RIAA ‘predatory litigation tactics”
p2p news / p2pnet: Fifteen-year-old Elisa Greubel made headlines when she contacted Nettwerk music artist MC Lars to say she identified with ‘Download This Song,’ a track from his then latest release.
That was because the Big Four record labels, Warner Music, Vivendi Universal, EMI and Sony BMG, were trying extort a lot of money from her father, David, for supposedly sharing nine copyrighted songs online.
MC Lars passed Elisa’s message to Canada’s Terry McBride, who runs Nettwerk, and he decided, “Suing music fans isn’t the solution, it’s the problem,” as he told p2pnet in a recent Q&A.
So he promised to pick up the Greubel’s legal bill.
Now a new motion has been made to have a copyright infringement case brought by the Big Four’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has been made in Texas, says Recording Industry vs The People.
In it, Greubel states:
- The RIAA’s attempt to recover $750 per song, while its actual damages are only 99 cents per song, is unconstitutional;
- Since 2003 the RIAA has been actively engaged in “extortive and predatory litigation tactics” and misused the Courts to “create a veil of fear designed to frighten average consumers into paying thousands of dollars in settlements to avoid prolonged litigation”;
- The RIAA’s pleadings are “smoke and mirrors”;
- The complaint lacks sufficient specificity;
- The “distribution right” upon which the RIAA vaguely relies does not apply to electronic transmissions; and
- Even if it did, the mere act of making sound recordings available online does not constitute an actionable infringement.
Go here for the full document.
And definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
recent Q&A – p2pnet talks to Nettwerk Music, February 14, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People – Motion to Dismiss Made in Texas in Arista v. Greubel, February 26, 2005
February 27th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
try and see?
February 28th, 2006 at 9:37 am
what took so long?
http://www.beatking.com
February 28th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
To play Devil’s advocate:
A cop catching a highway speeder does not cost anything, yet he is charged several hundred dollars as his fine.
The fine or penalty of $750 per song serves as a punishment. There is no point in fining someone $0.99 for stealing music because to the copyright infringer: He may steal a song and get away with it for free, or he may be caught and pay the $0.99 which he would have if he bought the song in the first place anyway.
Anyway, this guy’s logic has some flaws.
February 28th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Actually the $750 is still disproportionate to the crime. Avg fine for speeding ( at least here) is $100- 150. By this logic the “punitive damages” should be $99-$150 per song not $750. I think paying for 100 copies should be sufficient reparations for anyone. Personally I’d like to see an itemized accounting of where the money is going.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
Getting caught breaking a traffic law has a predefined set fine, one that’s paid to the courts or governing body.
The difference is, this is a civil lawsuit, and it’s not the plaintiff’s job to arbitrarily make up a “fine” that they get paid to themselves. That’s not a fine, it’s punitive damages. And there are limits to punitive damages. Since most of these never make it to court, these people have not been protected from these inflated punitive “fines”.
February 28th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
Well worded. This case actually stands a chance at shutting down the RIAA’s extortion business model. Good luck!
February 28th, 2006 at 3:53 pm
That little girl is gonna be the downfall of the RIAA. I love it.
February 28th, 2006 at 3:56 pm
But it’s unconstitutional to give damages for more than the level of acutual damage done to the hurt party. They call it ‘making them whole’ .
However, the court can deside to rule for punitive damages which does not always have to be paid to the hurt party. Sometimes for example they will make parties give money to charities.
Keep in mind that damage can be a little subjective in this however. If you say something nasty about a public figure the damage might be in the millions even though it didn’t directly cost him anything. The argument here is that the damage is only $.99 because sharing itself is not the criminal act but the copying. The RIAA is saying that the sharing is the same as copying and asking for damages based on the number of times it might have been copied.
February 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
It’s more than 99 cents per song in “damages” because when you are the one that is sharing, you are most likely sharing to more than one user. Note that I am not in favor of the RIAA, just explaining the dollar value.
February 28th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
Yeah, this part of the message is not being seen!!!
February 28th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
can they prove how many people she shared it to? I doubt it, which would make them unable to estimate the damage it could of caused. No proof equals no case.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
Do you work for the RIAA? Because you sound like you would make a great lackee.
It is LESS than 99 cents because
1. If you were to extract more than 99 cents per copy shared, you’d be charging more than (cost)*(total # of copies). This would mean that RIAA would make MORE than if the shareres bought the songs legitimately.
2. Not everyone knows how to rip songs and such. People with legitimate copies of the songs/movies/games can download digital copies and backups. Only RIAA would say that having a scratched CD’s means invalidated license. That you have to buy another CD and buy separate copy of the exact same song for each medium through which you wish to use your license.
3. Economic loss of piracy is not (cost)*(# of copies pirated). If the file sharers were required to pay 99 cents per song, they’d own far less songs than they have on their computers now.
February 28th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
But let’s say that RIAA sues EVERY SINGLE SHARER.
If you pay for the copy on your computer and for every copy that you’ve uploaded, RIAA is getting paid twice for every song shared.
RIAA would make 2*(price/song)(# of shared songs)
How does RIAA measure the number of songs shared anyway?
How do they determine what portion of those shared copies went to receivers who own CD’s or purchased the song in other legitimate ways?
March 1st, 2006 at 12:42 am
actualy its more than .99 cents. this person is charged with SHARING not DOWNLOADING the songs… so every single person than gets the song for free from this person rather than buying a copy is a lost sale.
So the total loss would be the amount of sales lost because people got the song for free from this person rather than going out and buying the CD.
March 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pm
“so every single person than gets the song for free from this person rather than buying a copy is a lost sale. ”
Every download CANNOT be equated to a lost sale. Most of the people who may have downloaded may NOT have ever decided to buy. Many download to sample music. Many download because they like ONE song, but don’t want to pay for an entire CD to get it, since the music industry decided to kill the single. Many are taking advantage of not paying for music, true, but who says they would have bought if that were the only other option?? Many buy BECAUSE they downloaded music and enjoyed it and wanted it for their own in the higher quality CD type package.
A downloaded song DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY EQUAL a lost sale.
March 2nd, 2006 at 6:00 am
Key words there “rather than going out and buying the CD”. Most people who DL music would not buy the CD if p2p technology dd not exist, either because they did not like the song, could not afford the grossly overpriced CD, or have a personal peeve about buying a CD full of crap to get one song worth hearing. “Services” like iTunes do not mitigate these problems, since they have all the drawbacks of physical CDs and none of the benefits.
However when somebody DLs a song LIKES it, three things happen:
1 > They play it for thier friends, who go out and buy the CD or get it from iTunes if they like it.
2 > They puchese the song themselves.
3 > They do not show it to anybody and avoid buying it for fear of possible ruinious litigation.
In two of the possible scenarios the RIAA makes money. In the third the RIAA screws themselves out of money.
In other words, as EVERY SINGLE MARKETTING CLASS IN THE WORLD says: “Free product produces free publicity, which directly equates to increased sales”. Otherwise nobody would ever bother with “advanced screenings” or “reviewer copies”.
What the **AA is doing can be summed up in one phrase: Protection Racket.
March 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
hell part of the time a dowloaded song MEANS A SALE THEY WOULDN’T HAVE GOTTEN OTHERWISE…..
I for one only buy cd’s that contain music I dl’d so I know what I am getting before I shill out the cash. And if I only like 1 song on a cd, just not buying it.
March 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
It’s about time the RIAA was labeled as a predator. Their practice of preying on the weak and defensless is reprehensible. They deserve public scorn.
March 4th, 2006 at 11:21 pm
Flimzy.
If I own Metallica’s black album and break the cd… I cant just get a free or less than new cost replacement – so if I download the cd again — THERE IS NO LOSS … because I already bought the damn thing.
Those kinds of situations are not taken into consideration.. and that’s why the world has actuararies to come up with better numbers but a 1:1 loss is not a realistic number to look at..
Anyway, this case isn’t about 99 cents a song its about $750 a song.. which unless they can prove uploads occured (and in this case they cant, all they have is a snapshot that she had either ripped her own cd’s and placed the songs in share or downloaded but since they are contesting no violation there’s no way to prove she downloaded or ripped – no violation.. and since they cant show she uploaded a single song, no violation either.
Case dismissed.