It may be the least surprising reaction of the year, but the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has said that they would contest the ruling that saw the reduction of the Tenenbaum fine from $675,000 to $67,500. The organization said that it would contest the ruling, but exactly how remains to be seen at this point.
Just before the weekend last week, we reported that a judge has declared the $675,000 judgment against Joel Tenenbaum unconstitutional. As a result, the judge slashed the fine to one tenth of the original fine to $67,500. The fine works out to $2,250 per work which is the same amount as the Jammie Thomas case where a judge lowered her fine down to $2,250 per work.
The original verdicts in both cases may have earned a black eye for now only the US legal system nationally, but internationally as well. To name one example, during last years copyright consultation in Canada, the Jammie Thomas case was cited as an example of how not to enforce copyright laws. As a result, trying to make penalties for copyright violations in Canada as high as the United States became an incredibly tough sell and may have contributed to the creation of a provision in the current Canadian copyright reform law that spells out the difference in fines between commercial and non-commercial infringement. No doubt the initial judgments caused other countries to take a step back as they re-evaluated their copyright laws and re-think fines as well.
Undeterred, the RIAA has issued a statement regarding the judgment, saying that it would “contest this ruling”, but didn’t divulge any details of how they would contest this ruling.
“The court has substituted its judgment for that of 10 jurors as well as Congress,” the RIAA wrote. “For nearly a week, a federal jury carefully considered the issues involved in this case, including the profound harm suffered by the music community precisely because of the activity that the defendant admitted engaging in.”
It’s not surprising to see this kind of reaction from the RIAA considering there’s now over half a million dollars ($607,500 to be precise) less to be found in the reward.
Some observers have already said that even the reduced fine of $67,500 is too steep considering most, if not, all of these songs can be found in some stores for merely a dollar each. Tenenbaum has already said that he couldn’t afford the reduced fine, saying, “Obviously, it’s better news than it could have been, but it’s basically equally unpayable to me.”
It’s unclear whether or not the RIAA can recoup the cost of its legal team. No doubt, the RIAA would love to make this a money-making proposition where every cease and desist order is like a lottery ticket that could hold millions. While some observers may have said that a huge fine is great news for artists, there is no evidence to suggest any of that money actually ends up in the hands of artists in the first place.
If these rulings can’t be a money-making proposition, it might force the RIAA to abandon its lawsuit strategy altogether. That doesn’t mean the end of the file-sharing wars, but rather the closing of one long chapter in the RIAAs war against the future. We all know that rights holders have been trying to impose a three strikes law all over the world. The end of the litigation campaign could push a three strikes law to the forefront of American rights holders lobbying strategies. At this point, a lot that hasn’t been decided yet could still be resting on these two cases (Thomas and Tenenbaum).
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at [email protected].
Yes the probability of them EVER receiving over half a million from some poor joe in the first place is insane… bitching it was reduced to a still staggering 70,000 GRAND IS EQUALLY MORONIC
These dumb bastards need drawn and quartered
Contest it and you’re dead meat, you assholes!
Jeez, this is like Richard Dawkins trying to convert the Pope to agnosticism. I understand the futility of my endeavour, yet I still come back for more. I must be a masochist.
I have not heard your music Drew and so I pass no judgment on it. Downloading and the modern idea of “pay if you feel like it” has worked out OK for some artists such as Radiohead, but when you look at music (to say nothing of movies) as a whole, there is no doubt that the decade from 2000-2010 has been the most pathetic one that we have seen yet.
I will stoop (again) to the level of dissecting arguments and sentence fragments atomically, as some of those who responded to my comments have also done.
“You have the wrong connotation for ‘property’ in this context.”
- No, I have precisely the right definition (I assume this is what you meant?). I’m speaking of intellectual property. This encompasses patents, copyrights and some other forms of ideas. They are valuable. This “post-modern” attitude that somehow the internet has made all intellectual property public domain is ridiculous. It is utopian, and what is utopian does not tend to work well in the world of actual experience.
“The clause “not ANY person’s use” is non sequitur.”
- Your argument is a non sequitur. I refer you to the meaning of that term for further clarification.
“Not even close.” (in response to “Video games are next.”)
- You can say that, but simply stating it doesn’t make it true. Back in 1998 when Napster started making waves we were “not even close” to being able to downloading a full quality movie either. You would not believe how good some of these code depilers are. The only thing stopping you from downloading the latest Call of Duty game is that you lack the bandwidth and CPU power. You won’t soon.
“This is about copyright; patents are completely irrelevant.”
- You may want it to be about copyright alone, because then you can maintain your current stance on the issue. But the fact is patents and copyright are both forms of intellectual property. And the key issue is intellectual property rights (i.e. the right to property with no physical form).
“That is so wrong, it is not funny.”
- Well, I can’t argue with that now, can I? Case closed!
“Begging the question. That is all.”
- You should probably give that “Fallacy” entry on wikipedia another cursory glance. Or twelve.
“Wrong.” (in response to “If nobody’s looking then it’s not wrong, right?”)
- Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It IS wrong to steal even if nobody is aware of it.
I have said what needs saying. Thanks for posting my responses, even though they may not be in line with how you folks feel. I leave the last word to you.
“I have not heard your music Drew and so I pass no judgment on it.”
Fair play.
“Downloading and the modern idea of “pay if you feel like it” has worked out OK for some artists such as Radiohead, but when you look at music (to say nothing of movies) as a whole, there is no doubt that the decade from 2000-2010 has been the most pathetic one that we have seen yet.”
The cause of this, I’d argue, is highly debatable. One possibility of this is because the labels have focused less on signing artists and more on lobbying and enforcement. Another possibility is that artists are becoming more aware of how screwed they’d be if signed on to a label and simply don’t sign on knowing they’d probably be better off being more unknown, yet probably making more money in the end. Another possibility (which is a bit out at left field for my tastes) is that the Creativity Quotient has dropped – though I have my personal doubts on that. Lots of theories about this, but those are three theories.
For me, personally, in the 90′s, the music I liked the most did come out of mainstream channels. In the 2000-2010, my favorite music has come out of small time/indie channels. I might be biased in thinking this, but I don’t think that its a coincidence that the complaints about music being horrible are loudest in the mainstream, yet here I am, happily enjoying music through non-mainstream sources. Good art may have moved underground again for the last decade. *shrugs*
“I will stoop (again) to the level of dissecting arguments and sentence fragments atomically, as some of those who responded to my comments have also done.”
If you were even capable doing so, then you would have immediately found the holes in your claims.
“- No, I have precisely the right definition (I assume this is what you meant?). I’m speaking of intellectual property. This encompasses patents, copyrights and some other forms of ideas. They are valuable. This “post-modern” attitude that somehow the internet has made all intellectual property public domain is ridiculous. It is utopian, and what is utopian does not tend to work well in the world of actual experience.”
You are commenting on the topic of intellectual property in general. The matter at hand deals with just copyright, nothing more. Recognizing the distinction between patents, ideas, and copyrights, the meaning of ‘sharing’ is different for each of those things. However, file-sharing or P2P falls into none of those meanings, hence you have the wrong connotation, i.e. implied or suggested idea, of property when it is to be shared.
“- Your argument is a non sequitur. I refer you to the meaning of that term for further clarification.”
There is no connection in “you buy it for your use”, which is not strictly true, leading to “not ANY person’s use”, hence it is non sequitur, i.e. does not follow. The keyword is “ANY”, including arbitrary persons who an end user wishes to lend ‘use’ of an item.
“- You can say that, but simply stating it doesn’t make it true.”
The truth of any matter comes from proving or contradicting the non-negative of an argument. The burden of proof falls upon your statement.
“Back in 1998 when Napster started making waves we were “not even close” to being able to downloading a full quality movie either.”
That is irrelevant as video games are in an entirely different category from music and film.
“You would not believe how good some of these code depilers are. The only thing stopping you from downloading the latest Call of Duty game is that you lack the bandwidth and CPU power. You won’t soon.”
Not only do you not know what a disassembler is, but that argument does not even remotely make a point, let alone make any sense.
“- You may want it to be about copyright alone, because then you can maintain your current stance on the issue.”
The entertainment industry hardly deals with patents if at all, hence the irrelevance.
“But the fact is patents and copyright are both forms of intellectual property.”
They are not equivalent.
“And the key issue is intellectual property rights (i.e. the right to property with no physical form).”
Insisting that shall just lead to fallacy of composition.
“- Well, I can’t argue with that now, can I? Case closed!”
If one were to test the assertion that “we will only refrain from doing something if there is a negative consequence”, it will break immediately, rendering it false. The key term being “only refrain”.
“- You should probably give that “Fallacy” entry on wikipedia another cursory glance. Or twelve.”
You are setting up an argument such that it is truth in itself. Recall your statement:
“… if there is a negative consequence – which for all intents and purposes there is not when it comes to intellectual property theft/misuse.”
You claim there are no negative consequences associated with intellectual property theft/misuse, without reasoning. Furthermore, your statement suggests that P2P is intellectual property theft or misuse, without logic and evidence. The truth of the former depends on that of the latter. Begging the question. Nothing more.
“- Thank you. That is exactly the point I was trying to make. It IS wrong to steal even if nobody is aware of it.”
Prove that P2P is ‘stealing’ in one or more interpretations, otherwise all your arguments are for naught.
So essentially. I can go in a record store, steal a couple of cd’s, give them away, and be charged with PETTY THEFT. Or be accused of downloading a song and pay an outrageous amount of money which the artist responsible for song will never receive.
The money is mostly moving into lawyers’ bank accounts which is why several labels have dropped the RIAA
I’ve been thinking about this for a while now and an additional angle you could look at in all of this is that if the fight over the constitutionality of this goes against the RIAA, ultimately speaking, that means we have precedent that each unauthorized song is definitely $2,250 each thanks to precedent. That means people on the defendant side of things can do a proper risk assessment in all of this. The RIAA can’t really definitively show that a user could be on the hook for millions if they only accuse them of infringing on 30 or so works because that works out to tens of thousands instead. That is a huge bargaining chip that the RIAA is losing here when it comes to file-sharing cases.
I would be rather surprised if the RIAA didn’t even come close to spending a 6 figure number on lawyers to make sure these cases go their way. If they win $60,000 in the case, they lose $40,000 in the end. That doesn’t even get to the question of, “Will the defendants pay up?”
The more I think about this, the more I think there’s a possibility that the RIAA can win the battle, but lose the war in litigation.
I have a simple solution. How about people not share property that does not belong to them? When you buy music, you buy it for your use, not ANY person’s use. Yes the RIAA sucks, but you know what sucks worse? Boring, marginalized art, which is precisely what is occurring in the music and movie industries. Video games are next.
Imagine the pandemonium that would result if patents could be shared without any reasonable enforcement to the contrary. Most of you would be out of a job – indeed our whole economy would crash & burn much worse than what happened with the housing crisis. The American government would not allow for that for a second.
But we humans for all of our philosophical posturing and sophistry are basically the same as any other “lower” creature. We will only refrain from doing something if there is a negative consequence – which for all intents and purposes there is not when it comes to intellectual property theft/misuse. Nice one, folks.
So you’re saying good art is predicated on profit?
“But we humans for all of our philosophical posturing and sophistry are basically the same as any other “lower” creature. We will only refrain from doing something if there is a negative consequence – which for all intents and purposes there is not when it comes to intellectual property theft/misuse. Nice one, folks.”
If the general public thinks the laws are sound, they will respect them. Suing a college student for millions for sharing a dozen or so songs for no monetary gain when the cost of those songs is a buck each doesn’t exactly sound reasonable for large portions of the population. That, to me, sounds more like a get-rich-quick-off-the-back-of-some-poor-sap scheme to me.
I may have a tiny bit of respect for the system if the artists under major labels really got paid on music being sold both digitally and physically, but from what the evidence I’ve seen says, artists don’t get paid by their own labels that are A-list labels of the RIAA. There is no excuse for a band to go bankrupt after selling 100,000 albums in my books, but here we are today where that happens quite a lot. Can you blame me for thinking that whether I download one song from the artist for free or pay for it in the store, it doesn’t make a difference to the artist financially speaking as a direct result of me (word of mouth, etc. is indirect in this case)
Yes Jared, that is what I am saying. At least to the extent that an artist can make a living being an artist rather than a weekend warrior. These days, don’t expect another Kubrick or Hitchcock or Nirvana or Beatles. Those days are behind us. Expect a whole lotta really crappy viral videos. Expect web 2.0.
“If the general public thinks the laws are sound, they will respect them.”
True? Watch what happens to law-abiding citizens when a riot breaks out. People will respect laws only to the extent that it will not harm them personally – to the extent that it is expedient. Why pay when you can just steal? If nobody’s looking then it’s not wrong, right?
The “industry” is not without fault as well. Large portions of the population ARE justified in questioning many of these tactics. Putting DRM locks on media is tantamount to saying to your customer “you are too stupid and selfish to be trusted”. Not good business sense. Suing individuals for arbitrary amounts of “lost profits” (as though that can be calculated) is not the way forward either. Indeed these rights-holders have some backpedaling to do.
But don’t forget that the blame is far from one-sided. Realize that the vast majority of musicians these days are not part of the 4 major labels, and really – who downloads music and movies solely on the basis that the copyright is owned by a RIAA/MPAA member anyway? This “principled pirate” does not exist in reality. Nobody downloads media to send a message, or because it’s the right thing to do – we do it because it’s the cost-effective thing to do.
In the end it’s not so much the industry that suffers when someone decides to download music or movies. It’s music and movies that suffer. If you attach no value to art, then inevtiably your art will lack value.
Kubrick or Hitchcock or Nirvana or Beatles didn’t care about profit.
Your premise is baseless. There are plenty of good artists out there right now, it’s just that they lack the mainstream appeal that record labels prefer to produce and distribute their content.
“[...] True? Watch what happens to law-abiding citizens when a riot breaks out.”
Begging the question.
“People will respect laws only to the extent that it will not harm them personally – to the extent that it is expedient.”
Deliberate lie.
“Why pay when you can just steal?”
‘Theft’ is forbidden despite illegality. With respect to that, the meaning of ‘theft’ is absolute in all interpretations, so either it is or it is not. Controversy only occurs when there is misinterpretation.
“If nobody’s looking then it’s not wrong, right?”
Wrong.
“[] Nobody downloads media to send a message, or because it’s the right thing to do –…”
In usual circumstances, nobody downloads media for the sake of anything. Your statement is moot.
“… we do it because it’s the cost-effective thing to do.”
Perhaps so, but your claim is haphazard at best and hardly a main reason.
“In the end it’s not so much the industry that suffers when someone decides to download music or movies. It’s music and movies that suffer. If you attach no value to art, then inevtiably your art will lack value.”
There is no value to assign to if the art is practically nonexistent or unknown. Furthermore, the value of art is not for the artist to declare, but for the audience an art is shown to.
“In the end it’s not so much the industry that suffers when someone decides to download music or movies. It’s music and movies that suffer. If you attach no value to art, then inevtiably your art will lack value.”
Ironically enough, I’ve been distributing my music for free for quite some time now and, as a result of the popularity on p2p, I’ve chosen to start distributing new stuff commercially. I don’t have to rely on philosophical discussion on whether downloading for free is harmful to music, I speak from experience to know that it’s not. Quite frankly, I hope people keep downloading my music for free and sharing it with others so more people willl hear and enjoy my music.
“I have a simple solution. How about people not share property that does not belong to them?”
You have the wrong connotation for ‘property’ in this context.
“When you buy music, you buy it for your use, not ANY person’s use.”
The clause “not ANY person’s use” is non sequitur.
“Yes the RIAA sucks, but you know what sucks worse? Boring, marginalized art, which is precisely what is occurring in the music and movie industries.”
So specifically the RIAA/MPAA.
“Video games are next.”
Not even close.
“Imagine the pandemonium that would result if patents [...]”
This is about copyright; patents are completely irrelevant.
“But we humans for all of our philosophical posturing and sophistry are basically the same as any other “lower” creature.”
Wrong. Nothing more.
“We will only refrain from doing something if there is a negative consequence –…”
That is so wrong, it is not funny.
“… which for all intents and purposes there is not when it comes to intellectual property theft/misuse. Nice one, folks.”
Begging the question. That is all.
Hadn’t ever thought of that before Drew but it’s dead on. I wonder why they bother though? No one is ever going to pay those enormous amounts of money anyway. They simply can’t pay.
Why would you even think that the cases were about making money in the first place? They’re designed to inimidate people, not recoup legal costs!
Yes, they were designed to intimidate people, but if this was a money losing operation should any case go to court, do you really think the RIAA would keep up the campaign for long or try thinking up something else that’s more cost effective?