Democratic congressman: RIAA's $222,000 win is 'excessive'
The recording industry's victory Thursday in a trial involving a Minnesota woman accused of illegal file-sharing is already turning at least a few heads on Capitol Hill.
Rick Boucher
We caught up by phone on Friday afternoon with Rep. Rick Boucher, a Virginia Democrat well known for his strongly held views on fair use and the need to defang stringent anti-copying laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. (He's one of the Recording Industry Association of America's most ardent foes on copyright legislation.)
We wanted to know Boucher's answer to the obvious question: Will Congress lessen penalties for copyright infringement after Thursday's whopping verdict? We also contacted a dozen congressional offices--from both parties and chambers--whose members frequently work on intellectual property issues. Some never responded, and others said their bosses were traveling or otherwise unavailable for comment.
Here are a few excerpts from my conversation with him a few minutes ago:
On pirating copyright files and the Minnesota case: I have no sympathy for people who engage in illegal peer-to-peer file sharing. These damages are obviously excessive and are way out of line as compared to the kinds of settlements that have been entered into in similar kinds of cases in the us and in other countries.
Even though they have now a very large damage award entered against a person who the jury found was engaged in file sharing, that's not really going to diminish the amount of file sharing that occurs. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure that there's anything the industry could do at this point that is going to eliminate it.
On whether he thinks Congress should do something to rein in damage awards: No, I really don't. I think that's trying to pick around the edges of a problem that frankly doesn't need the Congress' attention.
On what Congress could do instead: What I think we ought to do is reform the Section 115 license [under U.S. copyright law]. That would help a lot in making available more music for lawful downloads.
There are significant problems today for a Webcaster or for an entity that is selling music online to clear the copyright interests of all of the copyright holders associated with a particular musical work, and among those difficulties to clear are those under the Section 115 license, and those happen to be the music publisher and songwriter interests. We have been talking with the music publishers and representatives of songwriters about a way that we can more effectively clear those interests by having, for example, an escrow arrangement at the copyright office for those musical works with regard to whom the songwriter and publisher interest is unknown, where you don't know who wrote the song or who holds the publishing right.
For a lot of the material, that happens to be the situation, and that material today just does not get used and cannot be put up for lawful download because the risk for copyright infringement and lawful damages is too great to do that.
The labels actually tried to be cute several years ago when we were on the verge of passing a compromise on this subject...by attaching some of their pet issues to that legislation. They essentially brought it down because they didn't have the votes to win on their issues but they did have votes to block the bill going forward. It would've been fundamentally in the interest of labels, (and would have) meant more of their music would be available for lawful sale across the Internet.
That would be a step in the right direction, but it doesn't take us far enough. I ultimately think the industry is going to need to come to a realization that it needs a blanket license.
On what the recording industry should do instead of suing people: I really think the time has come for the recording industry to consider some form of blanket license arrangement that would apply fairly broadly across our society.
There are early examples that are very successful for voluntary blanket license arrangements, and what I had in mind are the contracts that the record labels have entered into with a number of universities in this country. Through those contracts, universities pay a lump sum on an annual basis to the record label, and in return for that lump sum payment, the students at that university are able to download and file share among themselves as much music as they want.
Given that success and that some amount of illegal file sharing is destined to continue, i think the time has come for the industry to explore some broader applications of that blanket license arrangement. I'm not going to suggest how that can be expanded.
Contracts could be entered into with the major ISPs. A blanket arrangement could be entered into with Verizon for example with its DSL and FIOS services, or with AT&T for its broadband services. It could be entered into with even smaller ISPs, whereby for a blanket sum, a lump sum payment, the users of those Internet services would be able to download music from those labels, or from other sites that offer the music.
I'm not saying we're going to introduce a bill and force feed this to the industry. The industry needs to consider whether or not it's in its interest, I frankly think it might be. If the industry comes to Congress with suggestions for ways to help implement it, we'll do that.
First, based on the "evidence" presented, it doesn't take a genius to figure out that the woman had actually made those songs available to a p2p network.
Based on the instructions from the judge, the jurors had to find her guilty of copyright infringement even if there was no evidence that any infringement did take place.
As to the penalty, the jury probably determined the amount of the fine based on the fact that the woman's hard drive was replaced, thus destroying any evidence. So I guess they weren't so sympathetic....
This isn't the case that we should use to rally against the gestapo tactics of the RIAA. This woman took her chances and lost. This is not a case where someone hijacked a person's network without the computer owner's knowledge.
If you look closely, all their posts are so lopsided and it is obvious the brown nosers are all saying the same thing.
Truth is, I talked to aboug 40 people today IN REAL life that are OUTRAGED by this verdict.
The hire small companies to do their dirty work. They've been caught with their pants down in recent email exposures - think they don't hire people to troll the news stories?
Don't buy it. Sorry. RIAAs the one that needs to do the time for all their crime against their customers - and a single mom? Go ahead and add humanity. They don't seem to have any.
Most people KNOW that RIAA is obsolete. The only people that don't seem to know this is RIAA.
I hope that everyone supports bands like RADIOHEAD who are starting to offer their music directly on the Internet.
Secondly, the woman's hard drive was replaced because it had failed. If THAT was the reason that the jury says that they found her guilty of copyright infringement...... then it's appeal time, because there was evidence given that she took the computer back to Best Buy under their warranty program, and they are not going to replace a hard drive unless they test it and it is close to failing.
To close, you do not know that this is not a case where someone hijacked this woman's network or her computer without her knowledge. To say you do makes it sounds like you are omniscient..... and you are nowhere close to that.
http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/more-on-free-music-for-the-critics/
LOL ;-)
You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing.
Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive.
How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is truly phenomenal.
This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder!
Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together.
I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms. Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life.
But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country at all. Thank goodness!
And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again.
COUNTERPOINT:
Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms. Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day.
What's your opinion?
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com
- by Reflautas May 26, 2008 9:18 PM PDT
- It was surprising and disappointing to hear Rep. Boucher advocating blanket licensing. I think he is much brighter than that. A huge problem today is, precisely, blanket licensing that treats your favorite song of all time having the same value as a song you could not bear to listen to all the way through. The music performing rights organizations got away with blanket licensing in the past because it was a more efficient way of doing things, but now that the technology is available to permit speed-of-light track-by-track licensing so that lesser known members could compete and make real money, they keep playing this game of making it artificially cherry pick the songs one prefers to license, forcing retailers to take everything under the blanket. It is beyond my comprehension why Rep. Boucher would want more mystery blankets that mostly benefit major works and the PRO's themselves. With a blanket license, it is hard for a struggling artist to even give away performance rights in order to get more play time, because under the blanket, all songs are "worth" the same amount.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(9 Comments)