Judge Rejects RIAA's Attempt To Claim 'Trillions' In Damages From Limewire

from the try-again dept

Fri, Mar 11th 2011 3:39pm — Mike Masnick

The judge in the Limewire case has rejected the record labels' attempt to say that Limewire should pay statutory damages based on each time an unauthorized file was shared, instead pointing out that, at a maximum, each song is only subject to a single statutory damage amount, no matter how often it was shared. The judge pointed out that the labels were being ridiculous:

"Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877," Wood wrote, citing a Lime Group court filing referring to the inventor Thomas Edison. She called this an "absurd result."

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: copyright, damages
Companies: limewire, riaa

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

crade (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 2:54pm

"Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877"

So what? The politicians have never questioned it, what did they forget to pay this guy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:24pm
  
  Re:
  I was actually more surprised by:
  
  ... citing a Lime Group court filing referring to the inventor Thomas Edison.
  
  Oh, THAT Edison.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:42pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Indeed, I was thinking of the other Edison that invented the phonograph in 1877 :)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It is pretty unfair that Phil Edison never gets any credit.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The plaintiffs responded by stating that Limewire had stolen all of the music created since 1877, thus preventing them from selling any music anywhere since Limewire's inception.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 5:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are overstating the case, sir. Home taping killed music in the eighties. We haven't had any since.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - G Thompson (profile), 12 Mar 2011 @ 12:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You are wrong, it wasn't home taping. It was them damn youngsters knee tapping to those fandangled phony-graffy machines that the cacophony of screeching came out of that did it.
        
        How dare they illegally tap to our music.
        
        Thinks of the percussionists!!
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:43pm

When you lie enough about facts at some point you start believing your own lies.

Sure makes them look like idiots to be called out and caught red-handed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 3:48pm

I once ripped off a recording industry so badly they were forced to get a real job!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:14pm

actual damages for songs < 1972
The article says that they can get actual damages (not statutory) for pre-1972 songs? Do statutory damages not apply to pre-1972 recordings?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 4:19pm

I'm surprised they even argued a "per-infringement" basis. It's pretty settled that statutory damages don't work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mossup, 11 Mar 2011 @ 6:28pm

Test cases?
How much do these legal actions depend on whether the judge owns an ipod or a sony walkman mp3? Coz in setting legal precidents it largely must be an issue of the white collar, white earbud wearers versus the blue collar real music lovers!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Mar 2011 @ 9:36pm

Now I'm sure that the RIAA is run by Dr. Evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
iveseenitall, 11 Mar 2011 @ 11:18pm

Let's stop referring to members of the Spite Industry as somehow representing the Music Industry.
Or how about we ban music made before 2012. That would give everyone the rest of the year to focus on music and work on putting a new album together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 11 Mar 2011 @ 11:57pm
  
  Re:
  IT's in the works,and is going to be snuck in in the middle of the night into COICA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Mar 2011 @ 1:33am

maybe if they just used the handy chart here even the politician could understand the folly.

http://www.cracked.com/funny-4003-the-pirate-bay/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Karl (profile), 13 Mar 2011 @ 6:11pm
  
  Re:
  That article is awesome.
  
  The continuing operation of The Pirate Bay is chiefly a triumph for enemies of the RIAA, which, by our last count, is everyone who isn't the RIAA.
  
  And I remember when Cracked used to be a not-funny rip-off of Mad Magazine. How times have changed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shon Gale (profile), 13 Mar 2011 @ 8:04am

I say bring on the RIAA. We will treat them like we do drug pushers in my neighborhood. 'Stab 'em if they stand. Shoot 'em if they run.' The RIAA has ruined the music business. No one wants to buy s**t from those assholes or anyone they represent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
phil klisma, 14 Mar 2011 @ 3:42am

RIAA
This mentality goes a long way toward discrediting any stance RIAA can take regarding file sharing. if you read deeply between the lines they seem to be interested in claiming revenues that would never have existed. I personally download a lot of things, and almost immediately delete them once i see they are TRASH! i save a lot of money this way. if something is really good i go and buy it BCZ the real item in your hand is better than a degraded low quality alternative file, especially if you are an audiophile/videophile.
file sharing is the biggest advertisement that ever existed and its not my fault if recording industries are producing and releasing really lame material, and people want to see the product and examine the quality before they spend money and are stuck with garbage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dan0, 14 Mar 2011 @ 9:40am

Statutory damages
Since Edison is the grandfather of all recorded music, and the RIAA is claiming that the infringement is based on a per song basis, They should instead have the award go to the Edison family from NOW ON! What do you think about that RIAA??? :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bloodyscot, 14 Mar 2011 @ 10:29am

When cassette and CD's wear out we should not have to repay for copyrights to replace them
When cassettes and CD's wear out over time if we replace them we have to repay for the copyrights on the music for the same songs on the same media so if people download to remake the same cassettes or CD's they already own would that not be legal under the fair use clause of the law?
The problem RIAA has is proving actual damages since some downloads could be legal or not have been a sale, which would be impossible to determine actual damages without a lot of guessing but by trying to use statutory damages allows them to get around that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]