Justice Department sides with RIAA against Jammie Thomas
The Bush administration has officially entered the file-sharing lawsuit pitting the major record labels against a Minnesota woman named Jammie Thomas. And it's siding with the record labels.
In legal documents filed in federal court in Minnesota on Monday, the U.S. Department of Justice said it wants to defend the constitutionality of the copyright law that a jury decided Thomas violated.
"Copyrights are of great value, not just to their owners, but to the American public as well," the Justice Department's brief said. "Congress has recognized this value from the first days of the republic. The federal copyright statute...has consistently included special provisions to ensure significant monetary awards in copyright infringement suits that will make copyright owners whole and deter further infringement. "
Translation: It was perfectly reasonable for a jury to slap Thomas with a $222,000 penalty for making 24 songs available on Kazaa.
The Justice Department's move is not exactly unexpected. The department is charged with defending the constitutionality of statutes that Congress enacts, even ones (like the Communications Decency Act) that are unlikely to survive judicial scrutiny. In addition, as I noted in October, the Justice Department has already sided with the RIAA in a New York file-sharing case.
Thomas' argument seems to be this: Fining someone $222,000--and in fact the damages could have been far higher--for sharing songs that could be bought for $24 on iTunes is oppressive and objectively unreasonable. It therefore necessarily violates Supreme Court precedent, which prohibits fines that are "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."
Here are two more excerpts from the Justice Department's brief, which echoes the Recording Industry Association of America's own arguments:
Although defendant claims that plaintiffs' damages are 70 cents per infringing copy, it is unknown how many other users--"potentially millions"--committed subsequent acts of infringement with the illegal copies of works that the defendant infringed. Accordingly, it is impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the Internet. Furthermore, plaintiffs contend that their witnesses "testified to the substantial harm caused by the massive distribution of their copyrighted sound recordings over the Internet, including lost revenues, layoffs, and a diminished capability to identify and promote new talent..."
Most recently, Congress has crafted a statute that serves as a deterrent to those infringing parties who think they will go undetected in committing this great public wrong, as well as providing compensation to copyright owners who have to invest resources into protecting property that is often unquantifiable. Accordingly, given the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the due process clause...
Declan McCullagh, CNET News' chief political correspondent, chronicles the intersection of politics and technology. He has covered politics, technology, and Washington, D.C., for more than a decade, which has turned him into an iconoclast and a skeptic of anyone who says, "We oughta have a new federal law against this." E-mail Declan. 
The funny part is, after they fine and imprison all the file sharers, the only people left on the street will be ex-cons and politicians they elected.
It is completely in line with them; support large groups over
citizens or help those who damage the environment. Bankrupt
the citizens who cannot afford health care. Help the elderly with
prescription drugs so they have a huge donut hole that
bankrupts them for a period of time and let them die. Frankly, I
would not expect anything less than this from the Bush
government. What we really need now, is prayer to help the
United States survive them without becoming a third rate power
and a populace who will vote for someone with a brain to be the
next president.
the RIAA can go to hell for all I care and with more reason I will no longer purchase any cd ever.
I'm sure Billary will provide you with such a wonderful overtaxed "i need the government to be happy" life...
The RIAA is quickly replacing the IRS at the top of list for most irrationally vengeful entity in existence.
To get back at the RIAA I haven't bought any music for years. Do I download music? Yup and I really couldn't care if it's stealing or not. The RIAA stole from me, now it's my turn.
Good news - the current DOJ expires January 20, 2009. Hopefully the next incarnation of the DOJ will be more Pro-American.
abuses of power. Like was said earlier, this will all be changing in
January 2009. The fine is excessive; are they going to throw her in
jail for not paying it? For sharing songs? Who has that kind of
money? Oh, right, the guys who are suing this woman...
What is truly important is that the RIAA is continually shooting themselves in the foot. Do they honestly think that a $220,000 fines is going to do anything to stem the flow of illegal downloads? If so then they are even dumber then I thought, and I think that media execs are some of the most brain dead out of touch people in the world, followed closely by politicians. The people who are sharing the music operate off of the principle of "it will never happen to me" and will continue to do so.
If the logical route that they are trying to follow worked we would have no drinking and driving deaths, no drug problems, no unwanted pregnancies, and so on and so forth.
In the end all the RIAA is doing is making money now while assuring that people continue to rebel against an outdated system. Eventually the laws will change to reflect what the majority wants, and that is a fairer and more up to date intellectual property law. In recent history the spirit of the IP laws have been perverted beyond belief, but they pushed it too far and now the people are starting to revolt.
So welcome to the end. For as one popular saying from popular media culture reference says, the tighter you squeeze the more will slip through your fingers.
As far as you libs are concerned, anything you don't like, somehow GWB knows everything about and micromanaging with evil precision, and anything you like, he is a "fool", "clown" and "idiot" and doesn't know what's going on. So pick which way you want it!
Justice Department serves at the pleasure of the president.
Maybe you've been sleeping in a cave for the last couple of years
and didn't realize that fuhrer bush has stacked the JD with a
bunch of pro-bush yes men. Maybe you didn't realize that was
what chased Gonzales out of Washington, the charge of
politically stacking the JD instead of filling it with competent
judges.
Maybe you haven't got the education to realize that fuhrer bush
*IS* an evil, manipulative, idiotic clown fool who has done
everything he could to ruin this great nation of ours and turn us
back to being more like nazi germany. Maybe you're stupid
enough to believe his BS about Iraq having something
(anything!) to do with 9-11. Maybe you're clueless enough to
still think Iran is a threat, in spite of our own intelligence report
claiming they gave up nuclear ambitions 4 years ago. Maybe you
believe that we're actually trying to get OBL.
Maybe you should just stay home next November. Anyone as vacuous as the person I've described above should have no right
to help decide the future of this country.
Apparently, you don't get the problem that the author is describing in the article. Whether or not she shared those 24 (or more) files is not the issue in the article. Whether or not a fine of $220K is APPROPRIATE is the question. Damages used to have be proven before they could be awarded. Punitive damages used to be limited to 3x the proven actual damages.
However, the RIAA could only prove damages of a loss of 24 songs. As noted by the defendant's attorneys, at an online price of $1 per song, that is $24 plus triple damages of $72 is <$100 total actual and punitive damages. Even if you go hog wild and say that those 24 songs were downloaded by 1000 people each, that is still <$100K. By almost any sane measure, a $220K fine is unreasonable. However, it is being justified by the RIAA and DOJ because of what other people on the internet might have done with those files. The problem with that is a legal principle that you cannot be held responsible for what other people do (with some strictly defined exceptions).
The RIAA likes it, though, because it "makes an example" out of this woman. Especially since she does not have the financial means to fight them.
Finally, this coming from the same industry which has repeatedly both defrauded and underpaid the same artists they are claiming to be helping. The hypocrisy is nauseating!
In both cases it starts out with the victim doing something they probably shouldn?t be doing, and in both cases the punishment is blown out of proportion.
GWB has the time... He has taken more vacation time than any prez to date, and many previous presidents have had to deal with more stressful times than him.
In today?s government, money = power, not popular consensus. And no, I?m not one of those people sore about the election being ?stolen?, in fact, at the time I was happy. Both times I voted Bush, and I?m sorry I did.
Though I realize that the authors of those software packages pay for those 'Tunes', a novice might be easily led to deduce from getting those songs that exchanging songs over the internet for free is legitimate.
What about band mates exchanging set lists and marketing demos? Oh, right, Shhhh!
I know people who work in the recording industry - it's as corrupt and oppressive to artists as boxing promoters. They rob artists blind, but whine when the art they steal is shared on the net.
The recording industry is choking on its own vomit. It has become drunk from the prosperity that price fixing and scare tactics have brought it, and now comes the hangover, the public backlash for its abuse to its customers.
The artists, and fans are the only ones getting abused, the luddite recording companies are just throwing a temper tantrum because they are no longer a middleman. Art is slowly making its way back into the hands of the people, which it should be, and some artists are finding out that you don?t need a recording giant to get your art out.
I would think that teaching my children that human expression belongs in the hands of humans is an important topic. Support your favorite artists, DIRECTLY!!! Buy their merch from their websites, attend their concerts!
The only musicians who are hurt by this are manufactured musicians, and Metallica. Good riddance.
The RIAA is dying, Alice. They know they can't compete with the new paradigm - which is "Cut out the middleman, let's get the product to the customer in the shortest possible time".
It used to be that most bands made their money on tours, and any albums they sold were a bit of bonus cash.
Then, somewhere along the line, it changed - the albums became the major source of money and the tours were used to promote the albums.
Now it's changing again - bands like Tryad and Machinae Supremacy are making their music available for free on the Internet, and people are finding more - and BETTER - music on the 'Net than they are in brick-and-mortar stores, most of which comes from bands who are either A) unsigned or B) signed with a non-RIAA label. (AAd yes, Alice, non-RIAA lbales do exist - Nettwerk Records for one, Fat Wreck Chords for another, and Dancing Ferret Discs for a third.)
The RIAA failed to recognize an opportunity when they first attempted to shut down file-sharing. They were too bogged down in the old technologies and techniques to realize that they'd blown a major opportunity, and now that they've spend hundreds of millions of dollars on lawsuits, they can't just give it up as a bad job.
Now, if they'd put those millions into, say, a partnership with the original Napster and helped them go legit instead of squishing them like a bug (and finding out that - far from killing file sharing - they'd actually created a hydra [http://you know, "cut off one head and two more replace it"? THAT hydra.|http://you know, "cut off one head and two more replace it"? THAT hydra.]), we might not be in this mess.
And then there's the other problem with RIAA-produced music: the vast majority of it is cookie-cutter clone music, full of saccharine voices and repetitive pseudo-melodies, but worthless in the end.
How many gangsta-rap groups do we need talking about "bustin' a cap on da ho 'cos she got all uppity, yo"?
How many boy bands and girl groups do we need singing about superficial garbage?
NONE.
You want honesty and integrity? Fine, I'm all for that - but don't expect a CORPORATION to teach that to your kids, let alone the RIAA.
2) Our U.S. Constitution supersedes any more recently made laws, and our U.S. Constitution clearly states that No ONE is to be forced into cruel or unusual punishment, under ANY circumstances ! A fine that high is both unusual And cruel, according to many. Except the RIAA of course. And Mr. Bush.
3) So we have our U.S. Government, who is supposed to protect it's people against greedy corporations, and uphold our Nations Constitution, asking the courts to, in general opinion, substantiate a unreasonable fine against one citizen, for allegedly allowing a mythical number of other citizens to share a song, coming to a mythical figure of monetary damages, saying that it has hurt the industry, like no other industry is hurting.
4) And Just What problem finding new talent are these RIAA clowns referring to !????? We now have what ? 4, 6 shows a year on TV that highlight Incredible talent ! Why do just one or two 'winners' get to the big time ? The music industry has a Huge pool of people clamoring to be big stars ! They do not need to go our hunting for talent ! It is banging on their door day in and day out ! The problem is that the music industry doesn't even look out their windows and invite all that talent in, since the music industry believe that it must take Such a rare and unique person to be invited to such an exclusive group of performers. So Hogwash on that crappy argument too.. Are you listening Supreme Court ? Or at least Jammies' lawyers ?
I could pick these arguments apart all day, but I have other stuff to do.
In closing, I say that any industry that sues it's own customers, on a regular basis, for ridiculous amounts of money for sharing a song, should be in court it self for such actions.
I hope they are never around my campfire while we laugh and sing popular songs with other campers... I wouldn't want to get sued for 12 billion for saying the words to "their" music out loud where other campers can here them.. Heaven forbid ! I'd be sharing songs !!!!!!!!
And why the Hell is Anybody still buying mainstream CD's ? Stop feeding the RIAA more money ! Let them drown in their greedy little sorrow for God's sake ! If you really need more music than the 10 billion songs already out here on FM radio, then go straight to the artists and Independent labels... awesome fricking music there folks.. very reasonable prices, open to everyone, you can usually share such great music without getting sued for it, and NO RIAA !
BUT.... I could also pick some of your arguments apart:
- who says that any talent is actually on those tv shows? :)
- labels may have talent knocking on their door, but most of it isn't talent. Apart from that, when a talented musician does go to them, th e label still have to invest alot of time and money in that artists music and promotion.... that is the argument they are putting forward. They can't afford to sign many new artists. They don't have the money to invest in them, so file-sharers are hurting the struggling musician in the end, as there are more of them having to work at McDonals while trying to interest the decreasing amount of record labels.
- when you're around your campfire in 20 years time, you will have to sing the same songs you sing now, as there won't be any new ones well known enough for you all to sing. Making music is the easy part.... getting it to be heard by everyone is hard and costs alot of money. Anyway, singing a song isn't stealing it.
- You say on the one hand to stop buying cd's to teach the RIAA a lesson, yet on the other hand you say to buy cd's from Indie labels. NEWSFLASH! Those indie labels are members of RIAA as well, and are probably hurting ALOT more than the majors when stuff gets shared for free... they don't have pockets as deep.... which is why they are struggling, and folding.
Putting the amount of the fine aside for a second, the basic point is that she was stealing and breaking the law. The copyright law isn't there to protect p2p'ers, and it's not even really there to protect the major labels.... the most important people it is there to protect are all the people involved in and around the music industry who rely on the cd's etc being sold, so they can afford to eat. Just think of the manufacturers, the graphic designers, the printers, the secretaries, the producers, the guy in the lunch bar etc etc etc... it's not just about the VERY few artists that can make a living (TLC were on less than $30,000 a year EACH, at the height of their fame) or the major label bosses who did things to excess in the 80's and 90's (which has been changing now for a number of years.... they've woken up at last). It's about the music, man, and everyone deserves some money for their art, so they can produce more great art. Otherwise we'll be in a world with very little decent music, as no-one will be able to afford to spend thousands on something just to give it away.
Richard C
http://www.cavecode.com
- RU People Stu*id
- by johnthedj December 7, 2007 11:38 PM PST
- It is unreasonable, to charge $222,000 fine. Let's deal in facts not supposed fiction. The RIAA did not prove that Jamie was the only person trading those files, and that millions of people downloaded them and still didn't buy the cd's. It was all spectulation, people cou;d potintionaly download this much. Well, that's not how the courts are supposed to work. You have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that millions of people downloaded something before you can claim it to be anything more thatn here say.
- Reply to this comment
-
(42 Comments)