But that’s my point. The final decision isn’t up to the copyright holder, because–get this–copyright laws weren’t handed down from Mt. Sinai by the Archangel Gabriel. They are laws created by human beings. And we have the right to change laws that make no sense.
Like, you know, how in the past gay sex was illegal, and you could go to jail for it? But we said that law was stupid? And we changed the law?
We don’t have to keep on doing stupid and counterproductive things just because that’s what the law says. Because we live in a democracy, we can change our laws if our laws result in unjust or unfair results.
These massive wildly disporportionate damages are unjust and unfair. But they are the law. That means the law is unjust and unfair. And if a law is unjust and unfair it should be changed to something just and fair.
Not necessarily. It’s already an established part of existing law that some decisions about infringement should not be left up to the copyright holder.
It’s not up to the copyright holder whether to allow cover songs. They have absolutely no choice in the matter. Our decision on file-sharing infringement should be based on what’s best for the industry to create new music, not what’s best to protect already established interests. Naturally, this includes some strong protections for the copyright holder, like the ability to profit from the work. But that’s not, nor should it be, an unlimited power. We have some anecdotes in this thread that, perhaps, file-sharing infringement might be on the net beneficial.
I’m not dogmatic on that point. It’s hard to gather actual evidence of real economic incentives in music creation, so I’m willing to be convinced otherwise. But at the same time, I’m not going to follow Bricker down the patently ridiculous reasoning that a judgment of hundreds of thousands of dollars is justified in a case of infringement against $30 worth of songs. Such a judgment is entirely divorced from the real situation in the industry. Even if file-sharing infringement is upheld (which, again, I’d not be angry about), we still need a penalty system that isn’t so obviously stupid. It simply isn’t the same in other mediums. When a publisher actually attempted to make an genuine profit from an infringing Harry Potter dictionary (not just post it online), the publisher was hit with nothing more than $6750 in statutory damages. (I read the actual opinion, too, when the decision was handed down. It seemed well decided to these non-expert eyes.)
The best system works to the facilitate the creation of new music. That’s the real policy question. What we have now is a ridiculous mockery of that goal, regardless of the opinions of the extremists on either end of the spectrum.
I understood it before, thanks. If the entirety of the issue was “Waaaaaahhh, damages are too high for this poor guy who knowingly violated copyright law!!!”, I wouldn’t have even bothered posting. It’s all the other crap that I mentioned that is troubling to me. And I find the comparison of the high award in a copyright case to the battle for equal rights for homosexuals to be … to put it nicely … completely laughable. Putting that aside, though, I have no problem with the argument that the award was too high. I’m not losing any sleep over it, but to each their own.
You misunderstand me. I was referring to the fact that the kid admitted in court to having downloaded over 800 songs. Yet, RIAA only cited 30 copyright violations, for whatever reason ignoring at least 770 others. At $22,500 a pop, that would have been a judgment of $18,000,000. I suspect the sheer ridiculousness of a judgment that enormous for file-sharing in unspecified amounts is exactly what necessitates RIAA’s restraint.
…the guy got absolutely what he wanted. He admitted that he was guilty of the allegations.
So they went to trial when they could had an option of possibly settling, admitted guilt on the stand, and asked the jury to send a message. Which the jury proceeded to do.
If people are having problems with the size of the judgement for the RIAA then obviously they should be expressing it at either the jury for deciding on this amount or Tenenbaum for “forcing” this to go to trial.
FWIW, I’m another with little sympathy for Mr. Tenenbaum. The legal model we have in the U.S. is that, if you want content, you pay for it. There are exceptions, of course, radio, for example, but those have other vectors for compensating copyright holders. Mr. Tenenbaum (and other P2P uploaders) are saying they don’t like this model, because the Internet is free. Only, they don’t get to decide what is free. The Internet is, but music is not. The Internet is killing record stores. I’m not happy about that. Not least because I believe in paying for my music (and don’t steal downloads).
Yes, there are legitimate questions as to how much damage he actually did, but that it was damage as defined by currrent law isn’t. Notably, he chose a mechanism specifically designed to obfuscate that point. IMHO, the risk of over-punishment is one he voluntarily assumed.
I’ve purchased every song I possess and have no sympathy for people who are caught. However, the amounts assigned are so beyond reason that I don’t have a yardstick big enough to measure them by. Why not make it life in prison?
Radiohead reportedly made a rough ten million doing exactly that; Einstürzende Neubauten in Germany have devised a ‘supporter’s project’ to generate income via the internet without a record label. Of course, they had the pull of their name, but there’s also cases like the Arctic Monkeys, who pretty much started out by making their songs freely available on their web site, and whose debut album became the fastest selling in UK history.
Neither of which might be a viable business model for the future, but it shows that such a thing isn’t impossible (and that’s without taking income from touring etc. into account). Making money in music is a competition now and will remain one – today, bands are competing for label attention; maybe, in the future, they’ll be more directly competing for an audience (and their money) instead. The competitive landscape will change (and it has already, in an IMO irreversible way), but it always does that
Do you listen to the radio? Ever make a mix CD? Been to a club, oh, ever? Music is meant to be listened to, & repeated. The law doesn’t even permit a songwriter to prevent unauthorized covers of his work. These judgements are disproportionate, & bizarre.
The defendant did no such thing. He copied & distributed music without permission. In a copyright case, it is misleading to use the word “stole” as if there were a loss of physical property.
I don’t think that anybody here has sympathy for the guy, not really. We just think that this is a demonstrably dumbass way to run a justice system. And when talking about travesties of justice, other dubious judicial endeavors become relevent - if somewhat hyperbolic. But then there are still people who see nothing wrong at all with being able to sue a guy for $675,000 for infringing on the copyright on 30 songs, or the tactic of selective suing to “make examples” of people, so it may be necessary to bring out an even bigger rhetorical hammer.
I think what the RIAA is really going for is to scare future defendants into settling out of court. From what I’ve read, they generally offer a 4 to 6K settlement. I’m sure they’d rather 1000 settle out of court, than one take it all the way.
Radio stations and clubs have licenses, which means they pay royalties. I don’t make mix cds or most vegetable dishes. The law does permit a songwriter to collect royalties for cover versions of his work. These judgments are appropriate under the law.
You seriously equate a steep fine for admittedly illegal conduct to the struggle for equal rights for homosexuals? Both stealing bread and genocide are wrong, do they equate too?I suggest your outrage meter needs a checkup.
What next? The Holocaust?
“The RIAA can get a judgment for over a million against a guy. Why next they’ll be marching the guy into the ovens for being Jewish?”
Can’t wait to see how that one flies.
Look, even if I could get worked up over a guy having to pay too much in damages for an illegal action he admitted taking (and the thousands of other songs he admitted downloading and sharing), it would still fall miles short of the denial of rights to a segment of the population.
By the same token, $675k for 800 songs is $843.75 per song. Something that I don’t find particularly steep.
My big question would be - why not prosecute ALL the violations? Isn’t there something in the law about similar infractions are required to be treated the same? That we can’t cherrypick to send a message?
I have absolutely no doubt (as has already been mentioned) that the RIAA is using this judgement to intimidate people into settling for the $4-8k range. So in essence they are using this guy as a cudgel against others.
Is there any reason they couldn’t seek say, $500 fine per song (which would be quite reasonable and defensible) but then ask for costs? The fine per song would set a benchmark for settling for all the others, while the “costs” part would be a big incentive not to fight the case if you got the dreaded letter.
Have a video tape of your kid’s birthday party? Did you sing Happy Birthday to you? If so, and if share the tape then you’re a pirate, a thief inoakminster’s jargon, liable for upto $150,000 by the laws of this judgement.
Just singing it is an unlicensed public performance. I wonder if oakminster has ever sang happy birthday? If so he’s one of those no good godless heathen pirates.
Thats only half right. Radio stations may have to pay royalties to songwriters, (determined by organizations like ASCAP) if they are not sold a license to play for free (the licensing isn’t free for commercial radio stations), but they don’t pay royalties to performing artists or record labels. AFAIK, the major record labels are attempting to get royalties on recordings with a bill that is currently in the house of representatives.
