RIAA tactics are turning on them

Narmer

Diamond Member
Aug 27, 2006
5,292
0
0
http://arstechnica.com/news.ar...download-expenses.html

Judge tells record labels to cough up download expenses

By Eric Bangeman | Published: November 27, 2007 - 12:03PM CT

As the RIAA's legal battle against suspected file-sharers has unfolded, one of the arguments put forth by some defendants is that the statutory damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive. That's one of the defenses articulated by Ray Beckerman, attorney for the defendant in UMG v. Lindor. In a ruling issued yesterday, Judge Robert M. Levy ordered the record labels to provide Marie Lindor with the expenses incurred for each of the 38 songs at issue in the case, writing that Lindor's request may "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence."

The request by Lindor seems innocuous enough. "(A) Set forth all expenses incurred by plaintiffs, per authorized song file download, in connection with the thirty eight (38) songs..., and (B) annex copies of all documents kept in the ordinary course of business of plaintiffs sufficient to support said statement of expenses."

In a court filing last month, the RIAA argued that Lindor's request was unclear and that she already had information sufficient to make a defense that the statutory damages sought by the labels ($750-150,000) are unconstitutional. Most tellingly, the RIAA also says that "they do not have the analysis requested" and could not perform it without "enormous expense" requiring "lengthy and complex analysis."

In Capitol v. Thomas, the only file-sharing case to go to trial so far, Sony BMG head of litigation Jennifer Pariser testified that she had no idea about the extent of the actual damages suffered by the recording industry. "We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," she told Jammie Thomas' attorney during cross-examination.

The jury found that Thomas willfully infringed on the labels' copyrights, awarding them $9,250 in statutory damages for each song. Thomas quickly announced her intention to appeal, and her first step was to ask the judge to slash the damages award. In her notice of remittur, Thomas made the same argument as Lindor, saying that the jury's award was unconstitutionally excessive.

Beckerman has argued that the RIAA's actual damages are in the neighborhood of 70¢ per song, less than 0.1 percent of the minimum statutory damages provided for by the Copyright Act. The RIAA initially fought to keep its wholesale pricing secret, but its lead counsel has since admitted that the 70¢ figure is in the right neighborhood. Beckerman would like to see any damages capped at no more than 10 times the amount of actual damages should infringement be proven.

The RIAA's position is that statutory damages need not be tied to actual damages, and that it's fine with whatever a jury is willing to mete out. The group might also argue that capping damages at 70¢ per song is not appropriate, given that the songs may have been downloaded countless times from the defendant over a P2P network. One potential problem with that argument is that the labels are unable to show any evidence that the songs have been downloaded by anyone other than SafeNet, the company retained by the RIAA to investigate illicit downloading.

 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.
 

Auryg

Platinum Member
Dec 28, 2003
2,377
0
71
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

I think we can all agree 10k a song is a bit excessive though.
 

bignateyk

Lifer
Apr 22, 2002
11,288
7
0
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.

I'm all for punishing people who steal, but to ruin someones life because they stole a hundred dollars worth of music is ridiculous.
 

AmpedSilence

Platinum Member
Oct 7, 2005
2,749
1
76
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

agreed, but you also have to consider that $9k+ that was awarded was also ludicrious. I would like to have seen more of a ~$100/sing or something, that's much more than the 10x "actual damages" that is stated in the article (which would amount to $7).

Oh, and lastly, I hate the RIAA, they need to DIAF.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Beautiful defense! 70¢ per song is a completely fair settlement. Kind of like the settlement in Sony's rootkit case, just give the customer/plaintiff a clean CD. Never mind the malicious act of planting a rootkit on someone else's machine, just replace the CD and all is good. :roll:
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

Legal expenses would've been practically non-existent if they just asked for $0.70/song. :p
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Steeling is bad. We should chop of these peoples right hand's.

Then we should sue the music industry for noise pollution.


Give me 10 minutes and I can turn what I just said into a song and sell it.
 

SSSnail

Lifer
Nov 29, 2006
17,458
83
86
If I was downloading music illegally, I'd LOVE for the RIAA to take me to court for $7 /song (x10 the potential actual dmg). That'll show them bastages.

May be if this is the case, then we all should be caught, and the RIAA can then sue us and go bankrupt because of enormous legal fees incurred. Screw them backwards.
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

Legal expenses would've been practically non-existent if they just asked for $0.70/song. :p

There's also their cost of having the burden of proof and finding their so called 'perpetrators' in the first place.
 

Regs

Lifer
Aug 9, 2002
16,666
21
81
Originally posted by: SSSnail
If I was downloading music illegally, I'd LOVE for the RIAA to take me to court for $7 /song (x10 the potential actual dmg). That'll show them bastages.

May be if this is the case, then we all should be caught, and the RIAA can then sue us and go bankrupt because of enormous legal fees incurred. Screw them backwards.

They obviously want to create a determent against theft of copyright material. I hope they succeed and another market opens up in the music industry where it doesn't involve the RIAA and the publishing conglomerate's.
 

jlee

Lifer
Sep 12, 2001
48,518
223
106
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

Legal expenses would've been practically non-existent if they just asked for $0.70/song. :p

There's also their cost of having the burden of proof and finding their so called 'perpetrators' in the first place.

That's true.

Still, if they would've settled for a reasonable amount in the first place, they wouldn't be making all their lawyers rich(er). :p
 

Lithium381

Lifer
May 12, 2001
12,452
2
0
The group might also argue that capping damages at 70¢ per song is not appropriate, given that the songs may have been downloaded countless times from the defendant over a P2P network.

How is that the defendants fault? If they're even going to bother with that line of thought, they need to seek those who downloaded and get the $7 from them instead. If that P2P issue holds true, then by that logic only the very first person who uploaded the song is liable to be sued. Otherwise it's a huge pyramid scheme.
 

oogabooga

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2003
7,806
3
81
Originally posted by: Lithium381
The group might also argue that capping damages at 70¢ per song is not appropriate, given that the songs may have been downloaded countless times from the defendant over a P2P network.

How is that the defendants fault? If they're even going to bother with that line of thought, they need to seek those who downloaded and get the $7 from them instead. If that P2P issue holds true, then by that logic only the very first person who uploaded the song is liable to be sued. Otherwise it's a huge pyramid scheme.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure the people are being sued for distributing music, ie other people were downloading from them (the you know, peer to peer part of peer to peer). In that case it would be the defendant's false that the music was downloaded 'countless times' although imo it's pretty countable since bandwidth is kinda limited.

if they can somehow prove that 1gig up is them uploading the song at 4 megs a song/70c a song that's still only 175 bucks which would be far more reasonable than the massive penalties being levied.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,354
10,880
136
Not to defend stealing music, but these absurd RIAA damage settlements have to be slapped down at some point.

The record companies may well have lost mega-bucks due to illegal music downloads, but most of it has been due to their own shortsighted failure to take advantage of the new digital medium as we all know... further I'd say that since those 38 songs could have been legally purchased for approx $38, the record companies "damages" should be $38 plus a reasonable fine.
 

NanoStuff

Banned
Mar 23, 2006
2,981
1
0
Pretty much all good music comes from independent labels, so I'd say getting sued by RIAA is a listening to shitty music fine.
 

Eeezee

Diamond Member
Jul 23, 2005
9,922
0
76
70 cents per song seems too low though. Most albums would be only cost around $10 if that were the case, yet $15-$20 seems to be more the norm. Even if we don't agree with those prices, that's what they are. The damages should probably be closer to perhaps $1.50/song.

And then there's the idea that making that song available could result in many other people downloading the song, which applies a coefficient to the dollar value of each song. Let's say you upload a song to the internet and it gets downloaded by 2,000 people. There's $3000 in damages right there (or $1400 if each song is only 70 cents). At the same time, it's become a sad but common practice to only have one or two good songs on an album, so people will pay the full $20 price just to get those two songs. I'm pulling numbers out of thin air at this point, but let's say 50% of the people buying album A are paying $7.50/song to get 2 songs on a $15 disc (and don't care about the others). Now if you upload that song and 2000 people buy it, that's 1000*7.50 + 1000*1.50 = $9000 in damages!

I can understand the RIAA's reasoning behind some of their numbers, even if I disagree with the whole affair. I think that last bit of the paragraph needs to be ignored; determining how many people are buying the album for a single song is nearly impossible, and therefore irrelevant.

1) Detect a user/IP address uploading copyrighted material (easy to do if you watch the torrent sites). Keep a valid record, go through the ISP and the torrent site if you must
2) Determine the value of the songs on a CD (price of CD / # of sungs = $$/song)
3) Maintain a list of the number of IP addresses connecting to the host you'd like to sue. This is easy; any bit torrent tracker can tell you how many people have successfully downloaded something
4) That determines the damages for uploading that song. If the torrent is a whole album, then the damages you can seek should be the cost of the album * the number of users downloading it

The case should be made that only the person that originally uploaded the song can be held liable for the P2P process from that point. Once the torrent gets going, there is no way for certain to track how many people have connected to whom. The ultimate, definitive definition of copyright infringement should come down to the original party uploading the copyrighted material to a P2P network.
 

Wreckem

Diamond Member
Sep 23, 2006
9,549
1,130
126
Originally posted by: JLee
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

Legal expenses would've been practically non-existent if they just asked for $0.70/song. :p

$.70 x couple thousand downloads x 10000 songs.

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
18,949
575
126
Originally posted by: bignateyk
no shit, but the point is that they are nowhere near the tens of thousands of dollars the RIAA is trying to get.
There is no relationship between actual damages and statutory damages, nor is there supposed to be. Statutory damages are a way for a jury (and thus society) to punish certain behavior and send a message of deterrence to others.

In civil copyright infringement complaints, the plaintiff can seek actual damages + profits, or it can seek STATUTORY damages, but it cannot seek both. In this case, RIAA asked for STATUTORY damages, not actual damages + profits.

The $150,000 maximum per song arises out of a provision in copyright law that allows a jury to dispense a royal smackdown on the defendant if the plaintiff proves (and the defendant fails to disprove) the infringement was intentional and knowing, as opposed to unintentional and unknowing.

In the Thomas case, the jury found the defendant committed intentional and knowing infringement (which could hardly be disputed), thus triggering the 'royal smackdown' provision that allows harsh damages as a punishment for the defendant's bad behavior.

Of course, had this moron agreed to sit down with RIAA and come to a settlement, it would have cost her about 1/100th as much. But noooo, she forced RIAA's hand, went to trial and insulted the jury's intelligence with a preposterous defense, and got her ass handed to her.

Door #1 was available to her, but she rejected that and bet the farm on Door #2.
 

alkemyst

No Lifer
Feb 13, 2001
83,769
19
81
Originally posted by: NanoStuff
Actual damages are not 70 cents per song. Actual damages are always more than cost because of legal expenses, amongst other things.

What this would do is cap it at 10x the song price...court costs can usually be added on to that.
 

Oscar1613

Golden Member
Jan 31, 2001
1,424
0
0
Originally posted by: JackBurton
Beautiful defense! 70¢ per song is a completely fair settlement. Kind of like the settlement in Sony's rootkit case, just give the customer/plaintiff a clean CD. Never mind the malicious act of planting a rootkit on someone else's machine, just replace the CD and all is good. :roll:

you cant have your cake and eat it too. if sony can get away with simply replacing a cd, then the damages should come down. if they don't want their damages to come down, then they should have to pay way more than $7000 per rootkit cd