RIAA trial verdict: Was the decision fair? - Page 2

JSWolf · 10-08-2007, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.

Sounds interesting. And not to worry, I won't tell who you really are.

Lemurion · 10-08-2007, 07:31 AM

As far as I know, she's not actually a criminal, as it was not a criminal case but a civil one. Having said that she was certainly guilty of copyright infringement.

Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model. For one thing, it's a lot easier to contend that people who bought an illegal CD would probably have bought a legitimate copy instead. File sharing has neither the same profit motive nor the same mapping to lost sales.

In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence that file sharing has almost no measurable impact on CD sales. What has really hurt the market is the combination of high prices and a reduced selection of new music. When I go into a music store I find very few CDs that even look worth trying. I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-08-2007, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model.

Sounds like a good reason to amend the laws, to be more equitable in punishment to non-profiting activities (like file sharing), as opposed to illegal CD duplicating and sales. It also sounds like a good base for an appeal in Thomas' case. Personally, I think that "statutory damages" should not have been brought here, since the case was essentially based on circumstantial evidence and no physical harm was done. Since statutory damages was so far out of line for a file-sharing (not for profit) situation, the record companies should have been forced to provide a dollar figure of damages done, from which the punishment should have been based.

Alternatively, as the industry obviously chose to limit the number of songs involved, down from "over 1,700" to 22 songs, perhaps the judge should've adjusted that number to one that would equate to a more reasonable fine if found guilty, and not one that would cripple or ruin Thomas even at its lightest penalty. At $750 per song, just 10 songs would've put the sting in the decision for most anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.

But they're not boycotting, they're file-sharing... and that's the problem. Boycotting leaves the industry with no income, and no legal recourse. You want to get the message across to them, you have to boycott. Go cold turkey.

Lemurion · 10-08-2007, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But they're not boycotting, they're file-sharing... and that's the problem. Boycotting leaves the industry with no income, and no legal recourse. You want to get the message across to them, you have to boycott. Go cold turkey.

Yes there are people who are simply turning to file sharing because they do not want to give the RIAA member labels any money. However, there are also people who are spending money on independent labels and music not associated with the RIAA and not engaging in file sharing. It is this group that I consider to be boycotting the RIAA, and this group which I believe has had the largest impact on their sales which can be traced to file sharing.

jamesdmanley · 10-08-2007, 04:46 PM

id like to know if the riaa sent a cease and desist order before deciding to file the lawsuit.

i think it would have been more fitting to charge fair market value for the songs which is .99 -1.29 per song on itunes if i understand correctly

HarryT · 10-09-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

id like to know if the riaa sent a cease and desist order before deciding to file the lawsuit.

i think it would have been more fitting to charge fair market value for the songs which is .99 -1.29 per song on itunes if i understand correctly

I understand that they made her an offer to settle out of court for a couple of thousand $; something like that.

Azayzel · 10-09-2007, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If they did do such a thing, the profits would be applied to her brand new debt.

Okay, fine, since I can't just say "I'd never do such a stupid thing": I'd appeal for a smaller amount, see what kind of feasible payments I can make on the debt, take a vacation to Canada, and never come back. Happy?

Probably right about the first part, it was kind of an inside joke, considering all the LMN movies that crop up about the silliest things (I don't really have much of a choice when it comes to those shows, but it keeps things running smoothly around here

).

As I said, I was just curious how others would react to this kind of situation. I agree that possibly the easiest (if you want to call it that) method would be to appeal for a lower fine and pay it off as you could, though I'm sure it would take a heckuva long time to do so... probably on the order of 30-40 years, based on the $220,000 figure. Ouch! Hence the reason I don't "file-share" for any reason, just not worth it.

jamesdmanley · 10-09-2007, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

I understand that they made her an offer to settle out of court for a couple of thousand $; something like that.

sounds like she took a gamble and lost then. maybe well see an appeal

Lemurion · 10-09-2007, 11:58 AM

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

RalphTrickey · 10-09-2007, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.

Yes, I'm surprised that the RIAA hasn't gone after the education market more heavily. They've got to be the biggest pirates out there.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-09-2007, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

Yes, but will she go back to court?

Sorry, couldn't resist. (Thanks, I'm here all week! Try the veal!)

HarryT · 10-09-2007, 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

She doesn't appeal to me!

HarryT · 10-09-2007, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

sounds like she took a gamble and lost then. maybe well see an appeal

On what grounds? I thought that you could only appeal if you were able to present new evidence. Surely nobody thinks that she didn't "do the deed", do they?

jamesdmanley · 10-09-2007, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

On what grounds? I thought that you could only appeal if you were able to present new evidence. Surely nobody thinks that she didn't "do the deed", do they?

i dont know. im no lawyer, but im sure a good one can come up with something

tsgreer · 10-09-2007, 01:10 PM

I do think the amount was too much, BUT she lied and said that she didn't download them at all. I'd feel more sorry for her if she wouldn't have came up with a long story about how she didn't do it, had no idea, etc.

I mean, she even had her hard drive changed out after she was notified that she was being investigated. That's a big no-no.

She should have at least admitted she did it and then say that she didn't know it was so wrong or something. So this is all her fault. But I about fell over when I saw the amount that they fined her.

I also read that the amount doesn't count the attorney fees that she will have to pay too, so the final amount could be half a million. That's insane!

But again, don't steal stuff and you don't have to worry about getting caught...

View Poll Results: Was the damages award fair?
The jury should have awarded more.	0	0%
This amount was as good as any. (She is finacially ruined.)	3	7.32%
It was much too high.	38	92.68%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

10-08-2007, 04:46 PM	#20
jamesdmanley Groupie Posts: 156 Karma: 817 Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: houston Device: prs-500	id like to know if the riaa sent a cease and desist order before deciding to file the lawsuit. i think it would have been more fitting to charge fair market value for the songs which is .99 -1.29 per song on itunes if i understand correctly Last edited by jamesdmanley; 10-08-2007 at 04:48 PM. Reason: typo

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A verdict on speed reading	untiedknot	Lounge	12	11-02-2010 08:30 PM
So what's the verdict on K3?	Williamlk	Amazon Kindle	70	10-27-2010 08:25 AM
RIAA: DRM is dead	Format C:	News	9	07-20-2009 09:21 PM
Brass Verdict	MickeyC	Reading Recommendations	2	12-28-2008 08:42 PM
So what's the verdict?	HarryT	Amazon Kindle	22	10-31-2007 02:58 PM

10-08-2007, 07:31 AM	#17
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	As far as I know, she's not actually a criminal, as it was not a criminal case but a civil one. Having said that she was certainly guilty of copyright infringement. Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model. For one thing, it's a lot easier to contend that people who bought an illegal CD would probably have bought a legitimate copy instead. File sharing has neither the same profit motive nor the same mapping to lost sales. In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence that file sharing has almost no measurable impact on CD sales. What has really hurt the market is the combination of high prices and a reduced selection of new music. When I go into a music store I find very few CDs that even look worth trying. I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.

10-09-2007, 11:58 AM	#24
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

10-09-2007, 01:10 PM	#30
tsgreer Lovin' the e-book life... Posts: 633 Karma: 2509 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Colorado Device: Ebookwise 1150, Sony PRS-505, Amazon Kindle, BeBook (with OpenInkpot)	I do think the amount was too much, BUT she lied and said that she didn't download them at all. I'd feel more sorry for her if she wouldn't have came up with a long story about how she didn't do it, had no idea, etc. I mean, she even had her hard drive changed out after she was notified that she was being investigated. That's a big no-no. She should have at least admitted she did it and then say that she didn't know it was so wrong or something. So this is all her fault. But I about fell over when I saw the amount that they fined her. I also read that the amount doesn't count the attorney fees that she will have to pay too, so the final amount could be half a million. That's insane! But again, don't steal stuff and you don't have to worry about getting caught...