# Judge reduces file-sharing damages award by 90 percent. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 11, 2010, 7:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283 "2010-07-11T07:32:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/41 "2010-07-11T19:52:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > I’ll see if I can find the story, but I do recall reading a news story some months ago about it coming out that the cash stops with the RIAA. I’d like to see it, if you could find it, because I really don’t think that’s true, unless the reporter was using RIAA as synecdoche for “The recording industry”. The RIAA is a lobbying group. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/42 "2010-07-11T20:01:08Z")
> [@Gustav](#): > > Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do not believe the defendant in this case was running any kind of website or network to distribute files. He downloaded music off a peer-to-peer network, and when you do that it automatically makes you seed the file you downloaded unless you go through very specific steps to prevent it. I would wager you that at least 95% of people that download music have also been guilty of distribution. Probably more like 99%. I would also be very interested to know what his download:upload ratio was, because for most casual users it tends to be very low since they only keep the client open when they’re actually downloading stuff. I didn’t see those details. It said he had downloaded songs but I didn’t see a mention of peer to peer , even though that’s probably what it was. I think becoming a member of a peer to peer group implies some intent to offer items you don’t own, but maybe that’s what makes it so hard to prosecute. How can you prove the intent if people load peer to peer software on thier computer? It doesn’t seem reasonable to blame software manufacturers or servers so that leaves us with those who knowingly download or offer for download someone elses work. How is something like that policed? That must be part of what makes it so hard to actually track offenders down and prosecute. Also why they want to try and make an example out of a few. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/43 "2010-07-11T20:30:06Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > Do you think , if found guilty, they should also pay the cost of prosecuting the case? I missed this part. If it is traditional to do so then I suppose the answer is yes but it seems like that is a very vague fine to impose. Seems like an open invitation for the prosecution to spend money. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/44 "2010-07-11T20:44:35Z")
Had some more time to think on this during a hike. Music is a net benefit to humanity and should be distributed to the people. At one time the RIAA had a beneficial reason to exist, their existence allowed wider distribution of music to the people then without them. Now it’s exactly the opposite, they are restricting the distribution of music and are now a net detriment to society, and should be viewed as such, and their level of control is using and spreading fear. This doesn’t go into the issue if music should be free or not - that’s another issue, just if RIAA is standing in the way of a benefit to society, which IMHO they unquestionably are now. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/45 "2010-07-11T20:46:37Z")
Your post makes no sense at all. It merely begs every single question that it claims to address. ---
**Author:** ![enigmatic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@enigmatic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enigmatic)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/46 "2010-07-11T20:51:52Z")
Some thoughts. 1. Many goods today are entirely or at least easily reducible to pure information. If you walk into an HMV store today almost every single item is effectively intangible. A significant majority of my spending on luxury items entails paying for information that I could theoretically copy for free. In the future this may effectively be true of many physical manufactured items. 2. The people who produce these items are entitled to recompense for their work. Yes this includes the record companies. You might not want to consider this, but for every successful act who complains that they are locked into “unfair” contracts with record companies, there are dozens of up and coming or unsuccessful groups whose advertising and promotion is being subsidised by the more successful/lucky acts. Don’t like this, then stop listening to crappy manufactured music Our society seems to have have a bizarre disconnect between encouraging commercial savvy as a theoretical ideal and then resenting the hell out of companies or individuals that are actually making money from us. And yes I think that the RIAA is stuck trying to defend a stupidly outdated model, they are going about it in a very unpleasant way, and the damages awarded in the case were ridiculously excessive, and are probably still ridiculously excessive in the current environment (ordinarily I have little sympathy for the “everybody is doing it” defence but in this case I think the defendant has a point if only in how it effects the reasonable estimation of damages, if every file shared is costing the record companies $2,250 then I’m pretty sure that between them they should have registered an annual financial short fall of all the money in the universe by now). I do think, however that they are entitled to take action to protect their investment. 1. People seem to have completely forgotten that the main effect and point of copyright is actually to restrain big corporations. Those artists that you seem to think will be much more successful when freed from the yoke of corporate oppression. How do you think they will be doing when competing with big music companies who can freely take their music without paying a dime, and then turn their advertising, printing and distribution networks to selling other peoples work without even considering royalties. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/47 "2010-07-11T20:59:27Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Your post makes no sense at all. It merely begs every single question that it claims to address. and now at last you’ve grasped kanicbird’s special special world. I do see the point that money going to some inflated organization does little at first to help the artist, but if in the long run, there is some success in making people realize they don’t have a right to take other people’s work for free simply because the technology allows it, it may help. If fewer people join peer to peer groups for fear of being busted then that could result in more sales for the label and the artist. ---
**Author:** ![sleestak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/919ad9/32.png) [@sleestak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sleestak)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/48 "2010-07-11T23:09:40Z")
> [@MOIDALIZE](#): > > If you’re a musician, you should be playing live for a living. Or getting paid directly for creating music, such as for a movie soundtrack or art exhibit. If you’re looking to get paid by recording and selling CDs, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to release an album of several songs on compact disc, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? Let me rewrite this a bit, ok? If you’re an architect, you should be actually building for a living. Or getting paid directly for building the projects, such as a house or hotel. If you’re looking to get paid by making architectural plans, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to make building plans in a digital format, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? Or, If you’re an computer programmer, you should be actually fixing PCs for a living. Or getting paid directly for building the PCs themselves.. If you’re looking to get paid by writing code, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to write a program, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? That argument can be used for a whole lot of endeavors these days. Anything that is in digital format can be copied. That fact does not make the skill, time and effort of the creator irrelevant. Slee ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/49 "2010-07-11T23:33:00Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > What would you do about court costs? > > If, under your scheme, you download 100 songs, that means that if you get caught and prosecuted, you owe the record labels $400. > > In order to get that judgment, however, the record companies need to hire a bunch of lawyers who bill at $500 an hour each. If the RIAA paid an exorbitant amount to recoup their $400 loss, isn’t that their fault? If you stole $5 from me, and I spent $1,000,000 hiring a massive team of lawyers to sue you, should you be on the hook for a million bucks just because I’m a moron with no sense of perspective? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/50 "2010-07-11T23:45:18Z")
As an artist who works in a medium where there is no money (poetry), I think it’s very possible that the music business really has been due for a come-to-earth moment. It’s entirely possible that the future of music is that no one makes money doing it. It wouldn’t be the first art form that found itself without any real way of making a living, so I’m not entirely sure why I should view a crash in the music economy as something horrifying and dreadful. We aren’t guaranteed a job doing what we like, right? I can’t write a sonnet and demand y’all fork over tons of money to read it, just like I can’t demand money to perform show tunes in the shower. Perhaps the future of music-making is like the present of poetry-writing–a hobby, not a profession. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/51 "2010-07-11T23:54:29Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Let me rewrite this a bit, ok? > > If you’re an architect, you should be actually building for a living. Or getting paid directly for building the projects, such as a house or hotel. If you’re looking to get paid by making architectural plans, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to make building plans in a digital format, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? > > Or, > > If you’re an computer programmer, you should be actually fixing PCs for a living. Or getting paid directly for building the PCs themselves.. If you’re looking to get paid by writing code, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to write a program, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? > > That argument can be used for a whole lot of endeavors these days. Anything that is in digital format can be copied. That fact does not make the skill, time and effort of the creator irrelevant. > > Slee Yeah, because there’s such a huge demand online for architectural plans and generic code. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/52 "2010-07-11T23:57:02Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > If the RIAA paid an exorbitant amount to recoup their $400 loss, isn’t that their fault? > > If you stole $5 from me, and I spent $1,000,000 hiring a massive team of lawyers to sue you, should you be on the hook for a million bucks just because I’m a moron with no sense of perspective? and when a certain crime becomes very common because the petty criminals know it’s not worth pursuing, are we making things better or worse? I think at some point we can decide to place more responsibility on the person committing the crime for the expense of dealing with it. Of course they can plead guilty and avoid some of that expense. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 11, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/53 "2010-07-11T23:59:02Z")
> [@sleestak](#): > > Let me rewrite this a bit, ok? > > […] > > If you’re an computer programmer, you should be actually fixing PCs for a living. Or getting paid directly for building the PCs themselves.. If you’re looking to get paid by writing code, well…I don’t know what to tell you. Technology and consumer preference has sorta made that business model obsolete, has it not? If you’re going to write a program, don’t you have to accept at this point that many people will just download it for free from a blog? If that’s the case, what purpose does huge punitive damages serve? > > That argument can be used for a whole lot of endeavors these days. Anything that is in digital format can be copied. That fact does not make the skill, time and effort of the creator irrelevant. **MOIDALIZE** wasn’t saying the effort of the creator was irrelevant. He or she was saying that you should be paid for the original creation, not every copy that’s produced. As it happens, I _am_ a computer programmer. I get paid for creating software. I do not get paid an additional fee every time a new customer uses my software. In fairness, my company _does_ get paid by each new customer that uses our software. But for me personally to keep getting paid, I need to keep creating new software (or creating new improvements to old software). You might say “But if your company can’t resell the old software again and again, you’d be out of work.” But in actuality, we’re a “software as a service” company – our software resides on our servers, and our customers don’t get a copy. Instead, they pay us for the ability to send us data and have our software analyze the data and send back content to the customer. So you see, we’ve found a way to make the Internet work for us (and we’re far, far from unique in this respect). Maybe the recording industry should be focussed on doing the same. Or, you know, they could learn to live with the profit margins allowed by their current business model. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/54 "2010-07-12T00:06:53Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > As an artist who works in a medium where there is no money (poetry), I think it’s very possible that the music business really has been due for a come-to-earth moment. It’s entirely possible that the future of music is that no one makes money doing it. It wouldn’t be the first art form that found itself without any real way of making a living, so I’m not entirely sure why I should view a crash in the music economy as something horrifying and dreadful. > > We aren’t guaranteed a job doing what we like, right? I can’t write a sonnet and demand y’all fork over tons of money to read it, just like I can’t demand money to perform show tunes in the shower. > > Perhaps the future of music-making is like the present of poetry-writing–a hobby, not a profession. If you published a book of poetry and anticipated making some decent money off it , how would you feel about someone scanning it onto a share site and giving it away? Music and poetry and other creative endevors is about demand and popularity. Not just that it’s some music , but that it’s _some_ music that someone else wants. Lots of musicians and songwriters, writers and poets etc have material they never make any money off of for a variety of reasons , one being that it’s just not what enough people want. What we’re talking about is people wanting it, but justifying taking it for free rather than paying for it as they should. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/55 "2010-07-12T00:06:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > and when a certain crime becomes very common because the petty criminals know it’s not worth pursuing, are we making things better or worse? > > I think at some point we can decide to place more responsibility on the person committing the crime for the expense of dealing with it. Of course they can plead guilty and avoid some of that expense. Perhaps a point I should have made earlier, but if something is actually a crime, since when does the victim have to pay for the prosecution? Just report it to the police and let the government argue the case. Now if something is a _tort_ and you want to sue for compensation, then yeah, you have to judge if it’s worth it. Some things are and some things aren’t. If there’s a rash of “annoying but not worth suing over” behavior, then petition the legislature to make it illegal, or if it’s already illegal then to increase penalties to the point where they’re adequate deterrent. But don’t bother suing unless the money you’d get back is enough to make it worth your while. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/56 "2010-07-12T00:07:14Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > If the RIAA paid an exorbitant amount to recoup their $400 loss, isn’t that their fault? > > If you stole $5 from me, and I spent $1,000,000 hiring a massive team of lawyers to sue you, should you be on the hook for a million bucks just because I’m a moron with no sense of perspective? Depends. What if you come to me first and say, “You took my $5. I’d like it back please”? And what if i then say “Sorry; not interested,” and refuse to hand it over? Should you shrug and walk away? Or should you be allowed to pursue your legal remedies without it costing you even more money? Should we have a legal system where people only get proper redress when the cost of recovery is smaller than the amount taken? Again, i’m no fan or defender of the RIAA, but it’s worth noting that they made precisely the sort of offer that i described above. Before this case even went to trial, they offered Tenenbaum the opportunity to settle the whole thing for $4000. He told them to take a hike. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/57 "2010-07-12T00:10:56Z")
> [@cosmosdan](#): > > If you published a book of poetry and anticipated making some decent money off it , how would you feel about someone scanning it onto a share site and giving it away? Does not compute. Seriously, there’s no money in poetry. That’s simply the model for the art now. And it may be the model for music in the future. It sucks when your passion is something that other people don’t want to pay for but, well, it happens. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/58 "2010-07-12T00:21:18Z")
> [@tim314](#): > > **MOIDALIZE** wasn’t saying the effort of the creator was irrelevant. He or she was saying that you should be paid for the original creation, not every copy that’s produced. > > As it happens, I _am_ a computer programmer. I get paid for creating software. I do not get paid an additional fee every time a new customer uses my software. In fairness, my company _does_ get paid by each new customer that uses our software. But for me personally to keep getting paid, I need to keep creating new software (or creating new improvements to old software). > > You might say “But if your company can’t resell the old software again and again, you’d be out of work.” But in actuality, we’re a “software as a service” company – our software resides on our servers, and our customers don’t get a copy. Instead, they pay us for the ability to send us data and have our software analyze the data and send back content to the customer. So you see, we’ve found a way to make the Internet work for us (and we’re far, far from unique in this respect). Maybe the recording industry should be focussed on doing the same. > > Or, you know, they could learn to live with the profit margins allowed by their current business model. So , if someone got some of your companies software and was using it for free, they wouldn’t care? They wouldn’t puruse any legal action? Do they own copyrights on that software they are interested in defending and enforcing? I agree that new digital technology must change the business model of popular music , but to think that downloading someone elses work for free constitutes any business model strikes me as bullshit. The industry has to respond the realities of the technology and the ease of\* the crime \* of illeagal downloads. That doesn’t make the dowloads not a crime. Stores with brick and motar must find the right balance between ease of access and the problem of shoplifting. If an item is too easy to get then shoplifting goes up for that item and it can become unprofitable to carry. If you make it to hard to examine you lose sales and it can again become unprofitable. That’s the reality of being in business, but it doesn’t make shoplifting less of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Ionizer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/5daacb/32.png) [@Ionizer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ionizer)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/59 "2010-07-12T00:21:26Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I’d like to see it, if you could find it, because I really don’t think that’s true, unless the reporter was using RIAA as synecdoche for “The recording industry”. The RIAA is a lobbying group. A lobbying group that files thousands of lawsuits and is/has attempted to redefine a number of ‘processes’ used in the lawsuit process. I do not know much of the RIAA and IANAL, but a quick perusal of [here](http://www.eff.org/riaa-v-people) shows clearly that this is not about lobbying at all. Not how I define lobbying anyways. It is about suing anyone/everyone possible to try and get HUGE amounts of money paid to the RIAA for negligible damages (if any really truly exist). ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [July 12, 2010, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283/60 "2010-07-12T00:22:32Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > It sucks when your passion is something that other people don’t want to pay for but, well, it happens. Sure, but it seems to me that there’s a key difference here. People don’t pay for poetry, for the most part, because people aren’t interested in poetry. If you offered large swaths of poetry for free on the internet, i’ll bet very people would even bother to take advantage of your generosity. With music, however, people _are_ interested in it, and they want it. For poetry, the advent of new technology is not what makes poetry unprofitable. What makes poetry unprofitable is the fact that there’s very little demand for it. With music, the demand is there, and the new technology has made it easier to satisfy that demand without handing over any money. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/judge-reduces-file-sharing-damages-award-by-90-percent/546283.md?page=4)