While I agree... Somehow this seems to set a bad example. Whatever happens with RH, this may weaken third party liability in other circumstances, such as the lawsuit with mwith mp3 tunes. Do we really want to weaken llc rules because one company abused them?
While I agree... Somehow this seems to set a bad example. Whatever happens with RH, this may weaken third party liability in other circumstances, such as the lawsuit with mwith mp3 tunes. Do we really want to weaken llc rules because one company abused them?
I thought we were having a debate here and I've kept my end of the bargain as best as I could.
You implied that economic damages are difficult to prove. I told you it was not and provided examples. You implied that there was a correlation of lost sales to piracy and Tenenbaum's to blame for being the drop in the bucket for litigation. I showed you how artists have coped with the new technology while "copyright holders" flounder.
Did you know that Gertner had already looked into the Jammie case? Did you know about the BMW standards and why she chose to ask the Constitutional question? Obviously not.
But that's not all... You decide to say I'm an idiot and assert that through the rest of your anecdotes that I've failed in the conversation while bringing nothing to the table. No reports (which I've done), no logical reasoning (which I've done for you), and plenty of insults when your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny (which I've not done).
I'm showing research into why I feel the way I do, I'm answering the questions as well as giving a background, and I'm the idiot? HA!
It's rather disappointing... But hey, no sweat off my back. As I said before, you're free to do whatever you want. If your argument doesn't hold water, I'll put some in to help you spot the holes. Call me whatever you like. ;)
But know that I'm more than happy to notice how you've allowed your argument to falter just to continue attacking people that spot the problems of copyright enforcement. Maybe you should take some of the advice up there and read up on how to offer better alternatives. Just sayin. :)
I'm showing research into why I feel the way I do, I'm answering the questions as well as giving a background, and I'm the idiot? HA!
Did you know that Gertner had already looked into the Jammie case? Did you know about the BMW standards and why she chose the way she did? Obviously not.
But that's not all... You decide to say I'm an idiot and assert that through the rest of your anecdotes that I've failed in the conversation while bringing nothing to the table. No reports (which I've done), no logical reasoning (which I've done for you), and plenty of insults when your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny (which I've not done).
It's rather disappointing... But hey, no sweat off my back. As I said before, you're free to do whatever you want. If your argument doesn't hold water, I'll put some in to help you spot the holes. Call me whatever you like. ;)
But know that I'm more than happy to notice how you've allowed your argument to falter just to continue attacking people that spot the problems of copyright enforcement. Maybe you should take some of the advice up there and read up on how to offer better alternatives. Just sayin. :)
I thought we were having a debate here and I've kept my end of the bargain as best as I could.
You implied that economic damages is difficult to prove. I told you it was not and provided examples. You implied that there was a correlation of lost sales to piracy and Tenenbaum's to blame for being the drop in the bucket for litigation. I showed you how artists have coped with the new technology while "copyright holders" flounder.
Look at the jury instructions and see for yourself. This is literally what they have to pick. This is also why Nancy Gertner chose not to use remittitur since she had already seen it occur in the Tenenbaum case with disastrous results.
"Just curious, but what statutory damages level would you consider to be reasonable, and not exorbitant? There are those who advocate levels for all three that in effect would render a right holders monetary remedy for infringment in all three circumstances so miniscule that one of the purposes of statutory damages, to give an infringer a strong incentive to never do it again, would emasculate this purpose."
I'm not seeing why the impetus is on the infringer to "never infringe again" when it's the prosecution that has to prove it. There's plenty of alternatives to the RIAA distribution models nowadays. Spotify, Jamendo, and Soundcloud are but a few. People can also watch Youtube. So honestly, the idea that an infringer will never "infringe" again, when they have places to continue to listen to music again seems to be an empty threat.
But you could take out the "per work" wording and have the range become from $200 to $150,000. More leeway for punishments and people might have more respect for the law if it weren't so inflexible about the statutory damages clause. It should be noted that the economics of these mass lawsuits really isn't there. And if it were about relief, instead of quick settlement payouts, I'd probably have a different stance. Having seen this from the RIAA and the USCG as a trolling effort, I'm not entirely convinced this is the best use of our judicial system, since it supports these extortionist lawsuits.
"Is a judge being accurate something to be frowned upon, and if so when and why?"
I don't think anyone is saying that. But notice what Gertner says in her ruling:
As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep
potential for injustice in the Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges – no implores --
Congress to amend the statute to reflect the realities of file sharing. There is something wrongwith a law that routinely threatens teenagers and students with astronomical penalties for an
activity whose implications they may not have fully understood. The injury to the copyright
holder may be real, and even substantial, but, under the statute, the record companies do not even
have to prove actual damage. “Repeatedly, as new developments have occurred in this country,
it has been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary.”
Sony, 464 U.S. at 430-31. It is a responsibility that Congress should not take lightly in the face
of this litigation and the thousands of suits like it.
Also, it's indeed ironic, she mentioned the Jammie Thomas case in her motion for remittitur ruling:
The case most comparable to Tenenbaum’s is that of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the only
other file sharer to go to trial. The first jury to hear Thomas-Rasset’s case found her liable for
willfully infringing twenty-four sound recordings and awarded the plaintiffs $9,250 per song, for
a total award of $222,000. Although Chief Judge Davis, who
presided over the case, ordered a new trial because of an error in the jury instructions, not because of the size of the award, he noted in dictum that “the award of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in damages” for file-sharing was “unprecedented and oppressive.” When the
second jury returned a verdict of $80,000 per song, for a total award of $1,920,000, Chief Judge
Davis required that the plaintiffs accept a remitted award of $2,250 per song or submit to a new
trial. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1048, 1050.(As explained above, the plaintiffs
rejected the reduced award.)
In effect, I believe the Appeals Court shirked their duties by making this a procedural issue. Gertner was aware of the case and showed the problems of this type of litigation, which actually forced her to face the Constitutionality of the situation.
"The appeals court determined that because the rights holders had placed notices of copyright on the works originally distributed to the public, she did not qualify for the reduction under the "innocent infringement" defense."
Unfortunately, it doesn't help that she was 14 when litigation started, the "per work" is still a sticking point, and even with the reduced damages, it's the amount of a car loan. What do they gain by bankrupting her?
But it is simply unconstitutional to make ANYONE pay such an excessive amount of money for listening to a few songs. Today, I am now 23 and a fresh new graduate from college. In addition to the loans that the majority of my generation takes in order to attend college, I have a $30,000 judgment against me that will give me severe financial troubles. This may force me to file for bankruptcy, a status that will ruin my young adult life.
While juvenile criminals get a fresh start when they grow up, I’m still being dragged through the legal mud and will have to carry the burden of something I did when I was a kid.
Why continue litigation when someone says they were willing to pay? Those are Whitney Harper's words. Jammie Thomas would be willing to pay for the songs, not the extortionary amounts. Even Tenenbaum might pay for his songs instead of something far outside of the realm of reality. If they're not getting money from the litigation, the best way to do this has always been through economic means. Making better alternatives than piracy is what has been working. I can't say that enough. The litigation angle has done no one any favors. Enforcing copyright claims will always lead to unnecessary heartache as evidenced with Andy Baio's situation, Whitney Harper's, and the JTs.
" You appear instead to be looking at this as another way someone can sneak out of their liability under the law. "
Actually, no. That's your own assertion. But hey, if that's your opinion, you can say it as long as you want.
" In this case, it would be sneaking out by making the burden of proving the loss so high, as to be meaningless for both sides."
Who said that the proving the loss is such a high margin? Again, that's your assertion, based on what? A correlation of piracy decreasing recorded CD sales, when the music industry is doing much better? When artists are making more money through crowdsourcing, alternate distribution, or just plain free music on authorized sites?
I have a hard time believing someone that can do nothing other than insult me. I have an even harder time believing someone who says I'm "delusional, ignorant, or an idiot" based on the fact that I've backed up my claims from research, proving the legal issue is pointless. So yes, I disagree with you. If you can show anything that the RIAA lawsuits actually caused a drop in piracy, feel free to present it. If you have something that says the copyright enforcement angle has worked in the UK, US, India, or any other country without looking draconian, I'll be surprised. If the law should be changed, it should bring down the punishments to a more reasonable level that isn't an exorbitant sum. As I pointed out in my original post with you, how anyone can look at this situation and say it's justified, when I've pointed out the jury instructions, the actual law, and the very results of it through the results of Tenenbaum's, Thomas' and Harper's court cases, I have no idea.
If the best you can do is say all of these bad things about me, it shows that your argument isn't up to par. Your loss, not mine.
I was referring to the recent Protect IP Act, which actually finds that a "qualifying plaintiff" is:
20 (B) an owner of an intellectual property
21 right, or one authorized to enforce such right,
22 harmed by the activities of an Internet site
23 dedicated to infringing activities occurring on
24 that Internet site.
In effect, this authorizes private parties to enforce copyright law, which seems to be a recipe for disaster. One thought that comes to mind, will they have to go through law enforcement, or do they have their own enforcement police to handle criminal copyright infringement.
If passed into law, the ones who can receive this selective enforcement are those authorized by the Justice Department.
I answered your points and rebutted them. You've done nothing but repeat the same thing twice now. Further, you're the one undermining your own argument with your ad hominem attacks of a person's character. Rather than attacking the arguments raised, you want to demean me for thinking differently. Oh well, can't argue with someone that likes strawmen, and won't research the studies that make his argument invalid.
"It is the Department of Justice that brings criminal prosecutions under federal law, and not private parties. The legal standard is "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"."
It should be noted here that Protect IP would allow private parties to use federal resources for "crimes" of infringement. Other than that, I agree with what you say.
1) There's no difference between non profit and commercial filesharing in US law.
2) The Statutory damages is arbitrarily high. Which is the entire problem here
3) There is NO method to allowing a statutory claim, merely the fact that the prosecution can bring it up against a defendent. A judge does not opt to enact statutory damages so there's your sign of a problem in one sided litigation.
4) It seems that part 3 fulfills the last requirement of your first sentence.
" In a legal sense, the terms are anything but vague, with low and high limits set. Vague would be an open ended deal with no limits, up or down, and with no way to judge."
As explained above and going into more detail, the problem with copyright law is that it's a patchwork of rules that no one can truly follow. When we're looking at § 504, I find it amazing that (a)(1)(b) is this much:
(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
Meanwhile, statutory damages is 3 times that size to give supposed "plaintiffs" relief. And all this to say that she likely caused zero damage to the economy with downloading ~30 songs. Go RIAA.
" Did the sales of recorded music go up when file sharing and piracy came along? Is the music industry seeing windfall profits since P2P got active? Nope. Sales are down, way down. While you cannot connect any single share to any single lost dollar, the correlation is clear as it comes. The increase in piracy is directly in line with decrease of sales."
Uhm... No? Are you still toting the line that the music industry is suffering when it's merely the recording industry that's suffering? You might want to look at a few more studies when study after study is showing that filesharing has increased sales. Unless you have something to back up your claim, it seems the only thing you're focused on is the big movie and music industries and not the indies who comprise far more of the industry by far.
BTW, just another quick rebuttal, but isn't filesharing increasing? Just wondering...
"Do you really think anyone would benefit from going out and surveying everyone in the world to see who did or did not buy a copy of a specific song because of a specific download? "
Never said that, but that's a great strawman to blow over. I was always wondering why does the RIAA and by proxy, the USCG decide to go after the statutory damages claim instead of option 1, because there is nothing for a defense attorney/lawyer to do to dispute this, save these expensive lawsuits.
"Statutory damages are a way to save both sides a ton of money, and keep from creating even larger settlement amounts that will never be met. If you work only on actual proven damages in each case, you make it incredibly expensive for a rights holder to even consider taking legal action. "
Yeah, they're really saving the RIAA a lot of money. You spend 17 million to receive $390,000 back. How does that math work out? And how are these settlements going to be met? I guess, JT and Tenenbaum are going to be given a license to print money right after they are charged with this massive lien.
And why should they instead of doing the obvious thing first build better financial incentives for people to go to them instead of what the pirate distribution network is doing!
"you are so worried about shelling a few dollars out of your own pocket for your own amusement, but you have no problem piling posts onto a copyright holder?"
Did you read the example about how court cases for the Perfect 10 precedents are going to be entirely too expensive for someone like me, who actually doesn't work on them?
Have you seen all of the documents for all court cases, noticing what precedents are set?
Is the system accessible to everyone?
If you've said no to all of these questions, then there's a problem with the system in place. The system isn't meant to be a money making scheme as PACER is slowly turning into. It is supposed to be about access to our laws and precedents for everyone. Quite frankly, there's a reason that I don't visit the New York times either, and that's because of their Emperor's Paywall. So if Pacer does the exact same thing, I move elsewhere.
Also, copyright holders usually aren't the original artists. Glad you have that figured out. Now if you can find a way to incentivise copyright holders to make better products than what piracy could possibly offer we might be all better off. It sure would help the RIAA's bottom line if they figured out how to license things instead of sue. Maybe they can talk to This guy or this guy for ideas on how to make money in the digital world.
On the post: If Righthaven Declares Bankruptcy, Expect Lawyers To Go After Stephens Media, Media News, And Righthaven Principals
Re: No double standards.
It's somewhat conflicting when you consider it...
On the post: If Righthaven Declares Bankruptcy, Expect Lawyers To Go After Stephens Media, Media News, And Righthaven Principals
Re: No double standards.
It's somewhat conflicting when you consider it...
On the post: Entertainment Industry's Coordinated Effort To Blame Third Parties Taking Shape
Re:
On the post: Getting Past Just 'Putting Radio On The Internet' - Killer Apps Come Next
Re: Re: Re: Re: I'll be controversial
On the post: Getting Past Just 'Putting Radio On The Internet' - Killer Apps Come Next
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Lawyer Wants To Wipe Out Anonymous Speech If It's Critical Of Someone
Re: Re: If you don't have anything to say...
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Ignore top one...
Amazing. Let's recap everything that's occurred here:
I thought we were having a debate here and I've kept my end of the bargain as best as I could.
You implied that economic damages are difficult to prove. I told you it was not and provided examples. You implied that there was a correlation of lost sales to piracy and Tenenbaum's to blame for being the drop in the bucket for litigation. I showed you how artists have coped with the new technology while "copyright holders" flounder.
Did you know that Gertner had already looked into the Jammie case? Did you know about the BMW standards and why she chose to ask the Constitutional question? Obviously not.
But that's not all... You decide to say I'm an idiot and assert that through the rest of your anecdotes that I've failed in the conversation while bringing nothing to the table. No reports (which I've done), no logical reasoning (which I've done for you), and plenty of insults when your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny (which I've not done).
I'm showing research into why I feel the way I do, I'm answering the questions as well as giving a background, and I'm the idiot? HA!
It's rather disappointing... But hey, no sweat off my back. As I said before, you're free to do whatever you want. If your argument doesn't hold water, I'll put some in to help you spot the holes. Call me whatever you like. ;)
But know that I'm more than happy to notice how you've allowed your argument to falter just to continue attacking people that spot the problems of copyright enforcement. Maybe you should take some of the advice up there and read up on how to offer better alternatives. Just sayin. :)
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Tsk tsk tsk...
I'm showing research into why I feel the way I do, I'm answering the questions as well as giving a background, and I'm the idiot? HA!
Did you know that Gertner had already looked into the Jammie case? Did you know about the BMW standards and why she chose the way she did? Obviously not.
But that's not all... You decide to say I'm an idiot and assert that through the rest of your anecdotes that I've failed in the conversation while bringing nothing to the table. No reports (which I've done), no logical reasoning (which I've done for you), and plenty of insults when your argument doesn't hold up under scrutiny (which I've not done).
It's rather disappointing... But hey, no sweat off my back. As I said before, you're free to do whatever you want. If your argument doesn't hold water, I'll put some in to help you spot the holes. Call me whatever you like. ;)
But know that I'm more than happy to notice how you've allowed your argument to falter just to continue attacking people that spot the problems of copyright enforcement. Maybe you should take some of the advice up there and read up on how to offer better alternatives. Just sayin. :)
I thought we were having a debate here and I've kept my end of the bargain as best as I could.
You implied that economic damages is difficult to prove. I told you it was not and provided examples. You implied that there was a correlation of lost sales to piracy and Tenenbaum's to blame for being the drop in the bucket for litigation. I showed you how artists have coped with the new technology while "copyright holders" flounder.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm not seeing why the impetus is on the infringer to "never infringe again" when it's the prosecution that has to prove it. There's plenty of alternatives to the RIAA distribution models nowadays. Spotify, Jamendo, and Soundcloud are but a few. People can also watch Youtube. So honestly, the idea that an infringer will never "infringe" again, when they have places to continue to listen to music again seems to be an empty threat.
But you could take out the "per work" wording and have the range become from $200 to $150,000. More leeway for punishments and people might have more respect for the law if it weren't so inflexible about the statutory damages clause. It should be noted that the economics of these mass lawsuits really isn't there. And if it were about relief, instead of quick settlement payouts, I'd probably have a different stance. Having seen this from the RIAA and the USCG as a trolling effort, I'm not entirely convinced this is the best use of our judicial system, since it supports these extortionist lawsuits.
"Is a judge being accurate something to be frowned upon, and if so when and why?"
I don't think anyone is saying that. But notice what Gertner says in her ruling:
As this Court has previously noted, it is very, very concerned that there is a deep
potential for injustice in the Copyright Act as it is currently written. It urges – no implores --
Congress to amend the statute to reflect the realities of file sharing. There is something wrongwith a law that routinely threatens teenagers and students with astronomical penalties for an
activity whose implications they may not have fully understood. The injury to the copyright
holder may be real, and even substantial, but, under the statute, the record companies do not even
have to prove actual damage. “Repeatedly, as new developments have occurred in this country,
it has been Congress that has fashioned the new rules that new technology made necessary.”
Sony, 464 U.S. at 430-31. It is a responsibility that Congress should not take lightly in the face
of this litigation and the thousands of suits like it.
Also, it's indeed ironic, she mentioned the Jammie Thomas case in her motion for remittitur ruling:
The case most comparable to Tenenbaum’s is that of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the only
other file sharer to go to trial. The first jury to hear Thomas-Rasset’s case found her liable for
willfully infringing twenty-four sound recordings and awarded the plaintiffs $9,250 per song, for
a total award of $222,000. Although Chief Judge Davis, who
presided over the case, ordered a new trial because of an error in the jury instructions, not because of the size of the award, he noted in dictum that “the award of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in damages” for file-sharing was “unprecedented and oppressive.” When the
second jury returned a verdict of $80,000 per song, for a total award of $1,920,000, Chief Judge
Davis required that the plaintiffs accept a remitted award of $2,250 per song or submit to a new
trial. Thomas-Rasset, 680 F. Supp. 2d at 1048, 1050.(As explained above, the plaintiffs
rejected the reduced award.)
In effect, I believe the Appeals Court shirked their duties by making this a procedural issue. Gertner was aware of the case and showed the problems of this type of litigation, which actually forced her to face the Constitutionality of the situation.
"The appeals court determined that because the rights holders had placed notices of copyright on the works originally distributed to the public, she did not qualify for the reduction under the "innocent infringement" defense."
Unfortunately, it doesn't help that she was 14 when litigation started, the "per work" is still a sticking point, and even with the reduced damages, it's the amount of a car loan. What do they gain by bankrupting her?
But it is simply unconstitutional to make ANYONE pay such an excessive amount of money for listening to a few songs. Today, I am now 23 and a fresh new graduate from college. In addition to the loans that the majority of my generation takes in order to attend college, I have a $30,000 judgment against me that will give me severe financial troubles. This may force me to file for bankruptcy, a status that will ruin my young adult life.
While juvenile criminals get a fresh start when they grow up, I’m still being dragged through the legal mud and will have to carry the burden of something I did when I was a kid.
Why continue litigation when someone says they were willing to pay? Those are Whitney Harper's words. Jammie Thomas would be willing to pay for the songs, not the extortionary amounts. Even Tenenbaum might pay for his songs instead of something far outside of the realm of reality. If they're not getting money from the litigation, the best way to do this has always been through economic means. Making better alternatives than piracy is what has been working. I can't say that enough. The litigation angle has done no one any favors. Enforcing copyright claims will always lead to unnecessary heartache as evidenced with Andy Baio's situation, Whitney Harper's, and the JTs.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re:
Actually, no. That's your own assertion. But hey, if that's your opinion, you can say it as long as you want.
" In this case, it would be sneaking out by making the burden of proving the loss so high, as to be meaningless for both sides."
Who said that the proving the loss is such a high margin? Again, that's your assertion, based on what? A correlation of piracy decreasing recorded CD sales, when the music industry is doing much better? When artists are making more money through crowdsourcing, alternate distribution, or just plain free music on authorized sites?
I have a hard time believing someone that can do nothing other than insult me. I have an even harder time believing someone who says I'm "delusional, ignorant, or an idiot" based on the fact that I've backed up my claims from research, proving the legal issue is pointless. So yes, I disagree with you. If you can show anything that the RIAA lawsuits actually caused a drop in piracy, feel free to present it. If you have something that says the copyright enforcement angle has worked in the UK, US, India, or any other country without looking draconian, I'll be surprised. If the law should be changed, it should bring down the punishments to a more reasonable level that isn't an exorbitant sum. As I pointed out in my original post with you, how anyone can look at this situation and say it's justified, when I've pointed out the jury instructions, the actual law, and the very results of it through the results of Tenenbaum's, Thomas' and Harper's court cases, I have no idea.
If the best you can do is say all of these bad things about me, it shows that your argument isn't up to par. Your loss, not mine.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
20 (B) an owner of an intellectual property
21 right, or one authorized to enforce such right,
22 harmed by the activities of an Internet site
23 dedicated to infringing activities occurring on
24 that Internet site.
In effect, this authorizes private parties to enforce copyright law, which seems to be a recipe for disaster. One thought that comes to mind, will they have to go through law enforcement, or do they have their own enforcement police to handle criminal copyright infringement.
If passed into law, the ones who can receive this selective enforcement are those authorized by the Justice Department.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It should be noted here that Protect IP would allow private parties to use federal resources for "crimes" of infringement. Other than that, I agree with what you say.
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: kudos on getting the story straight
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: kudos on getting the story straight
On the post: Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 Jury Award Against Joel Tenenbaum On Procedural Grounds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
2) The Statutory damages is arbitrarily high. Which is the entire problem here
3) There is NO method to allowing a statutory claim, merely the fact that the prosecution can bring it up against a defendent. A judge does not opt to enact statutory damages so there's your sign of a problem in one sided litigation.
4) It seems that part 3 fulfills the last requirement of your first sentence.
------------------------------------------------------
" In a legal sense, the terms are anything but vague, with low and high limits set. Vague would be an open ended deal with no limits, up or down, and with no way to judge."
As explained above and going into more detail, the problem with copyright law is that it's a patchwork of rules that no one can truly follow. When we're looking at § 504, I find it amazing that (a)(1)(b) is this much:
(b) Actual Damages and Profits. — The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.
Meanwhile, statutory damages is 3 times that size to give supposed "plaintiffs" relief. And all this to say that she likely caused zero damage to the economy with downloading ~30 songs. Go RIAA.
" Did the sales of recorded music go up when file sharing and piracy came along? Is the music industry seeing windfall profits since P2P got active? Nope. Sales are down, way down. While you cannot connect any single share to any single lost dollar, the correlation is clear as it comes. The increase in piracy is directly in line with decrease of sales."
Uhm... No? Are you still toting the line that the music industry is suffering when it's merely the recording industry that's suffering? You might want to look at a few more studies when study after study is showing that filesharing has increased sales. Unless you have something to back up your claim, it seems the only thing you're focused on is the big movie and music industries and not the indies who comprise far more of the industry by far.
BTW, just another quick rebuttal, but isn't filesharing increasing? Just wondering...
"Do you really think anyone would benefit from going out and surveying everyone in the world to see who did or did not buy a copy of a specific song because of a specific download? "
Never said that, but that's a great strawman to blow over. I was always wondering why does the RIAA and by proxy, the USCG decide to go after the statutory damages claim instead of option 1, because there is nothing for a defense attorney/lawyer to do to dispute this, save these expensive lawsuits.
"Statutory damages are a way to save both sides a ton of money, and keep from creating even larger settlement amounts that will never be met. If you work only on actual proven damages in each case, you make it incredibly expensive for a rights holder to even consider taking legal action. "
Yeah, they're really saving the RIAA a lot of money. You spend 17 million to receive $390,000 back. How does that math work out? And how are these settlements going to be met? I guess, JT and Tenenbaum are going to be given a license to print money right after they are charged with this massive lien.
And why should they instead of doing the obvious thing first build better financial incentives for people to go to them instead of what the pirate distribution network is doing!
"you are so worried about shelling a few dollars out of your own pocket for your own amusement, but you have no problem piling posts onto a copyright holder?"
Did you read the example about how court cases for the Perfect 10 precedents are going to be entirely too expensive for someone like me, who actually doesn't work on them?
Have you seen all of the documents for all court cases, noticing what precedents are set?
Is the system accessible to everyone?
If you've said no to all of these questions, then there's a problem with the system in place. The system isn't meant to be a money making scheme as PACER is slowly turning into. It is supposed to be about access to our laws and precedents for everyone. Quite frankly, there's a reason that I don't visit the New York times either, and that's because of their Emperor's Paywall. So if Pacer does the exact same thing, I move elsewhere.
Also, copyright holders usually aren't the original artists. Glad you have that figured out. Now if you can find a way to incentivise copyright holders to make better products than what piracy could possibly offer we might be all better off. It sure would help the RIAA's bottom line if they figured out how to license things instead of sue. Maybe they can talk to This guy or this guy for ideas on how to make money in the digital world.
Next >>