Obama administration sides with RIAA in P2P suit

The Obama administration has sided with the recording industry in a copyright lawsuit against an alleged peer-to-peer pirate, a move that echoes arguments previously made by the Bush administration.

A legal brief filed Sunday in a case that the Recording Industry Association of America is pursuing in Massachusetts argues that federal copyright law is not so overly broad and its penalties not so unduly severe that they count as "punitive." Current law allows a copyright holder to receive up to $150,000 in damages per violation.

The brief says "the harms caused by copyright infringement" on the Internet include limiting "a copyright owner's ability to distribute legal copies of copyrighted works. The public in turn suffers from lost jobs and wages, lost tax revenue, and higher prices for honest purchasers of copyrighted works."

The Obama administration's choice to intervene in the Massachusetts lawsuit comes after the Bush administration joined the RIAA's lawsuit against Jammie Thomas. It, too, defended the constitutionality of the statute--one of the Justice Department's duties--that a jury decided Thomas had violated. (Thomas has been awarded a new trial.)

The Massachusetts case could prove to be an important one. A group of Harvard law school students, with the help of Harvard law Professor Charles Nesson, is providing defendant Joel Tenenbaum with an aggressive legal defense. They aim to convince the courts that the law the RIAA relies on is so Draconian it amounts to "essentially a criminal statute" and is therefore unconstitutional; that it grants too much authority to copyright holders; and that it violates due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

Those are the arguments that the Justice Department is attempting to refute. Its brief says that while the administration "does not address" the nonconstitutional arguments, "if the court finds it necessary to reach the constitutional questions at this time, then it should reject each of defendant's constitutional claims."

It adds: "The remedy of statutory damages for copyright infringement has been a cornerstone of our federal copyright law since 1790, and Congress acted reasonably in crafting the current incarnation of the statutory damages provision. Congress sought to account for both the difficulty of quantifying damages in the context of copyright infringement and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted works in an environment where many violators believe that their activities will go unnoticed."

Until recently, a top Justice Department official was representing the RIAA in the Massachusetts case. In early January, Barack Obama picked Tom Perrelli for associate attorney general; he was listed as a "lead attorney" for the RIAA in the case and had filed a formal notice of withdrawal less than two weeks earlier.

On February 4, Obama picked as associate deputy attorney general Donald Verrilli, who represented the RIAA in the Jammie Thomas case. Verrilli didn't file a motion to withdraw from the case until last week.

[AICAP Group]

I am quickly reaching a state of mind that has me believing more in free dl music than paid music. the RIAA is so abusive and arrogant, so unrealistic and militant that it is turning me off to the idea of spending any money on any product that would benefit them or their clients. The recording industry is taking the wrong approach entirely. How much money of every legal song purchased is going to the RIAA abuse? It is impossible to argue truthfully that shared music costs the recording industry even one penny. It is a fantasy. Eventually there will be jurors and legal arguments against the RIAA. It is just a matter of time before the recording industry mafia is curtailed in these abusive arguments.

[contentcreator--2008]

"It is impossible to argue truthfully that shared music costs the recording industry even one penny." Spectacularly clueless. Sort of like a riot with looting is a government welfare program.<br /><br />Something is offered for sale, you either pay the required price, or do without. If no one buys, the seller will adjust. The buyer can not change the terms, can not just take without paying the required price.

[protagonistic--2008]

The simple answer to the RIAA is to refuse to buy any music that comes through them. There are many independent artists out there that produce better music anyway. If people would stop buying from these jerks they would eventually either evolve or disappear. I get the bulk of my music at magnatune.com these days. They allow me to share a few songs with family and friends. They understand that this actually helps them acquire new customers rather than costs them sales. And, you can listen to all the music as a stream before buying it.

[Tonsotunez]

This is a terrific idea ... stop buying music released on RIAA member labels ... At the same time, however, stop stealing music released on RIAA member labels. May I suggest you run over the the Creative Commons website and download everything that excites, entertains and give you something to talk about with your friends.

[Tonsotunez]

Your headline is totally misleading ... The Obama administration doesn't "side with the RIAA" it sides with the law!

[umbrae]

They are siding with the RIAA interpretation of the law, which if different. The headline might be overly fearful, but is not totally inaccurate.

[Tonsotunez]

The RIAA's position REFLECTS what the law says, what courts have upheld and what the DOJ has supported on numerous occasions through the years whether the RIAA was involved in the action in question or not. <br /><br />The law, is the law, is the law, is the law. <br /><br />The DOJ is not SIDING with the RIAA, they are providing their interpretation of the law as it relates to points raised by Jamie Thomas' attorney. The DOJ does not involve itself in every litigation relating to copyright and certainly takes no sides when it does. <br /><br />The DOJ is not a pawn of the RIAA. If it felt the RIAA's position was wrong it would have supported Thomas.

[Draq Wraith]

The RIAA is not a police agency and the procedural chain of evidence was obtained unlawfully.<br />In several cases the evidence was thrown out because the RIAA used unlicensed Private investigators. This is where the RIAA is the actual law breakers. They should be regulated and have a watch dog assigned to them since they are acting as a monopoly.<br /><br />D~W

[Spimby]

But if the story had been about the Bush administration, it would have been completely accurate.

[umbrae]

Tonsotunez was work for the RIAA because this is not true. A law is never cut and dry. If laws were black and white and all powerful we would not need courts. Many courts have chastised the RIAA for its tactics and interpretations in these lawsuits, so I would doubt they are following the letter of the law. Of course, these are the ones that actually made it to court, and not dropped by the RIAA when they things go south.

[Lerianis3]

Tonsotunez.... they are siding with the RIAA in supporting their interpretation of the law. The fact is that 25,000 per song is not only punative, it is blatently unconstitutional, and the courts should admit that and rewrite the laws monetary provisions (which they can do, according to some Constitutional scholars interpretations, and those are the CONSERVATIVE ones).

[Sam Papelbon]

from what i know, the argument over the jammie thomas case has nothing to do with whether what he did was a crime or not or the constituionality of punishing him for that crime, but in how severe the punishment should be.<br /><br />he's a kid that uploaded 20-some songs on kazaa and got hit with a fine of over $200k. unless they have logs that show the files had been downloaded thousands upon thousands of times, i don't see how the fine should be any more than $1000.<br /><br />as for this tidbit: "limiting a copyright owner's ability to distribute legal copies of copyrighted works.". unless he hacked into itunes to disable the songs he was sharing from being sold, i don't see how this bit of law can be used against him. too many lawyers these days trying to sell crimes in excess of the ones that were actually committed... might as well tack on a few million to the fine for mental anguish caused to RIAA execs...

[AaronMK]

First, Jammie Thomas is not a kid. Second, "he" is actually a she. I am only being nit-picky because I agree with the other points you make, but almost decided to just skip your post because my first impression was that if you did not get those two basic facts straight, everything else would likely not be sound either.

[Dalkorian]

Jamie Thomas is a she not a he, so I guess you don't know much about the case at all.

[BtmnHatesRbn]

It's a real two-edged sword. I think that if a song is 24 months old, is shouldn't have a copyright anymore. At the same time, why are music prices so high? I don't mind $1 a song, but I don't like, if I was buying a CD, a $20 CD with $19 worth of filler. So the RIAA gets angry because we fought back in the only way we knew how. And what is the difference between me taping a CD, record, tape, or disc-copying a CD, or downloading MP3s, or taping the song off the radio, etc., than this way? I remember when TechTV brought the RIAA onto a show and had the people they were suing come on and yell and scream at them, proving that the RIAA is scum. Is was hosted by Leo Laporte.<br /><br />One particular case on that show I remember was the RIAA's lawyer DENYING they were suing this 14-year-old girl, and she held up the legal paper work from that they mailed her and she put them in their place. That moment is when I lost all respect for the RIAA.<br /><br />Also, take a look at the the legal filings from the RIAA. It's all Windows users, especially the older versions of 98, ME, 2000 and XP. I've never read a case (if it's unsealed) that had Linux, Mac or other named. Furthermore, how does the RIAA get its info for the case? The Constitution forbids anybody from obtaining evidence gathering with a specific warrant. I applaud anybody fighting the RIAA. Also, is doesn't surprise an un-Constitutional agency is teaming up with a group of un-Constitutionalists.

[Lerianis3]

That's the main reason why I support 'illegal' music downloading: there is no way that a song should still be in copyright after two years. If it hasn't made it's money by then.... it is never going to make it's money. Even the recording artists admit that when they are talking with family and friends. <br /> <br />There is one thing that I have to correct however: people CAN go and collect evidence on their own, as long as they are not tresspassing on private property or eavesdropping on private conversations in someone's home or 'out of the public eye'. <br /> <br />That means no phone tapping, no internet tapping, no internet monitoring, etc. By the LETTER of the law, even connecting to a torrent file to find out who is downloading something illegally is verboten, as it really should be.

[umbrae]

I think Obama has already forgotten about the people that voted him into Office.

[Anonymous Hero]

Tonsotunez, this sad excuse for a law was essentially written by the RIAA and the MPAA, so for all practical reasons, the Obama administration is siding with them.

[Tonsotunez]

The law was written way BEFORE there was an RIAA or MPAA. Copyright law is not restricted to music and movies.

[umbrae]

Tonsotunez, you are very uninformed. We are not talking about Copyright law. This is specific to the DMCA which was passed in 2000 long AFTER the RIAA and MPAA, which was in the 1950's.<br /><br />It is totally legal to lend a book and other physical media, so none of this P2P would be illegal at all under these laws. It is only sharing media with a friend. The DMCA made "digital" copies follow a different set of rules than physical media.<br /><br />Please do your research.

[Lerianis3]

Yeah, they've got you there, Tonsotunez.... you've lost the argument, umbrae pointed out that they made digital copies of songs different from physical CD sharing, which is actually illegal: can't have two sets of standards for the same property, no matter how it is being transferred from person to person.

[Frodo420024]

Let me point out the central issue here:<br /><br />"and the need to deter millions of users of new technology from infringing copyrighted works "<br /><br />This is where copyright enters the punitive realm. If I was in this interesting group of Haward law students, I'd insert the knife exactly here.<br /><br />Sure the Obama administration sides with RIAA. That's in the text, read up. They - the Executive branch of government, interestingly, interpret current copyright law to be within the bounds of the Constitution. I think it might as well have declared this a Constitutional issue for the Court to decide and that the administration, for reasons of principle, would abstain from voicing an opinion.<br /><br />It's just 'Siding', nothing serious or unusual, The US government does so relentlessly.<br /><br />What will be interesting is to see if the judge has the guts to go against the government. I think doing so would be a significant win for democracy.

[contentcreator--2008]

Win for democracy? Win for socialism, maybe---- just take what you want, right? No need to pay. No need for the people making it to eat. No problem.

[Lerianis3]

Frankly, we are going towards socialsim, contentcreator--2008.... get real and realize that some socialism is not a bad thing. Frankly, dating back to MOZART..... he said that anyone could play his music, as long as they had the equipment and played it well. He didn't care. Neither did his royal benefactors, who were paying him to write music for them.

[cohaver]

AIG problem here Government looks like it supporting American Greed over Fair use . Seed of Revolution History bare the marks of Governments that forced the will of greedy people on others. <br />Boston Tea Party , October Revolution, Cuba ,South Africa A partied Government , Fall of Roman Empire<br />English Empire . Point here is We must come to a fair Standard of Fair use. Or we face a point where a total break down of population support will force change and Target RIAA much as the people target AIG. All i can say Copyright Law should be limited to changing media Formats As things change older Formats should be less copyright Restrictive . We don't still pay the Caveman for the wheel.

[xenophod]

Ch-ch-ch-ch-Changes<br />Oops no wait, more of the same. <br />No Change for you!

[Willie Winkie]

I will NOT, NO, NYET, NIEN, Uh UHa, pay ANY money for music. Only a fool would pay for content.

[Lerianis3]

Only a fool would pay anything for games, movies, etc. then..... even I don't go that far. I am willing to pay a REASONABLE price for things..... but 60 dollars a game? Hell no. 20 dollars a DVD/CD? Freak no! <br /> <br />Maybe 20 dollars for the former and 5 dollars for the latter. The fact is that the prices for those things have been illegallly kept high for MANY years now. I mean, it BARELY costs the recording industry 5 cents a song (when taken with .25 million CD's sold) to make a song. Maybe even less, even counting pressing costs.

[thelemurking]

Wait... hold up! I was expecting HOPE and CHANGE! What happened to YES WE CAN? This sounds like MORE OF THE SAME!

[ComLink]

Does anyone read: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ ? I have been following this for some time, and it's interesting to read the details of how the cases were handled by the RIAA. They don't seem to know, or care who they sue... dead people, infants, hospitalized people who couldn't have possibly downloaded anything.<br /><br />I voted with hope for our administration in office, can I take it back?<br /><br />Sigh

[Dr_Zinj]

I take issue with the statement, "Something is offered for sale, you either pay the required price, or do without. If no one buys, the seller will adjust. The buyer can not change the terms, can not just take without paying the required price. " <br /> <br />I do not endorse the use of the following options, but I do recognize that they exist and must be taken into account when setting prices. <br /> <br />Consumers have a third option of black market sources, and have used them since pre-historic times. Somebody else does the stealing, or sells at cost plus their markup without paying middleman (including the government) costs. <br /> <br />Consumers could use the fourth option and do their own stealing, but that entails higher risk; and for most, very little opportunity.

[Lerianis3]

Actually, most 'black market' sources are not stealing. They are not taking the physical CD's that these companies have made illegally, in fact most times they have PAID for their CD's and are just ripping them for other people to use. <br /> <br />That isn't a 'black market'. It also doesn't help that the companies in question here have, for many years, been overcharging for their products and trying to 'milk' the customers in America and other first world countries. If they would charge a REASONABLE AMOUNT (5 dollars a CD, 25 cents a song or less) for their products..... people might actually buy the things legally.

[jtolbert]

I believe that the RIAA needs to check the date and year we are in. It is true that copyright rules have been in place since 1790. The reality is that we are now in the the year 2009.<br /><br />The losing battle the RIAA and the major record labels are fighting is about CONTROL, not about the rights of the authors. The major record labels are watching sales decline during an era where music is more in use than ever. You would think that the RIAA and the major records labels would have learned something during the .com boom and Napster. Rule number one of retail...don't sue your customers, they may decide to take their business elsewhere.<br /><br />As with any changing economic environment, business has to adjust to the market conditions. The real problem is that the economy of the music industry has shifted from an economy of control to an economy of trust. Neither the RIAA, major record labels,the "justice department", nor congress have shown the ability to adapt, to trust and be trusted. <br /><br />My experience is that music lovers, and artists alike find this lack of vision by the above mentioned parties pitiful and appalling. Thank GOD for independent music and the internet. <br /><br />jtolbert<br />http://www.vurbia.com

[Tonsotunez]

You want the truth .... you can't handle they truth...<br /><br />"DOJ Sides With RIAA" One Day Later<br /><br />By Thomas O'Toole -- On most days you can learn a lot browsing the Internet. Yesterday probably wasn't one of those days. Consider the following evidence, which I turned up while trying to find out about the latest wrinkle in Sony BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, No. 03-11661 (D. Mass.) -- the Department of Justice's just-filed amicus submission in that case... <br />http://pblog.bna.com/techlaw/2009/03/doj-sides-with-riaa-one-day-later.html<br /><br />[Hint: "...the DOJ's submission would have looked the same, even if the office was not brimming with RIAA attorneys].