Trouble looms for RIAA
p2pnet.net News:- In what could become a massive problem in the US for Warner Music (US), EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), the members of the Big Four Organized Music cartel, New York judge J. Trager has ruled Brooklyn home health aide Marie Lindor can add to her defence her claim that $750-per-song damages demanded by the Big Four is unconstitutional.
Moreover, it’s 1,071 times too much, she says.
The Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) are trying to convince the court that Lindor, who quite literally barely knows one end of a computer from the other, is a mass online distributor of copyrighted music.
But Trager, “rejected the RIAA’s arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality,” says Recording Industry vs The People.
Instead, he ruled:
[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered…..Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs’ actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, (”Rogers Aff.”, [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, (”Sinnreich Aff.”), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense.
Also See:
Marie Lindor - RIAA victim wants case dismissed, October 25, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People – Judge Grants Marie Lindor’s Motion to Amend Answer to Add Affirmative Defense of Unconstitutionality of Damages, November 9, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
November 10th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
At last! A judge finally calls the RIAA on it’s ridiculous figures and blackmailing behaviour
The noose is around the neck of the RIAA, let’s hope the judge pulls it tight…
November 10th, 2006 at 6:11 pm
Yes, it’s time to pull that rope hard until the pig shall squeal.
November 11th, 2006 at 4:43 am
They’ll squirm on this one, hope to get a good ruling and if it looks like they are going to lose they will want to take their marbles and go home. I can only hope the judge won’t let them off the hook so easy.
Should this defense be termed to have merit, you can write up sue’em all as a dead duck for all but those that make a profit in infringement. Any others won’t be worth going after. It’s high time that some light was brought in to show that statutory penalties don’t apply without financial gain coupled with it. That’s what the original penalties were meant to deal with, not to be hijacked by cartel thugs for whenever they want to pull it out.
November 11th, 2006 at 9:05 am
If the 70 cents label payment is held true and the satuatory damages follow that line, then the RIAA/MPAA/**AA has a bigger problem. The problem would be that every uploader, downloader, or P2P user can become a distributor, and the payment for each song offered would be 70 cents, or a dollar max.
Here’s the catch… if allowed to progress, a system could develop where the P2P users themselves, instead of being sued to cough up 0.70-1.00 per song, could voluntarily pay it themselves, or even collect it from those that downloaded it. Paypal 70 cents for a torrent link? There would be no need for Itunes, as you could (and should) just be able to get any song you want, in any format, at any quality, DRM-free. 256 kb/s mp3 playable on anything. Toss in music videos for kicks. It’s not costing P2P users any extra money to distribute songs on the internet, but by adding (forcing) that extra Apple-Itunes layer, the labels can restrict and penalize customers to try and maintain control over the market.
They dropped the ball 20 years ago, and they’ve been chasing it ever since. We’re the ones pioneering and doing all the hard work for the entertainment community, and they’re trying to hang people out to dry. They’re the criminals, we’re the future. Bless the people in power and in the courts that realize this.
November 11th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Let us, and hope the case judge does not forget or realize that the cartels repeat and repeat that sharing is a crime, that jail sentences are possible and that a penalty of $150,000 per “violaton” (a song, for example) are possible.
Good to hear that our history is not repeating itself and that a judge is finally getting it right.
Funny thing about our incredible copyright infringement cases….
RIAA members and partners in infringement Sony and Sonolux have made over 24 recordings with songs my family owns without our authorization, owe us over one million US dollars in royalries (or several millions in the illegal profits made qith our songs) and have never paid us one damn cent. A $300,000 damage award we obtained about 2 years ago Sonolux has not been paid yet, and no explanation has been given to the judge and the judge has done nothing.
Venegas v. Sony Copyright Infringement Lawsuit:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/venegas_v_sony_lawsuit.htm
Then on another case, massive corporate infringers got away with murder in the court.
José A. Fusté’s Opinion In Few Words:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/fuste-opinon-analysis.htm
Rafael venegas
http://www.gvenegas.com
November 11th, 2006 at 11:20 am
José A. Fusté’s Opinion In Few Words:
http://rafa_venegas.web.prdigital.com/fuste-opinion-in-few-words.htm