The Monthly thread where Foz laughs at the RIAA...

[SirFozzie]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-rejected.html

Wow.. Today was NOT a good day for the RIAA, in the one lawsuit that they HAD successfully brought to conclusion (as opposed to the multiple cases that the RIAA figured out they were suing the wrong people, etcetera) not only did the judge set aside his verdict, stating that he was wrong in instructing the jury that "making files available" was enough for criminal infringement (they need to prove actual distribution..) but he also pointed out that the penalties for it are way out of whack, and called on Congress to LOWER the liabilities of file sharers... calling it "excessive and oppressive"

(From the ruling)

Need for Congressional Action

The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts. The myriad of copyright cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Government, in which courts upheld large statutory damages awards far above the minimum, have limited relevance in this case. All of the cited cases involve corporate or business defendants and seek to deter future illegal commercial conduct. The parties point to no case in which large statutory damages were applied to a party who did not infringe in search of commercial gain.

The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit. Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market. Cf. Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 42 737, 741, 42 (D. Md. 2003) (describing defendants as a “global financial services firm” and a corporation that brokers securities).

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer-to-peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.

[SirFozzie]

Did I say Double shot? I meant triple shot.. position paper from the Department of Justice saying "Thanks, but, um.. no.. we're not going to do your work for you pro-bono" to the RIAA (the RIAA wants a bill that would allow the DoJ to go after copyright infringers.. (and send the money collected to the RIAA).)

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/d...r-20080923.pdf

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Did I say Double shot? I meant triple shot.. position paper from the Department of Justice saying "Thanks, but, um.. no.. we're not going to do your work for you pro-bono" to the RIAA (the RIAA wants a bill that would allow the DoJ to go after copyright infringers.. (and send the money collected to the RIAA).)

http://www.publicknowledge.org/pdf/d...r-20080923.pdf

This has already passed in the house.
In the senate it was pass committee 14-4 and was heading to a full vote last I heard.

[SirFozzie]

Even if it does pass, the DOJ is basically saying they won't enforce it.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Even if it does pass, the DOJ is basically saying they won't enforce it.

I find it hard to believe the idea was even take serious.
It just show how our government has become a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.


BTW here is a link
hxxp://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/public_knowledge_fights_copyright_enforcement_bill/

[SirFozzie]

Correction, the House version, passed last year, does NOT have the "DoJ can go after civil infringers" version.