Musician Claims $5.2 BILLION In Damages In Copyright Infringement Lawsuit Against Apple, Amazon And CDBaby
from the also-seeking-alchemy-secrets-and-unicorn-foals dept
The laws surrounding IP can certainly be absurd, and the ever-extending copyright term has turned the phrase "for a limited time" into a joke in search of a punchline. But there's nothing so absurd as those who take these laws into their own hands, find a lawyer willing to represent fools and pursue supposed infringement in court.
Roland Chambers from South Carolina has filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Apple, Amazon and CD Baby over 12 original pieces of copyrighted sound recordings and two pieces of original artwork for the album cover. Chambers is looking for Apple to pay the larger amount. In total, the plaintiff is seeking an insane amount of over 5.2 billion dollars.That's not a typo. Billion. $5.2 billion or a little over $1.7 billion per defendant. How did these defendants arrive at the receiving end of damage claims that rival IP abuser Zynga's market cap? I don't know either, but here are some of the accusations from Chambers' filing. (All punctuation/spelling errors from the original.)
On or about July of 2001, Plaintiff provided Defendant #3 (CD Baby) with five (5) compact disc including 12 original pieces of copyrighted sound recordings and two (pieces of artwork for the album cover.[Quick interjection: there is no Exhibit A. There are only "demand breakdowns" for every defendant. And there's no asterisk anywhere in the filing that might give some indication what "Note" refers to. From where it's placed, one would assume it would be a copy of the contract with CDBaby, but nothing is provided other than Chambers' claims and bad math.]
In consideration for the compact disc, Defendant #3 executed a consignment only contract, which included distribution of the five disc sent only, no reproduction clause, warehouse storage fees if not sold, and no ownership transfer of copyright.
*A true and correct copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
No payment was reported or issued to plaintiff for any of the five disc.From this point, Amazon and Apple are both accused of allegedly selling Chambers' music without authorization (listed as "ringtones" on Apple's damages worksheet) "far beyond the quantity" authorized. Chambers supposedly gave Apple three songs to stream ("to poll the audience"), but Apple went ahead and made his whole album available digitally. Amazon apparently did likewise despite receiving notice several times to remove the material.
Plaintiff discovered the compact disc were still selling in March 2014 (beyond the quantity ever legally produced) and in various formats and demanded explanation, as well as payment.
CD Baby was to distribute disc and not authorized to create any reproductions; however, more than five disc exist today, and CD Baby is only definitely aware of the whereabouts of one (1) disc. A representative states one (1) disc was sold and (3) were likely recycled/destroyed. This leaves one more disc unaccounted for prior to counterfeit units being placed on the market.
Now, here's where things get really bizarre: the "statutory damages enhancement."
The astronomical $1.7 billion is based mainly on Chambers' mistaken belief that statutory damages are awarded daily. If the unauthorized tracks were available for 4,745 days (roughly 13 years), then multiplying that by $30,000 per day gets you $1.7 billion. Of course, statutory damages don't work like that, but it's sort of amazing he didn't go for willful infringement and bring the total damages sought to $25 billion. Why not? It's not like we're talking about real money, real math or a real application of statutory damages here.
Beyond the $30k per diem, Chambers throws in everything else he can think of. There's another $30k thrown on for "cost of statutory damages." There's $1 million per defendant for punitive damages "based on evidence," something which, at this point, is almost completely nonexistent. There's also another half-mil on the spreadsheet for using his two album pictures -- a number seemingly pulled out of thin air and tacked on to the total.
Because Chambers hasn't listed album or song titles in his complaint, it's hard to verify whether or not he actually registered the copyright on his creations. There aren't a ton of copyrights registered to "Roland Chambers," but there's not enough info available to confirm or deny Chambers' right to claim statutory damages.
Chambers is also asking for attorneys' fees to be paid if he wins. Considering the "enhanced" math shown above, I'd be very interested in seeing Chambers' invoices for filing costs and billable hours.
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, roland chambers, statutory damages
Companies: amazon, apple, cdbaby
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And again, the sense of entitlement burns...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not too surprising that he was unable to find an attorney willing to sign a complaint with that level of ignorance of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, he’s doing exactly what they’ve told musicians to do for years: use the legal system to strike back at the evil (non-RIAA) corporations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Discourage people from seeking ridiculous statutory AND tax people who do go down the dumb path. The tax can then be used to fund grants or other things that promote the progress of science and useful arts. Win win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about we tax them at a 190% rate instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look, a rabbit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Look, a rabbit!
It's commercial willful infringement. Seems like 6x10^5 times the damages is reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I Hope you understand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I Hope you understand
I have no substantive comment, I just want to mention that this is all one sentence. Though I'm using that term loosely. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This may be interesting
This is so far outside the way anyone actually does business, I can easily visualize some low-level employee ignoring whatever bizarre documentation was sent along and simply handling them in the usual way, including signing forms and posting the music in their online stores.
"I didn't send my photo to the newspaper to be printed in every copy; I figured they'd just paste it to the front of ONE copy and that would be that!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This may be interesting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Evil anyone?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He does concede:
'3% of punitive damages to be returned to the State for benefits received'
Maybe he's on a mission to raise revenue for S.C.
There are probably better ways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What exactly is the point of this article?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP is our most valuable thing, in the minds of a few who only see dollar signs dancing because they made something that one time.
While one could dismiss him outright for being out of his mind, this perfectly highlights the response we see time and time again. I made this and its worth kajillions that you owe to me, because I think its worth that much. You owe me, my heirs, my heirs heirs a living forever.
Creating is hard, but it does not entitle you to all of this. Until we can stop the insane thoughts from the other side, who lie and distort the truth, we will see more and more of these cases.
My only hope is that he used that awful Dash woman's poem as a refrain and the 2 of them will be forced to do gladiatorial combat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The only way to prevent a thought from becoming public, is to keep it to yourself.
If humanity ever creates a mind reading machine, and that machine is used to force people to hand over their thoughts and ideas. Then someone would truly have a valid IP case, not to mention a criminal lawsuit for human rights abuse.
Until that day comes, I find the whole notion of 'Intellectual Property' violations, to be absurd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean they would, if it were not for copyright law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But yeah, his damages calculations are ridiculous. Statutory damages are awarded per work, not per infringement, so at most, he could demand the full statutory range for each of the 12 songs and 2 pieces of cover art (totaling anywhere from $10.5K to either $420K or $2.1M depending on whether the infringement was "willful").
Or, based on the infringers' financial statements, he could demand actual damages for the 5 physical CDs, plus any other profits that are attributable to the infringement—i.e., profits from actual sales of unauthorized CDs, ringtones and downloads.
This choice is spelled out very plainly in 17 USC §504.
Whether he can really go after all the companies involved, I don't know. If these third parties, in good faith, licensed the content from a distributor who turns out to be unauthorized, are they responsible for damages, or is the distributor?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand...
However, his claim of wanting $7 billion is so far past the amount needed to scare a company that they'll just ignore his case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: On the other hand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i am in a very similar situation...but horribly worse.
-$700,000 or so, the previois 10 years, from my ONLY CD/songs. A well-made DEMO i worked on for a few years, just to have little fun and hopefully book some paid session in-studio work, gigs, or better. This was when online music was very new...i ordered only 50 copies lf my own CD via CDbaby as they were the less expensive i could find. I funded everything myself, from my college jobs, and waitrssing, psychology research (my major)...the only parts of my CD i didn't do myself are the arrangement instrumentals and remixes which i had agreements with the musicians/remixers. I paid a good rate to.record in a small studio, and i KEPT ALL MY ORIGINAL RECORDINGS ON ANALOG. So the digital versions (i never gave permission for) online all on like 300 music sites for sale, they have been altered a little bit, more raping of my work.... But what is worse is, i am permanently disabled now, dependent on SSI. (useless) and Medi-Cal (near useless) I dont WANT to be disabled or depend on gvmt assistance!!!! But i have violently assaulted, by several men, sexually exploited without my knowledge, permission, consent....online/on video. I receive death threats, i have been wrongly diagnosed with severe catatonic psychosis......they finally undiagnosed me, saying i had a skull fracture, serious concussion, ruined spine, was deathly allergic to meds they made me take, i WAS/am being stalked... I was not just paranoid.... these aholes stole new unfinished tracks too, and sold them to some created fake computer CGI image "overnight sensations" , who use MY NAME(!!) . the bullshit these jerkoffs are PLAYING on me like i am a whipping-girl and flat out say i did the very crimes that THEY did to me,and say THEY are victims and.i hacked.the songs, money, etc from THEM. and they remote-ruin the cheap.computer and phones i finally save up to buy. I know, sounds impossible, sounds as if i am lying or crazy or wrong. That would be easy. I have proof of all i say/write . I AM going to go crazy on them soon, my own special ways... And that will be bad for everyone. So. I need a lawyer who will help me get my LIFE BACK TO NORMAL... Better than normal. Because i am singing no matter what happens, if i want to. I prefer to do business as ethnically as possible. But i am not perfect.... I just make my "demons" work for me. So...any lawyer in LA interested
in winning this case so we can both retire? Email me if legitimate, or want to suggest a lawyer, or if you are real media... or if you have a real story at all similar... Take care....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i am in a very similar situation...but horribly worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ownership
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CD Baby and Copyright Claims
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apple iTunes and CD Baby legal thiefs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon, Cdbaby and iTunes.
I'm a lot late seeing these post I've just just found it.
I've been trying to sue Amazon from day one when my music was given to Cdbaby distributor company from disk makers. Right now as I speak my CD being sold for about $24.00 I kid you not on Amazon one CD. I bought my own CD to see if this true, Shure nough it is. But thank God I've gotten my music copy written. The thing I fear is what do the fine print say through these companies when you shake hands with these devils. Prince Nelson Purple rain spoke about I tuned Amazon and many more, stealing his music rights even record companies and motion pictures. This why he does everything on his own, so no one can claim anything. I know the record companies, I tunes Amazon and others couldn't wait for prince to accidentally die so they can come take his stuff like devils. I will continue to fight for my music rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]