Login:
Password:

RIAA Piracy Damages Questioned in Ruling

By Ed Oswald, BetaNews

November 10, 2006, 1:16 PM

In a case that could have serious implications for future music piracy lawsuits, a New York District Judge ruled Thursday that a defendant's motion to argue the current statutory damage structure used in the case is unconstitutional may go forward.

Universal Music Group and several other labels are suing Brooklyn, New York resident Marie Lindor, and are attempting to collect a $750 per-song penalty. However, Lindor's attorneys argue that the demand is excessive.

"The statutory damages sought by plaintiffs are unconstitutionally excessive and disproportionate to any actual damages that may have been sustained, in violation of the Due Process Clause," her attorneys said in a filing.

Judge J. Trager agreed, noting that the amount is some 1,071 times the actual damages suffered, which are approximately 70 cents per song. "[The plaintiffs] 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," he wrote in his ruling.

"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," Trager added.

The ruling now forces the recording industry to both produce witnesses and documents on the wholesale price of music downloads. Such documents could for the first time give a look into how much money the music industry is making from online music.

The RIAA had not publicly commented on the case as of press time.

Add a Comment (38 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By consumer101

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 9:47 PM

Ya same here TV is cheap. And now they have a blue lasre player that has to connect to the internet and studios even to play and they can access your player to change coding. The RIAA and MPAA will bite the hand that feeds them for too long and they will find a full scale revolt from the educated consumer. People will start to lobby and poke holes in the monopoly in these organizations. Remember the Boston Tea Pary.

If Bill Gates can be sued for holding a Monopoly on Windows why can these Mammoth Media industries be hoild liable for what they are doing.

Makes me want to throw all my electronics in the garbage and go for some privacy and good old fashioned entertainment.

Score: 0

By doctorsmith

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 3:50 PM

Look! I'm sick of this there are people here defending common criminals, and it's gone on too long. These people should be hit with the full force of the law, as well as baseball bats and anything else that decent people of the world can lay their hands on.
As for the music downloaders..... good luck to them :-)

Score: 0

By montykid

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 11:53 PM

I don't believe that the definition of 'decent people' includes those running around with baseball bats beating others, regardless of crimes committed.

Score: 0

By drumcat

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 12:22 PM

Nothing quite like common sense stepping on the throat of RIAA lawyers.

Score: 0

By mesiex

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 8:43 AM

They try to sell the same product again and again and again. If you sell a car you are not the owner of it any more, but if you compose a song and sell it, the new owner, in your name, may sell it again and again and again. Who is the pirate?

Score: 0

By iced

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 3:15 PM

cool, they just need to get some more laws passed as to make the constitution is void

Score: 0

By Membrane

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 1:27 PM

The riaa is nothing more then a mafia for media they truly are without any decency this is rampant
greed the damages if any should be no more then 50 to 70 cents a song.
They obviously pull their damages numbers out of their rear ends.
Personally it about time their greed is questioned.
Hopefully with a change in congress these idiots will have less power.
Also such cases of piracy should be civil law not criminal why should stealing an mp3 have a worse punishment then stealing a cd from a store if anything it should have far less punishment as less people are harmed and there is zero danger of violence related to the so called crime.

Score: 0

By tipsyboy

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 4:48 AM

Praise God for these people. After so many unjust cases they are the ones that finally admit the greediness and unjust demands of the rich. And it is the truth. The most anyone could demand to pay for is the worth of the retail price. Full stop.

Score: 0

By dhjdhj

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 8:34 PM

If you steal a car, you don't just get to pay its retail worth when you get caught - there's a penalty on top of the retail price. So I have no problem with there being SOME penalty for the theft. The problem comes from the combination of the following:
(a) the retail price is very low and
(b) only a tiny minority of people get caught

therefore one can make the argument that the penalty must be sufficient not only to punish the person who got caught but also to be a deterrent to others.

While I don't like the way the RIAA is playing the game, I recognize their right to protect their IP. The argument that the music is too expensive is completely (and the consequence of "therefore I'll just steal it") is completely bogus. If you can't afford to buy it, you shouldn't have it. If enough people decide they cannot afford to buy it, market forces will lower the price to a point where people CAN afford it.

Don't just blame the rich - if somebody has something you want, they're entitled to be paid for it - if enough people want it, then the source gets rich - what's wrong with that?

--->The most anyone could demand to pay for is the worth of the retail price

Score: 0

By Grazer

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 1:23 PM

one can make the argument that the penalty must be sufficient not only to punish the person who got caught but also to be a deterrent to others.

But isn't that, in a sense, punishing one offender for many other offender's crimes? And if punishments are decided on by their ability to deter, why not make death the penalty for everything?

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 10:55 AM

"If you steal a car, you don't just get to pay its retail worth when you get caught - there's a penalty on top of the retail price."

So (say) I steal 1000 tracks of music (10 CDs) ...

1000 x #0.90 per track = #900.00
plus court costs (say) #20,000 = #20,900
plus 'slap on wrist' (penalty) (say) #20,000 = #40,900

OR

1000 x #750 = #750,000
plus court costs ...
plus 'slap on wrist' (penalty) ...

#40,900 or #750,000+ ???
which is fair ???

is it the job of the court to decide 'damages' NOT the company (RIAA)

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 8:47 PM

Penalties are often specifically defined by the scope of the subject matter. In the case of copyrighted music works, there is a clearly defined statue in USC 17 of $750/song minimum, however that still leaves room for subjective adaptation by the judge and jury. The BSA has yet another set of guidelines for establishing penalties related to software piracy, which can seem equally excessive to the layman. Medical, Industrial, etc. all have occassional, specific judgement guidelines or outright laws to outline penalty assessment. Each was typically constructed by a board of experts enlisted to study and define standards for such things. While it may seem alien to many, it would be strange for say, a doctor to form a group of doctors to define penalty guidelines for things like plumbing cases. It could be argued that "expert" is subjective and therefore suspect in the view of the opposing counsel. However, if enough case law is built up using such guidelines, it becomes increasingly difficult (or impossible) to dispute the rationale and methods for determining penalties in a given case.

Score: 0

By SteveJohnSteele

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 10:42 AM

"If enough people decide they cannot afford to buy it ..."

But that is exactly what IS happening.

Sales are down across the board, CDs, DVDs, downloads are not making up the numbers.
Cinema visits are down and DVD sales are not making up the numbers.

"... market forces will lower the price to a point where people CAN afford it."

BUT that's not happening ... they blame the lowering sales on piracy.

I used to go to the cinema during the day when they had special showings - it cost #2.00 (!) - now it costs #8.00 no matter when I go.

I used to rent videos/DVDs for #2.00 a night - or #1.00 if I got in early and returned it before 4pm same day - now its #3.50 at any time.

So now I watch TV - which costs me ~#0.10 per hour :-)

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Nov 11, 2006 - 5:26 PM

Nothing will be able to surprise me anymore:

Elderly harmonica player arrested for performing copyrighted songs at bar

A 73-year-old bar manager who illegally performed copyrighted tunes by the Beatles and other artists on the harmonica was arrested Thursday on suspicion of violating the Copyright Law, police said.

Arrested was Masami Toyoda, of Tokyo's Nerima-ku. He has reportedly admitted to the allegations against him.

Investigators accuse Toyoda of illegally performing 33 songs such as the Beatles' songs "Here, There and Everywhere" and "Yesterday," whose copyrights are managed by the Japanese Society for Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers. He allegedly performed the songs on the harmonica with a female pianist at the bar he operated between August and September this year.

Officials said the society sought a provisional injunction against Toyoda in 2001 because he had repeatedly performed copyrighted songs in the past without permission, and the Tokyo District Court granted the injunction.

The society filed a criminal complaint against him in September this year because he later kept playing copyrighted songs. (Mainichi)

http://mdn.mainichi-msn....09p2a00m0na018000c.html

I think you should whistle your compositions only!

Score: 0

By Membrane

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 1:29 PM

Wha that is a joke the copyright holders to the beatle's music must be real scumbags.

Score: 0

By sjc001

posted Nov 11, 2006 - 6:06 AM

The RIAA can't produce these documents because they don't exist. It seems that more often than not when such a case actually makes it to court the RIAA ends up losing. Maybe that is why they force their victims to settle out of court.

Score: 0

By AntiochMedia

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 3:45 PM

I think that each MP3's value should be assessed at 99c based upon the precident set by iTunes and other online music store providers. It makes perfect sense.

Score: 0

By dwaterman

edited Nov 10, 2006 - 4:04 PM

So the punishment would be nothing more than having to pay for the music? That is as ridiculous as $750 per song... no it doesn't make sense.

Score: 0

By Skizelli

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 5:20 PM

Yes, it does make sense. He's merely talking about the fine. Punishment could vary, but $750 per song is outrageous. Talk about greed.

Score: 0

By beta_animal

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 6:45 PM

As far as I was aware, the punishment for a crime is decided by a court, not an industry body. It's beyond me why the RIAA have got away with an arbitrary charge of $750 per track for so long.
I believe that "actual damages" should be set at $0.99 - the actual cost of each track. "Punitive Damages" should be decided by the judge as per every other type of lawsuit in the world.

Score: 0

By aussiebear

posted Nov 11, 2006 - 12:27 AM

Because the RIAA is nothing but the Mafia with a coporate image.

Score: 0

By Jonus

posted Nov 11, 2006 - 5:12 AM

lol so true

Score: 0

By AlanRivaldo

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 7:41 PM

But consider that $0.99 is not the COST per song, but the PRICE.

Score: 0

By joeshmoe7

edited Nov 10, 2006 - 2:09 PM

Keep screwing with NY-ers and they're going to get buried. I just hope they don't drop the suit now, the weasels. I want to see it go all the way baby!

Score: 0

By Bogunch

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 2:01 PM

It's about time somebody took these bas****s in tow!!!

Score: 0

By Martin Blank

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 2:00 PM

The defense has a solid basis for this. The Supreme Court ruled in BMW of North America, Inc. v Ira Gore, Jr that damage caps should commensurate with the damages incurred, and take into account a variety of factors in determining the ratio of damages to award.

Referring to existing case law, the Court said in its decision that "exemplary damages imposed on a defendant should reflect 'the enormity of his offense.'" The Court also noted that the damages suffered by Gore were "purely economic in nature," that BMW showed "no indifference to or reckless disregard for the health and safety of others," and that while "infliction of economic injury...can warrant a substantial penalty...this observation does not convert all acts that cause economic harm into torts that are sufficiently reprehensible to justify a significant sanction in addition to compensatory damages." Switch the names of the parties in this case with those in the story, and they fall logically into place.

While they didn't draw a fine line with an exact ratio, they raised these questions over the repainting of a scratched BMW when the award was some 500 times the actual damages as determined by a jury. It could be argued that the damages incurred by the RIAA are even less significant.

For those that want to read the actual opinion, you can see it here: http://www.law.cornell.e...pct/html/94-896.ZO.html

Score: 0

By dikbozo

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 2:17 PM

Where I live, damage awards are more in line with real world costs not punishments akin to winning the lottery. Awards 100s of times actual losses are ridiculous especially in cases where individuals are sued by large corporations whom have an essentially unlimited bankroll behind them. This type of ruling would go a long way to relieving the court systems in general of spurious lawsuits.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 2:10 PM

Sadly, none of that has anything to do with Copyright Law, from which the RIAA is directly pulling the dollar amount they file for.

Current Copyright Law is what has given them the ability to sue for $750 per song.

Since the BMW case was not Copyright related, it will likely have zero impact on this particular case, much as we would like it otherwise.

Score: 0

By FadeToBolivia

edited Nov 10, 2006 - 2:22 PM

I think you missed the point.

The constitution > copyright law

It doesnt matter what copyright law says, if the penalties it imposes are excessive and therefor unconstitutional.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Nov 12, 2006 - 9:15 PM

You guys appear to be reading from [http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html] solely, without weight given to case law. Case law takes precedence. There is still room within the text of USC t17 to allow for judgement and trial to assess penalty costs and valuation methods. This is America. Not everyone that gets written up for speeding goes to jail or even pays a fine. Laws are not written in stone.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 9:18 AM

Didn't say it could not be left to a judges discretion, as that seems to be the main point of the article. I was merely pointing out the the BMW case does not relate.

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 10:32 AM

Gotcha. I missed that.

Score: 0

By Martin Blank

posted Nov 10, 2006 - 4:48 PM

It has to do with compensatory damages following economic losses. In the case of the BWM owner, his losses were judged by an expert to be about 10% of the value of the car -- $4000 in damages. Here, the losses seem to be about $0.70 per song at worst, or at best the cost of the CD if they weren't available for download. Both fall under civil law, not criminal, as they are being sued, not charged. The FBI hasn't been involved in these cases (nor will they be for most of them, as the DoJ won't pursue such small items). Unless there's something in the law that allows them to seek restitution of $750 per song, this can be challenged under that precedent. Even then, the law may be found to be unconstitutionally harsh in the scale of its penalties (unlikely, but possible).

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 9:20 AM

In the case of the BWM owner, his losses were judged by an expert to be about 10% of the value of the car -- $4000 in damages.

Does the US have a law on the books stating a minimum penalty for cases of that type? If no, then your argument is pointless.

There *is* a law on the books stating allowed penalties for copyright violations ($750), which is *exactly* what I stated above. This is what the RIAA is using. The case you mention is has nothing to do with copyright and thus falls outside of any grounds for precedent in this case.

Score: 0

By sytanek

edited Nov 12, 2006 - 7:43 PM

Pc_Tool is correct about the copyright law violation fine being set for a minimum of 750$. The only issue I see with this is that the law states the author may seek this fine. Not sure how the RIAA becomes "The Author" in every instance of a song downloaded. When you create any entity, and get it copyrighted, does the RIAA automatically become the author of your work? Or does every single person willingly sign over all authorship rights to the RIAA? Sure the record label may purchase the rights, but how does the RIAA as an organization become the owner? Now if the actual other of the piece of work wishes to sue, well so be it. So basically if every artist wants to file all the paperwork for every person downloading one of their songs, then so be it. Which I highly doubt would happen, who likes paperwork? lol But the RIAA should not be able to combine them all together. Again this is because the Copyright law states the author may seek the fine, not an Organization the author belongs to.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 9:16 AM

RIAA files these suits on "behalf" of the author....another issue with the US legal system. The author, or accuser in the suit, doesn't even need to be present, and I'm sure in 90% of RIA's cases, isn't even *aware* a suit is in progress.

Score: 0

By sytanek

edited Nov 13, 2006 - 3:45 PM

and I'm sure in 90% of RIA's cases, isn't even *aware* a suit is in progress.

This is the part I have the biggest problem. Reverse Class Action Suit FTW....lol

Is there such a thing?

Even if they file on behalf of the author, wouldnt it need to be seperate lawsuits for each work of art?

Score: 0

By ds0934

posted Nov 13, 2006 - 8:39 PM

It's often a fine line between defining the violation counts per case against taking up too much docket time and pi**ing off the judge. In cases like this, they typically bundle the songs into a single case and don't bother enumerating the counts in succession. Drolling through that much jabbering makes judges irritable and angry at the person talking. :)

Score: 0