More Judges Realizing That Statutory Damages In Copyright Suits Out Of Line
from the bringing-some-sanity-back dept
The heart of Charles Nessons' case against the RIAA is that the copyright law cited to attack file-sharers is unconstitutional due to the ridiculous statutory fines put on copyright infringement. The original fines were really meant for commercial copyright counterfeiters -- and the law was never intended to be used against random internet users sharing some songs off of their computer with no profit motive at all. The law also didn't anticipate songs being sold for less than $1. So, with statutory fines for each act of infringement sitting between $750 and $150,000, there are some big problems. Luckily, it appears some judges are beginning to agree with the idea that these fines are ridiculous. Ray Beckerman highlights a recent ruling by District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York, where Schendlin stated:"At the end of the day, 'statutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'... and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'"Beckerman notes that a more reasonable standard would be somewhere between zero and nine times the actual damages -- with the lost profit on a single download being approximately $0.35 -- meaning damages per song should range from $0 to $3.15 per song file. Somehow, I'm guessing the RIAA will disagree.
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
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As will the federal district courts. Dicta in opinions is nothing more than nonbinding observations.
Only two things will change this state of affairs. First, Congress may choose to amend the law, but this is unlikely in the current political climate. Second, a plaintiff (if the alleged infringer) may perhaps get a lower court to declare the statutory damages portion as incorporating the concept of punitive damages, and that such punitive damages portion must bear some relationship to damages actually incurred. This second approach would in essence seek to declare at least a portion of the law as unconstitutional, which will be a hard sell given the deferrence by the judiciary in this area to Congressional action.
Only a very few federal judges have the cojones to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional except in the most obvious of circumstances, so it would be unusual to see a decision in the near term challenging its constitutionality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
whats really scary is how long its taken for us to get to this point...what? fines must be based on...reality???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) Damages, which would amount to the handful of change suggested ...
2) Punitive/deterrent -- you were naughty, you oughtn't to do this ...
3) The makeup effect - If we only catch 1 out of 100 crimes, we must fine that one guy to make up for the ninety-nine we fail to catch ...
With file-sharing, there's a fourth factor, namely that the copyright infringement crime has a tendency to multiply ... if I share this file with two people, they share with two each ... etc.
These four factors together combine to give you these walloping fees. I don't agree with it, but that's the thinking behind it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Except the laws in question were enacted long before the Internet became public. And your specious argument conflates file sharing with pyramid schemes. Sorry, but you're making assumptions that just don't stand up to reality. If file sharing were a pyramid scheme, violators should be fined on the order of $2 billion per song.
You should try sticking to verifiable facts, and stop making shit up. Unless you work for the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Stop being a shill and start helping us on this war against the **AA's and the DMCA. All of it is a sham to kill off innovation and lock technology into socialist sheep mode.
Good thing Obama is not a socialist(yeah right).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good Bush isn't either or he might have come up with something like a copyright czar. Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Good thing Bush isn't either or he might have come up with something like a copyright czar. Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I don't recall ever having seen this as part of the laws and reasons involved. While I'm not a lawyer I can't believe that this would withstand ANY serious challenge. "Well, we caught you so you must pay for everyone else whom we didn't bother trying to find", can't see it flying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right now thay take you to court for 10-30 songs, If this change happend they would take you to court for 100-300 songs.
Then it becomes a paperwork mess to figure out what songs were really traded, and a big, "You did this, no I dident" war of words that still cause people to settle out of court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The idea here is to make the RIAA hurt as bad as they think you will hurt. Let them drag it out for 10 years. Do not ever give up. After too long, the courts will get pissed and kill the case because they are wasting time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
LOL! I'm sure you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Anonymous though I may be, I am still every bit an ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Say it costs... I dunno, I don't buy stuff online, say it costs $3 for a single track from a newly released single/album. You download it illegally and get caught; the fine is $10 for each track. That's not a particularly huge problem for most people, especially considering the liklihood of being caught in the first place.
If it's $10,000 for each track, it's a much bigger risk, and thus harder to justify downloading them.
I think that's the point behind it. If you got fined a reasonable amount for each track, say double the market price, then considering the liklihood of you getting caught in the first place, it's worth just downloading everything.
I still think it's pretty damn stupid, but hey, I'm willing to bet this is the line of logic they try to use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Whats wrong
They pick on the people that can't defend themselves and at the same time are given financial support, tax breaks, and tax benefits when they don't need them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #8
Please know what you're talking about before you villify something you don't understand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]