessive. If she appealed that in the Supreme Court she can get it reduced as the Constitution does place a 'reasonable amount' on damages and fines.
I agree that the $750 per mp3 file statutory damages award is constitutionally excessive, and should be struck down. However, that issue does not appear to be presented in connection with this particular appeal.
Re: (Score:2)
This however is not a punitive damage award, but a statutory damage. "a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just."
So the judge did give her the minimum penalty per offense.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This however is not a punitive damage award, but a statutory damage
You seem confused about the terminology. Punitive damages can be statutory. The opposite of punitive is compensatory. Punitive damages are awarded to punish the person committing the act, compensatory damages are awarded to compensate the victim. Often, compensatory damages are linked to actual damages (i.e. the prosecution must show that they were harmed to the amount of $n to be awarded $n of compensation). Punitive damages may award either a fixed amount or some multiple of $n, to act as a deterrent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, I see what you're getting at. Punitive damages go to the wronged party. That's a matter of legal precedent. Logic has no basis in law.
If it doesn't go to the plantiff, then it has to go to a third party. Who would that be? The choices are a non-profit, a charity, or the state. Or, we could pitch the idea of punitve damages awarded against people and only enforce those damages against corporations.
What was your book?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem is the GP is wrong and these aren't punitive damages. This is purely the statutory damages for copyright infringement.
Re:Look (Score:5, Funny)
Punitive damages are still supposed to be relative to the crime.
Yeah, but as I understand it, it had to do with the content. Rumor has it that included in the 37 tracks in question were:
Money - Pink Floyd
Diamonds and Pearls - Prince
Rich Girl - Hall and Oates
Moneytalks - AC/DC
Mo' Money, Mo' Problems - Notorious B.I.G.
For the Love of Money - The O'Jays
Greenback Dollar - The Kingston Trio
Money, Money, Money - ABBA
Material Girl - Madonna
She Works Hard for the Money - Donna Summer
How to be a Millionaire - ABC
Take the Money and Run - Steve Miller Band
You Never Give Me Your Money - The Beatles
And a few different tracks by Johnny Cash
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
$200 is definitely a deterrent, not sure that it's a reasonable amount, but it's much more in the realm of reasonable. Especially given that she'll likely have to pay court costs.
The defense wouldn't exist if it was that cut and dry. It's really more a matter of whether or not it applies in this case.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think reasonable would be triple damages, so $3 per song sounds about right. Sure that is not a whole lot, but 200x or 750x damages is even crazier. Not the courts fault that their property is so cheap.
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when does ignorance of the law excuse you from it?
Copyright is a contract between a copyright holder and the public, ignorance of a contract DOES excuse you from it, but only to a certain degree. That's why it's lessened penalties under the law, rather than a gigantic civil award. It's the court's way of saying "Look, you fucked up. Realistically, you should have done some research or something to figure out what you were doing was wrong. We can't let you off completely, since you did do something against the law, but we're not going to hang you for it. Consider this your warning and don't do it again." It's like a police officer pulling you over because your tail light is burnt out, and instead of giving you a ticket straight off, gives you the ability to go get it fixed promptly to avoid the fine. Yeah, you fucked up, you broke a law, and you should have noticed your tail light was out, but rather than be a dick, they want the behaviour corrected.
Also, when was it determined that this was absolutely and irrefutably illegal (and it's certainly not _criminal), since it's a civil issue).
Eh, under most jurisdictions, copyrights etc. are backed by force of law, which means it is actually illegal, rather than purely civil breach, but yeah, the actual, moral criminality of it? Not really. But legality and criminality are often divorced from each other.
Re:Look (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look (Score:4, Informative)
She didn't "not realise it was illegal". She didn't realise the files were being shared at all.
At least, that is the reason for the current state of the case
Truthfulness is for the jury to decide, but it didn't seem like that claim was being contested, although the article didn't go into it.
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
We all know the girl was a bit stupid ("I didn't know it was illegal"? Seriously? That's your defense?) What should be focused on is the judgement...$750 per track? What's bad is that's on the low-end compared to some of their other lawsuits :/
I'll give you another lawsuit: Apple Inc. vs. Psystar. Psystar was found guilty of making about 750 illegal copies of MacOS X and was ordered to pay $30,000 for copyright infringement. That is just $40 for each copy of software that retailed for $129. (There was a small matter of DMCA violation as well, but that wouldn't be the case here). And you think $750 for a copy of a $0.99 song is anywhere near reasonable?
There was a recent case where the judge overruled the jury on the grounds that anything over $2,250 is so extraordinarily wrong that the judge cannot possibly allow it and has a duty to overrule the jury. That doesn't mean that $2,250 would be right, it means that it is not so extraordinarily wrong that the judge is forced to overrule it, he usually has to let decisions of the jury stand even if he disagrees with them. Unless they are so unworldly bad that they cannot be allowed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
How many copies of songs was the girl proven to have made?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look (Score:4, Informative)
Psystar was also ordered to pay Apple's legal fees. Furthermore, the exact penalty for infringement was likely lower because Apple did not register their copyright on OS X with the Copyright Office. By law, a plaintiff that does not have a registered copyright is limited to collecting actual damages, while those who register their copyrights can collect punitive damages. (I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice)
Re:Look (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
It may sound like a stupid defense but honestly some people out there just didn't/still don't know that sharing certain (copyrighted) files is wrong.
About 5 years ago (from what I've heard as this was before my time) someone at my company was selling DVDs to co-workers and made some statement via an email to everyone in the company that it wasn't a problem if he ran out as he'd just make some more. He truly had no idea that what he was doing was illegal until the legal department and the IT department blasted him.
No one reads the FBI warnings at the beginning of films (and music doesn't really have one of those) so ignorance really is valid point one could make.
Re:Look (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not wrong, it's illegal. There's an important difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Probably should have written "illegal" instead of "wrong".
Re:Look (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find more entertaining is how the MafiAA - who've been slapped back and forth for filing false testimony (perjury), filing mountains of paperwork trying to bury defendants (barratry), caught in price-fixing collusion (conspiracy), falsifying evidence (forgery), providing "evidence" that was the result of deliberate computer crime on the part of their own "investigators", using "investigators" that they knew were not licensed for the investigations, and repeatedly filing SLAPP lawsuits against groups like the EFF - have the temerity to still be pushing this garbage.
Oh, and then there's their abusive filings of dozens if not hundreds of lawsuits at once, based on nothing but "information and belief" with no actual evidence, where they try to get the identities of people and then harass and threaten them in what has been best described as an organized, big-business-sanctioned extortion ring.
What a lot of these judges in the past have written at the lower-court level, especially when they greenlight these extortion racket tactics, make me suspect bribery to be in play as well.
Re:Look (Score:5, Insightful)
What I find more entertaining is how the MafiAA - who've been slapped back and forth for filing false testimony (perjury), filing mountains of paperwork trying to bury defendants (barratry), caught in price-fixing collusion (conspiracy), falsifying evidence (forgery), providing "evidence" that was the result of deliberate computer crime on the part of their own "investigators", using "investigators" that they knew were not licensed for the investigations, and repeatedly filing SLAPP lawsuits against groups like the EFF - have the temerity to still be pushing this garbage.
Yes, and yet the girl is "vexatious" for demanding that her legal right to a fair trial be upheld.
The fact that today's music largely sucks is far from the only reason I haven't bought music in years. (And no, I don't download it illegally either).
Re:Look (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that these types of cases are coming up again and again make clear that it's a contentious issue, at least for some. Someone out there takes issue with all this content being freely available.
To be clear, I'm not arguing one way or another on the filesharing/copyright issue. I'm just saying that as we move forward with the web and user interfaces, and searchability, then a 12 year old kid who has some brains and can figure out some clever search "hacks" becomes able to just find files that are publicly available to download with no warning, no mention of "this could be copyrighted", etc.
I've tried explaining the process for finding files like this to my father, who is probably a lot like most of your parents. Able to get online, but not really understanding the full intrecacies of the interwebs. I tried explaining how illegal this is, and that it's up to him to take that leap. I'm sure there are teenagers and preteens out there figuring this stuff out, too. Do you think that they're explaining the legalities and potential consquences to their friends, when they pass on the instructions?
As this knowledge passed down to further "generations" ofkids, and technology progresses, I could actually see how an ignorance defense could be fairly legitimate.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Look (Score:5, Interesting)
Ignorance is an excuse as long as there is no law classes in the public school system. You cant assume people just 'know' law
This is just a guess, but I'm not sure it is physically possible to know all the law anymore.
State, Local, Federal, Treaties... they all change, and some of the items being changed are thousands of pages long. Not only that, but written in legal language which is NOT readable by your normal citizen.
Let's say you go on vacation to some state park and decide to build a campfire. Is there a fire moratorium in effect? What do you have to do to make sure that your campfire is to code. Are there also local codes which you have to follow? What are your liabilities? Hope you have a few hours to go down to the government offices to look up the code (or the library) to read up on what you need to do to build your campfire. Oh crap, a CFL in your battery powered lantern died. Is there a disposal station nearby, what are your responsiblities for recycling/disposing of the lamp. I know there is Federal and State laws in place... Or are they laws, some might be rules imposed by the EPA at the federal level, or rules imposed by the state EPA. When was the last time those rules were updated, have they changed... etc.
Granted those are fairly mundane examples, but the concept that you are responsible for following the laws even if they are obscure is commonplace.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that she never had the CDs. Ever. At any point. It was merely the fact that CDs have the copyright notice on them was sufficient.
Re:Look (Score:5, Informative)
Ignorance is no excuse, and all of that, but I really think we'll start to see more of this. As filesharing becomes easier on the user's end, how is a new/naive/young user supposed to know it's illegal?
The law is quite explicit that if a person did not know they were infringing a copyright, then they are an innocent infringer, and the statutory damages are limited, unless... there was a copyright notice on the thing they were infringing. Then they don't qualify for the defense.
The 5th Circuit erroneously held that she is precluded from the defense because some other copy somewhere, which she had never seen, had a copyright notice.
Its ruling was ridiculous.
Re:Look (Score:4, Interesting)
Least of all I liked the logic they seemed to use which was an awfully lot like "you should know nothing is free to share". It's like the MafiAA was handed a big "only CDs and DVDs and BluRays you buy in a store (or online store) is legal, everything you download for free is likely illegal" baseball bat to beat the market with. I hope the Supreme Court can see how incredibly destructive that logic would be.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, the stupidity defense works for CEOs, so it's worth a shot!
Relentless legal jockeying (Score:5, Insightful)
Really RIAA? Really? You are accusing someone else of "relentless legal jockeying". /head asplodes
Re:Relentless legal jockeying (Score:4, Insightful)
It's like any other extremist view. They're right, you're wrong. Any action you take other than being wrong and paying for it is a complete waste of time.
The MPAA (Score:5, Insightful)
... is complaining about someone else's relentless legal jockeying? How much blacker can the pot get while impugning the kettle's color? Until this girl (or any other individual) has the means to write and buy their own federal legislation, the MPAA should STFU.
Obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)
How much blacker can the pot get while impugning the kettle's color?
The answer is none. None more black.
Re: (Score:2)
So light black and dark black are the same color? What about fluorescent black? :p
I'd shoot the RIAA CEO in the head (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'd shoot the RIAA CEO in the head (Score:5, Insightful)
Why stop there? Kill the motherfuckers who hired him too.
Re: (Score:2)
Steal the toupee off the head of every RIAA lawyer?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Haven't they figured out the whole "shave your head and pretend it's a macho thing" strategy yet? I saw "The Expendables", and the cast looked like a rogaine test control group. you'd think RIAA lawyers would have learned the same trick.
Re: (Score:2)
When they tightly strap me in, give me lethal injection,
Just a few moments to live, no remorse for what I did,
Was for the betterment of man, I gave the utmost sacrifice,
Before more damage could be done I took his life.
There was a split second of silence when the dart punctured the skin,
Beady eyes rolled back in head, the body dropped from the poison,
They cou
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, but then at least CEO2 would worry a little about pissing consumers off.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'd shoot the RIAA CEO in the head (Score:5, Insightful)
If you've just severed the head of your enemy and placed it on a pike in the field, how many folks do you think will step up to take his place? This is what we call "Setting an example".
Re:I'd shoot the RIAA CEO in the head (Score:5, Interesting)
Vexatious? No $#@! (Score:5, Insightful)
Since the advent of these cases it has been clear that the intent was to bury people financially and for the **AA to use the courts as a bludgeon to scare the rest of the populace--not the pursuit of justice. Now they're upset because someone with nothing to lose (ruinous legal judgments that cannot reasonably be paid back by an individual tends to create that mentality) has decided to use their own strategy against them? Tough $#@! **AA. Bed. Made. Lie.
How do you like this taste of your own medicine? Hopefully this kind of thing will catch on and more people will choose to drag their cases out for as long as possible and this will cost the **AA so much more than they anticipated.
--bornagainpenguin
Re:Vexatious? No $#@! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Vexatious? No $#@! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yes and no. The RIAA's position is that her petition has been already asked and answered by the courts, twice.
What gets me is that if the RIAA is correct, then her settlement offer of $1200 should have been acceptable, but they refused it. So their own vexatious accusation makes them in the wrong for rejecting a fair settlement, which is in and of itself vexatious if not frivolous.
Re:Vexatious? No $#@! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, yes and no. The RIAA's position is that her petition has been already asked and answered by the courts, twice.
In the first place, that would be irrelevant; that's what appeals are for, to correct mistakes by the lower court.
In the second place, the lower court ruled in Ms. Harper's favor on this issue. The District Judge ruled that she was NOT disqualified from asserting an innocent infringement defense by reason of copyright notices being affixed to some copies in some record store somewhere, which she had never seen.
Re:Vexatious? No $#@! (Score:5, Interesting)
The big deal here is that the RIAA's standard modus operandi of retracting all charges before they have to present evidence and support their case and then return to slam the defendant with more financial ruin threats outside of court will not work. The supreme court will not take any of that bullshit, and if they try to pull out, they will just lose, plain and simple. And not just the case, they will lose face and credibility (what little they have).
By forcing the issue, Harper is scaring them into the one scenario they were never willing to face - playing the game through to the end.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
By forcing the issue, Harper is scaring them into the one scenario they were never willing to face - playing the game through to the end.
Well said.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why the supreme court is so vital. It does not take ANY bullshit of ANY kind. When faced with technical issues judges do not understand, they become quite pissed at people who want to wave a lot of jargon and cloud issues; the Supreme Court Justice position is one of the highest in the country, and making a mistake has such wide-reaching impacts that you WILL be embarrassed, publicly, for being shammed. These people do not want to be fucked with while the entire Western world watches them made fo
The RIAA finally went too far (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
As with most things like this, it is not the chance of success that drives you, it's the irrepressible thoughts about what might happen if you are successful.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Will it be long before Hiro and Ando show up?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As Texans, they'll want to shoot someone to protect their daughter. As Republicans, they want to fuck people over to cater to big business.
This conflict will cause their heads to implode.
Those sneaky defendants! (Score:4, Insightful)
Constitutionality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When you commit multiple crimes and are found guilty, you serve a combined time for the crimes. There are laws in place that state a fine for EACH infraction. So if you share 50 files or 500, your fine will be different.
It would be interesting to find out if you could be held liable for 50 illegal copies if you leave a CD and 50 blank CDR disks at a computer. In theory that isn't much different than putting a file up on a torrent. You didn't make the copies but you sure made it easy for someone else to.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but if you steal (actually STEAL) 1 candy bar or 100 candy bars, the crime is the same, and treated as a single crime of the same magnitude. You might get a fine, or a very short jail sentence (let's call it "up to" 30 days). If you stole 100 candy bars, you would still be subject to only a maximum 30 day sentence - not 100 - 30 day sentences. That would be ridiculous.
Re:Constitutionality (Score:5, Interesting)
Producing wilfully misleading documents in regards to royalties owed to the natives who's land you are pumping gas from (for 25,949 violation days)
-> 5.2 million dollars (65 songs)
Filling falsified audits for 4 years overstating pre-tax income by more than $1 billion (really was 1.4bill).
-> 7 million dollars (88 songs)
Causing more than 300 oil spills (the largest being 100,000gallons into Nueces Bay, TX), illegally discharging crude oil totalling 3million gallons of crude leaking into ponds, lakes, rivers and streams across 6 states over a period of 7 years. All due to negligence and improper maintenance.
-> 35 million dollars (437 songs)
Seems fair to me. 229 gallons of leaked crude oil into natural environments per mp3 copied. That means that my personal music collection is as bad as dumping 1.15 million barrels of oil across the countryside. To try to imagine how much that is: It is 357 average sized US homes filled with oil.
Also, the legal cap is a mere $150,000 per file, not 200.
Cheerleader? (Score:3, Insightful)
How does her having been a cheerleader have any impact on this case? Why even mention it?
Re:Cheerleader? (Score:4, Insightful)
It doesn't have any impact on the case, but it does have an impact on the readers.
Think about it - this is a site filled with pasty white guys who live in their parents basement. You mention one of the parties is a cheerleader, we're all gonna click the link to see if there's a picture.
We still won't read the article, but we'll go looking for the pic, and so the submitter will get a few more ad impressions. :)
Re:Cheerleader? (Score:5, Funny)
How does her having been a cheerleader have any impact on this case? Why even mention it?
It makes the 'I didn't know it was illegal' defense she is using more plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
How does her having been a cheerleader have any impact on this case? Why even mention it?
How much does a Cheerleader earn per year, typically?
And are Cheerleaders usually found profiting from copyright infringement as a profession?
Sure they could have said 'student', but this label also identifies her gender, and puts an image in a person's head.
Damages? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damages? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not fair though. The whole point of punitive damages is to punish the infringer, not just force them to buy it. If all you pay for is the price of the song, then why ever buy anything? Just pirate it - the worst that happens is you have to pay for it. Because there was willful intent here, I think the rule of treble damages applies.
So that is $2.97 per song.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not fair though. The whole point of punitive damages is to punish the infringer, not just force them to buy it
If that's real reason for punitive damages, explain why the money does NOT goes to the government just like any other fines. The winning side's Legal fees should be awarded separately.
Since the punitive damage money goes to the other side, it seems to me the reason for punitive damages is just to encourage more lawsuits.
Corporate lap dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
The "conservative" SCOTUS will probably rule in favor of the record industry, tightening the strangle hold corporations have on the US. They have been systematically stripping individuals of rights while handing more power to the government (in the form of police and secret police powers) and corporations for at least 20 years now.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Corporate lap dogs (Score:5, Insightful)
They have been systematically stripping individuals of rights while handing more power to the government
Except for those pro-gun 2nd Amendment rulings in Heller and McDonald.
The "conservative" SCOTUS
Pssst, your editorial bias is showing!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The standard generalization is that conservatives like the 2nd Amendment, the restrictions-on-eminent-domain part of the 5th amendment, and sometimes the 1st; while liberals like the 4th amendment, the criminal-defendant-rights part of the 5th amendment, the 6th, 7th, and 8th, and sometimes the 1st.
The RIAA is the plaintiff... (Score:5, Interesting)
...and they're accusing the DEFENDANT of being vexatious? That's not usually the way it works.
I rather suspect, though, that the US Supreme Court will smack down the Fifth Circuit for ignoring the law's requirement of a minimum of $750/infringement, thereby protecting the RIAA from activist judges and hordes of underaged cheerleaders. Copyright uber alles, after all.
FYI: The relevant section of copyright law (Score:5, Informative)
I really had to read this for myself:
US Copyright Law: Chapter 5. Statutory damages [copyright.gov]
(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.
(Watch me get sued for copying legal text verbatim)
Some thoughts:
- This is all at the discretion of the judge.
- The $200 seems to apply per copyright infringement charge. But what is that unit really? Naturally, the RIAA would say "per song" but even $200 per album seems extreme. Per song? What if a 30-second clip is enough to be a copyright infringement. Can the RIAA claim that a 2 minute song is 4 30-second infringements so that is $200 * 4 = $800? Or... is a 35 second song really 5 overlapping infringements of 30-second clips so that's $200 * 5 = $1000. I don't think this is what the authors of the law intended. Could you even buy individual tracks when this law was written?
The summary is wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
The judge found her an innocent infringer, which means the judge believes she didn't understand that what she was doing was illegal. That kicks in USC 17 504.C.2 which states:
The judge gave her the miminum fine for what he determined to be the truth of the case. The $750 is the minimum award for a finding of willful infringement and so his award is not well below anything.
a little peek into the future? (Score:3, Interesting)
By then it may feel so anachronistic and quaintly out of place that the reader might well wonder why no lawmaking body could foresee the consequences of infinite copying, the end of artificial scarcity coming, and all of the consequences thereof.
No matter what SCOTUS ends up with as an opinion, the realities on the ground will be so different by then that one can wonder how much this really matters at all. (sorry for the cheerleader)
Maybe the real deal will be something along the lines of what Charles Stross wrote in his most excellent book Accelerando [jus.uio.no] ?
The carcasses of the record business purchased by Russian organized crime and turned into a for-profit extortion racket, exacting demands for payment on things that were created by people who died fifty years ago...
Re:Funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Funny. (Score:4, Insightful)
And here I thought it was the RIAA who was vexatious.
Yeah, anyone who doesn't write them a check is vexatious.
Re:Checks (Score:3, Insightful)
Not good enough Ray.
You mean "anyone who doesn't write them a check every hour of every day" is vexatious. Sleeping is no excuse!