RIAA Told To Hand Over Data On Cost Per Download
from the constitutionality-questions dept
Earlier this year, a court agreed to examine whether or not the fines the RIAA is asking for in its lawsuits against people accused of file sharing is constitutional (that whole "cruel and unusual" bit). The RIAA, in response, has fought hard to keep from revealing any information about how much a download really costs, but a judge isn't having any of that and has ordered the RIAA in the UMG v. Lindor case to turn over the data.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: constitutionality, cost, downloads, fines, lindor, riaa
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Oh, snap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A penny charged is a penny lost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will they do it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually the only fair way would be based on how many people would have bought the music but did not because they downloaded it from her.
You could even extend that to say the only really fair way would be the above and then to subtract all those music fans that downloaded from her for free and then went out and bought related music/merchandise directly as a result of downloading which they would not have done otherwise.
But then let's be honest that's just impossible to gauge accurately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The reason
Opportunity cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The reason
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
statutory damages is the reason
However, the statutory provision was put in place for the very reason that its difficult, if not impossible, for a copyright holder to prove with the requisite certainty the amount of their actual damages when their copyright is infringed. Because the statute wasn't drafted when we had digital technology, this is another area where the law hasn't kept up with the technology and probably needs to be changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why is this so complicated?
So if the RIAA could prove that "Pirateman69" shared the latest Britney Spears song on Kazaa, and it was downloaded 5,000 times, it should sue for $7500.
I am no lawyer, but common sense is common sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here is some common sense.Take it all away from the studios and the RIAA. Change the law so the govt. actually enforces and punishes the people that are violating copyright law.
Of course, maybe they should start enforcing immigration law first. Or the gun laws we already have on the books.
Does our govt. do anything it is supposed to do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
appeals - yay!
If its from 750 -> 99c, then they can be appealed/sued for all but treble damages being awarded. Expect some fuzzy math and further delays/go arounds before these numbers get realized, but even if its 10$ they are going to lose well, whats 10 out of 750? they would be required to give up 87 percent of the money they have made.
Oh, and it gets better. All those companies who have music contracts with the RIAA now will have a basis to take into consideration now that they will know how much the label is pocketing, and give people an insight into how much things truly cost apple, emi, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trying to profit from piracy
This is going to be my new job:
Step 1 - I leave a dollar bill out on my window sill. Of course, somebody will inevitably walk by and take the dollar. I catch up with that person, then take them to court and sue them for $750.
Step 2 - Repeat.
Step 3 - Profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to profit from piracy
Step 1 - I leave a dollar bill out on my window sill. Of course, somebody will inevitably walk by and take the dollar. I catch up with that person, then take them to court and sue them for $750.
Step 2 - Repeat step 1 750 times (since I have 750 dollars now)
Step 3 - Retire. Rinse and/or repeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trying to profit from piracy
The person being sued is not the one who walked by and took the dollar. The person being sued is the one who put the dollar out on the window sill and allowed it to be taken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Trying to profit from piracy
The record company is the one being sued? Wow, I must have read the story wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to profit from piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trying to profit from piracy
no, you would have to sell the dollars, and watch for people to make lossy digital copies of the dollars, and then give those digital copies of dollars away for free.
the problem with all of this is that you still have your original dollar and can continue to use it as you see fit.
the problem for the labels disclosing their costs is that we all know it's less than a dollar. my guess is that it's something like 70 cents, meaning that apple makes ~30 cents to cover it's costs. soon the public will see just how greedy the labels really are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
General Damages?
Now, the RIAA is claiming "hardship" or "pain and suffering". How else can they justify the huge damages awards? Statute? Punitive? The judge, in this case, is probably itching to overturn that statute on constitutional grounds.
Making the federal government the enforcer of last resort will not solve the problem. The feds are not interested in small fry like...Lindor. They only go after big targets, because that gets them the headlines, which they can present to Congress so that they get more funding for next year for bigger busts, etc.
Also, the feds cannot touch non-U.S. sources. The problem is that the MPAA/RIAA are trying to use the courts and the feds to protect their business model. They are a bunch of ox-cart makers. Someone should introduce them to a steam engine, preferably head first.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read And Understand Before Posting
The penalty is not for downloading one copy of the song. The penalty is for uploading the song - for letting other people have the song for free. For making it available on a p2p network so that other people can download it from her computer. Get it?
How many people took a copy of the song for free? How many people came to her computer and downloaded a copy to their computer? Nobody knows. You would think the record company would have to prove the amount of damages. They would have to prove that x number of people downloaded the song from her computer, multiplied by $1 per song, equals $x lost through illegally sharing the song.
However the law sometimes provides for statutory damages. Instead of having to prove the actual amount of damages, the record company can just claim the statutory damage amount, which for this offense has been set at $750+ per song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read And Understand Before Posting
I agree, the $750 for allowing other people to download the song, times how many songs she had on her computer at the time doesn't seem completely outrageous to me. Let's say you cap off the song at $1 per DOWNLOAD of that song. Well you might makes out well, let's say that song was only downloaded 200 times then you would owe $200. But let's say a couple thousand people downloaded that song, then you are in a bit more trouble.
I do think the settlement amount is kind of ridiculous, especially with the non-tech savvy jury they had (jury of peers indeed). But, in the end, she could have done a lot worse. Plus there is nothing stopping her from suing everybody who downloaded to song from her (theft of electronic data) because her claim is she didn't know the songs were available for other people to download. Ignorance to the law is no excuse as has been proven time and time again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read And Understand Before Posting
From the kazaa licence agreement
"4.4 My Shared Folder. By saving a file in My Shared Folder, you understand that it will be available for any other user of Kazaa and compatible programs. These users may find your files and subsequently download them from you. By doing so your Internet connection is being used."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read And Understand Before Posting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read And Understand Before Posting
I have played with p2p programs, it takes some time before 200, let a lone a couple of thousand, people have downloaded it (completely). That's not even taking into account the fact that for most if not all songs, there will be plenty of other people offering the same song.
And just because somebody downloads a song, doesn't mean they would all have bought it if it wasn't available for free
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is new
It looks like Apple can get a profit and pay the artist, labels and all at $.99 a track so that is the fair market value people will pay it and someone will sell it. Lets tack on 15% for the cost of taking it to court and cap damages at $1.14 a song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
however. the uploaders are, and if they have the permit or whatever to upload it, then no harm is being done.
if you upload copyrighted material and do not have the permission to distribute such material, you should be the one getting fined. not the person downloading it.
just my opinion on the matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
From the EFF article it appears to me that the RIAA isn't being forced to "turn over the data". In July, when Lindor requested hard data the RIAA lawyers objected but failed to clarify their objection. Since it appears that their objection is baseless, the judge is demanding a response to justify the objection. If the RIAA fails to offer a reasonable response, THEN the judge will demand the figures. Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's all it look looks like to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what if
just my $.02.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: what if
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
online piracy will inevitably fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: online piracy will inevitably fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
# 30
I totally disagree. Given the way in which this technology (and the internet) work I think now that it's here and there are so many people using P2P I don think it's going anywhere.
Law makers will continue to try and pass laws banning it (for now), and the industries will continue to try and recoup "damages" but short of shutting down the internet on the whole there isn't any way to stop it.
With all of th massive home internet connections how hard do you think it would be for someone to write an app that uses some other protocol.
FTP has been around long before Kazaa or BitTorrent, but it servers the same purpose - to share digital content.
Now FTP may not be ideal for P2P hording, but at this point the floodgates are open and *nothing* will stop file sharing anymore.
...But, I could be wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
online piracy will fail
Alas, yes. I'm afraid you are. Although the network acts as a spider web and once inside, we grow harder to trace, the ISP's all function at the pleasure and under the regulations set up by the feds, and the on ramps and off ramps are pathetically easy to monitor for copyrighted material. That's how the French are able to manifest their plan. It just isn't done as yet, until the French this week. If illegal activity keeps up on the net---and there is little indication that intelligence and morality is going to trump entitlement and greed anytime soon---the next step is one we've long feared. Every bit and byte we send and receive will be snooped because "probable cause" is slowly going over to the side of law enforcement. The courts have been extremely fair and extremely reluctant to do this. The RIAA spent millions and millions for years educating instead of enforcing. But rampant theft is driving this issue now.
The bigger issue here is petulant and gluttonous stupidity in the face of clearly defined and long enforced copyright regulation. Anyone who thinks we will avoid increasingly repressive and inevitably successful law enforcement in the face of a systematic and unprecedented looting of an entire media industry.....is deluding themselves.
Read up what the French are doing. It pisses me off but downloading is freeloading and for the freedoms we will certainly lose, you've no one to blame but yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"online piracy will fail"
What they *can* do is block certain protocols - i.e. BitTorrent. My point is that while they may block these protocols (and impair legitimate use of this technology and hamper innovation in the process)they cannot block ALL protocols.
People have and will adapt. A new client will be written that uses some other packet type to send the data and people will continue to share.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No. I believe you have this wrong. They've described their intent is to use matching software and seek code matches against a copyright database. Google does something similar to this instantly in every search. The French don't plan to block anything at all, and not p2p. They simply intend to seek matches from streaming data at the entry and exit points of every ISP. This is possible because the ISP's must operate under government agency auspices to be licenced. When a match occurs, the file will go through but a warning will be sent. Three warnings and you are out. You lose your connection to the network.
Encrypted data won't be scannable/matchable and so a rescindable license to send encryption is inevitably next. And on and on and on. My point is not whether the network can be policed or not, although clearly I believe it can. My point is that the wild west was tamed and this new frontier will be tamed, regrettably too, as long as latter day Jesse Jameses keep stealing everything they can get their hands on. A fully legal industry is being looted. My point is, civilized government has little choice, and we are rapidly losing the freedom and anonymity we love because truly moronic thieves who bray they are above the law won't stop abusing it until their means is taken away.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Don't kid yourself. People are smart. And if something is desirable and popular, there will be a way to get it.
Just to make my point, look at all the digital protection schemes developed and cracked in last 10 years. Name me one that withstood the collective effort. ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I just have to say.. you got to be kiddn me
A fully legal industry is being looted.
this industry steals more from the artists than anyone could do on the p2p network. they are all about control and the money for the executives pockets. instead of realizing the endless possibilities they are fighting it and everyone they can reach. sad sad state
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We had a chance to do this right. We could have just stopped buying music and delivered a message that we don't want it at that price. Capitalist markets respond and there is ample precedent that the prices would have indeed, fallen to where purchasing began again. But we didn't do that.
Instead, everybody hogged in on a "steal whatever you want" free for all when technology supported it and HILARIOUSLY referred to this as a "new market model to which the industry must adjust."
WTF???
The net result? The industry has no reason to come down in price, that's one. No industry responds to theft that way. Law enforcement is ratcheted up, that's two. And legislation will compel more and more complicated enforcement schemes until the network resembles an armed camp and the cost of security alone justifies the STILL high price for music. People are just as stupid as you think they are smart.
Hell, given the legal chance folks didn't even support Prince and RadioHead and others. If supermarkets were being vandalized this way and the farmers weren't getting paid, the feds would step in there, too. And that's what's happening. And eventually, for 98% of the music buying public, they'll go back to paying because the punishments will continue up until it is not worth the risk as in any legal model and encrypted filesharing will become the provenance of only high tech foolhardy risk taking outlaws.
Just like any other crime. We asked for it. We're gonna get it. And that's the big shame, a shame properly placed on everyone who steals music and ruins the freedom of our network.
It's not that complicated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You know that's not true and that's why were losing this to the court system. Bear in mind, Keepn, I hold some of these royalty rights and I'm down by 40-45K a year since 2002. Nobody buys anymore and so no royalties are due anymore. I've got a mortgage and a kid in college and copyright infringement is killing me. The funny thing is, the so-called "fans" are giving us a far worse fucking than the industry EVER did. Think about THAT for a moment.
YES, the industry cuts contracts that favor them. You can sign it or not, that's the deal. boo hoo. ALL industry tries to do that. Don't YOU try to do the best YOU can, too?
My point is that we all entered into those deals knowingly and willingly, just the same way you once bought the music, but now you claim you were being cheated all along and you try to justify stealing it now. These arguments have never stood up in a court because they are specious. The courts see legal binding contracts entered willingly. The courts see my product for sale being stolen instead. And they see your kind of self-deluding moralism to try to defend a criminal act that is very clearly defined by law. THAT's what the courts see. THAT's why the RIAA keeps moving ahead. Legal counts for a lot here. And there ARE no endless possibilities at the moment, sir. It's YOU who are kidding yourself. FANS didn't even pay RADIOHEAD when they COULD. WHO ARE YOU KIDDING??
At the end of the day, Keepn It Real, there is no reason not to pay for the music or books or movies you take. None. REAL music fans have always put their money where their mouth is. The rest of you are stealing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When Napster first started, I was exposed to more music and content and I rushed out to buy the good stuff. That is the problem; to me, there is nothing good enough. I refuse to buy a CD that was one decent song on it. I refuse to pay a dollar a track. I don't use any p2p stuff anymore either, but the DMCA has been abused so severely that I will never pay for music again. You can all go out and get real jobs.
Radiohead averaged $8/album from American audiences and that was more than most. How many people downloaded the tracks for free, will fall in love with it and buy the CD when it is available? They made over $5million and didn't have to produce a thing but bandwidth -- which is finite, but inexpensive comparatively. Don't tell me there isn't a market out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The "actual damages" = the lost profits
So $750 would be 1875 times the actual damages.
And $9250 (the amount awarded in the Jammie Thomas case) would be 23,125 times the actual damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where is the confusion?
Is it just me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Back to Matthew
I don’t have to, there isn’t, the facts speak for themselves. Prince tried and was roundly shafted. He actually believed the “fans” would support him directly if he cut the industry out of the middle but instead they ransacked everything he offered online for sale for almost 7 years until he realized this new ethics-free climate we are in. Google his activities now. He’s back with the RIAA again. It's one thing for technology to change the distribution model; quite another to facilitate larceny.
And you’ve badly misrepresented RADIOHEADS return on investment. That band and their management are trying to put a positive spin on a humbling disaster, so bad that they had to sign a conventional label agreement anyway to try to recoup their losses. Radiohead worked their ass off for well over 22 months and created a pretty damn good album and Radiohead was fucked by an average of 80% of all downloaders. Yes, the cream of the American market paid between $6-$8, that’s true. But for every legal download of IN RAINBOWS, there were 2 illegal p2p downloads. The illegals paid nothing, and only a little over a third of the legals paid ANYTHING at all. That’s over an 80% freeloader rate. According to TECH DIGEST and other industry sites, “Radiohead took home an average of $2.26 for a copy of the album.” After management and publicist fees, then the balance split off for taxes and then what’s left divided up among the five band members, one of the best bands in the world was paid for two years work at about the same rate as a person at the front desk who answers a phone. There IS no “market”, Matthew, and freeloaders are not “customers.” And only acts who have first benefited from industry publicity and million dollar support campaigns can earn anything by touring. You don’t appear to know this business at all.
The bigger point is this. Over the years an expensive infrastructure of recording facilities and touring equipment has been assembled, producers, A&R men, musicians, arrangers, conductors, public relations and marketing folks, sound engineers, lighting personnel, graphics, you name it. Very few bands ever earn back the money the industry invests in them and everybody has a right to be paid. The product is FOR SALE, Matthew.
Filesharing is a new form of brick to be thrown through a storefront window so it can be looted, and the best minds in business today cannot figure out a way to make content creation pay within a climate of theft. If you have a workable idea about this “market’ you indicate Matthew, let us hear it. Perhaps more to the point of Radiohead, they were only able to even try this after the industry invested millions in them for well over a decade making them wealthy, international superstars. And fans still embarrassed them. To many of us, what Radiohead tried to do after accepting the industry benefits for years and years reeks of hypocrisy and they surely got what they deserved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's all just so sad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]