No, it's not what you think: a swash-buckling extra-legal pirate hunter with a musket, a clipper ship and letters of mark stalking the coasts of Somalia. It's about copyright piracy. And it's kind of sinister.
The British Secretary of State is proposing legislation that would give his position the ability to create anti-piracy legislation without Parliamentary debate. The goal is to crack down on copyright infringement in a big way.
Cory Doctorow at Boing-Boing broke the story:
"This is as bad as I've ever seen, folks. It's a declaration of war by the entertainment industry and their captured regulators against the principles of free speech, privacy, freedom of assembly, the presumption of innocence, and competition. This proposal creates the office of Pirate-Finder General, with unlimited power to appoint militias who are above the law, who can pry into every corner of your life, who can disconnect you from your family, job, education and government, who can fine you or put you in jail."
This comes as some see the music industry starting to recover from a hard decade of battling piracy. The Economist wrote last week that though sales across the industry are down a third, the music business is adapting successfully. And moving beyond suing the pants of off random downloaders. Viacom's chief counsel told a group of Yale law students that suing P2P users "felt like terrorism".
Well it certainly seems like the Brits are gearing up for the sort of extralegal powers we're used to over here with our War on Terror. ...But...wait...that's backward...the terrorists are....the lawyers? Ah, somebody'll figure it out.
For years RIAA and MPAA members have hired companies to attack popular BitTorrent swarms in an attempt to interfere with their downloads. According to a recently published paper by New York University researchers, these attacks are highly ineffective. At best, they slow downloads for a few minutes, something most users don’t even notice.For years RIAA and MPAA members have hired companies to attack popular BitTorrent... more
An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn’t cross ethical bounds by filing motions broadly attacking the recording industry and posting them on his blog, a magistrate judge has ruled, rejecting demands from the RIAA for monetary sanctions.
picture-19Attorney Ray Beckerman was “less than forthcoming at times” in defending a client against an RIAA lawsuit, but the music industry’s concerns were “largely overstated,” New York Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy wrote Friday (http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/umg_lindor_091009MagistrateDecision.pdf) (.pdf).
“Although defendant’s counsel took an unusually aggressive stance and, at times, veered into hyperbole and gratuitous attacks on the recording industry as a whole, I do not find clear evidence of bad faith on counsel’s part,”
Levy also ruled that the RIAA, which has sued 30,000 individuals, was not a vexatious litigant, shooting down Beckerman’s counter-complaint against his courtroom opponents. “Plaintiffs have doggedly pursued their copyright infringement claim, but I find no evidence of undue vexatiousness or ill motive on their part,” Levy wrote.An attorney defending against a music-piracy lawsuit didn’t cross ethical bounds by... more
This article gives shows a number of crimes with smaller financial penalties than sharing music online. It is sad that things can be so skewed.
As an example, "Start a dogfighting ring: the fine is $50,000."This article gives shows a number of crimes with smaller financial penalties than... more
The Obama administration told a federal judge Friday the $1.92 million jury verdict against a Minnesota woman for sharing 24 music tracks on Kazaa was constitutionally sound despite defense claims it was unconstitutionally excessive.
After the June verdict against Jammie Thomas-Rasset, defense attorneys urged U.S. District Judge Michael Davis to set it aside or reduce dramatically the $80,000-per-song award, arguing it was “excessive, shocking and monstrous.”
In response to that challenge to the Copyright Act, with allows damages up to $150,000 per song, the Justice Department told Davis in a 26-page brief that the verdict should not be overturned on grounds it was unconstitutionally excessive.
“The current damages range provides compensation for copyright owners because, inter alia, there exists situations in which actual damages are hard to quantify,” the government wrote. (.pdf) “Furthermore, in establishing that range, Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many vi0lators believe that they will go unnoticed.”
At the time of the Minnesota verdict, Thomas-Rasset, 32, was the nation’s only file-sharing defendant to go before a jury out of the 30,000-plus cases brought by the Recording Industry Association of America the past five years. Most all defendants settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Trial for the second defendant to go before a jury ended last month with a $675,000 verdict in favor of the RIAA for sharing 30 songs online.
It is not unusual that the government weigh into a case in which the constitutionality of the law is at issue. The Obama administration, and the Bush administration have weighed in on lawsuits in which the Copyright Act was under the microscope – always in support of the law.
But Friday’s filing was the first time the government announced that an eye-popping $80,000 per track damages award was not excessive.The Obama administration told a federal judge Friday the $1.92 million jury verdict... more
This month Ireland’s largest ISP will assist with an anti-piracy campaign against its own customers. After making a deal with IRMA, Ireland’s answer to the RIAA, Eircom will first warn alleged copyright infringers before ultimately disconnecting them. Now, in what appears to be a leaked document, the entire groundbreaking deal is outlined.This month Ireland’s largest ISP will assist with an anti-piracy campaign against... more
The big record companies are suing the people they should be wooing. And it needs to stop.
In protest of all of the lawsuits by the RIAA on average citizens for sharing music online August is "Ban major record labels month" Buy indie!The big record companies are suing the people they should be wooing. And it needs to... more
The jury awarded the record company plaintiffs $675,000 in the Boston trial defended by Prof. Charles Nesson, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. I was not surprised, since exactly none of the central issues ever even came up in this trial. The judge had instructed the jurors that Mr. Tenenbaum was liable, and that their only task was to come up with a verdict that was more than $22,500 and less than $4.5 million. According to the judge, her reason for doing so was that, when on the stand, the defendant was asked if he admitted liability, and he said 'yes.' The lawyers among you will know that that was a totally improper question, and that the Court should not have even allowed it, much less based her holding upon the answer to it.
FUCK THE RIAA! Boston student ordered to pay $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30 songs!FUCK THE RIAA! Boston student ordered to pay $675,000 for downloading and sharing 30... more
For years the RIAA has defended the use of DRM, much to the dislike of millions of honest customers who actually paid for their music. Now, in a shocking turnaround, the outfit seems to have come to the realization that DRM does more harm than good and has officially declared its death.For years the RIAA has defended the use of DRM, much to the dislike of millions of... more
In an odd ruling, a Michigan state agency that deals with professional licensing has closed an investigation into RIAA’s unlicensed pirate investigators MediaSentry, saying that without evidence of payment from the RIAA, there is no case. The investigation was prompted by Randy Kruger, father of one of the RIAA’s targets.In an odd ruling, a Michigan state agency that deals with professional licensing has... more
One of the artists that has shared his disappointment at the disproportionate fines is the American musician Moby. “Argh. what utter nonsense,” he writes on his website. “This is how the record companies want to protect themselves? Suing suburban moms for listening to music? Charging $80,000 per song?” he questions.
“I don’t know, but ‘it’s better to be feared than respected’ doesn’t seem like such a sustainable business model when it comes to consumer choice. How about a new model of ‘it’s better to be loved for helping artists make good records and giving consumers great records at reasonable prices’?”
Moby is right that the sue and scare tactics of the RIAA are not the ideal business model in the long run. However, thus far they have made millions from all the settled cases alone. In recent years over 30,000 people have allegedly settled with the RIAA for an average of $3500 dollars. This means that the RIAA have raked in more than 10 million dollars without even having to go to court.
In the UK, a coalition of top artists have spoken out against the actions of a music industry that chooses to criminalize their fans, and expressed their growing discomfort with record labels abusing copyrights for their own benefit.
Radiohead, who are also part of the coalition, even showed interest in testifying against the RIAA in the case of a Boston University student also accused of sharing several music recordings. Tenenbaum’s troubles started in 2003 when he rejected an offer to settle with the RIAA for $500. After a few more settlement attempts and legal quibbles, the case eventually went to court.
Moby, a proponent of Net Neutrality - another topic dear to most file-sharers - is equally dissatisfied with the RIAA’s tactics. In his view, it would be better for both artists and fans to end all the legal quibbles and focus on the art of music instead.
“I’m so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music,” Moby writes, ending his blog post with some solid advice for the record labels that pump millions of dollars into the non-profit organization.
“The RIAA needs to be disbanded,” he writes.One of the artists that has shared his disappointment at the disproportionate fines is... more
Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas. While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost.
"Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9... more
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has lost her retrial against the RIAA and was ordered to pay $1.92 million for 24 songs she shared via Kazaa. The defense had argued that it might have been her children who shared the files instead of Thomas-Rasset, but the jury didn’t buy this and found her guilty.
In 2007 a jury slapped the single mother with a $222,000 verdict in her case against the RIAA, which she later appealed. When the case between Thomas-Rasset and the RIAA was declared a mistrial last year, the judge ruled that the fines were “disproportionate to the damages suffered.”
The case went up for re-trial before a new jury, who found her guilty and surprisingly handed out even harsher fines than in the first trial. Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $80,000 per infringement mounting up to a total of $1.92 million in fines.
Thomas-Rasset, like many others, couldn’t believe her ears when the court read out the verdict, and later said that it was “kind of ridiculous”.
Unlike most people, Thomas-Rasset never opted to settle with the RIAA, determining that she had the law on her side. Unfortunately for her the jury in this landmark case ruled she did not.
“We appreciate the jury’s service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do,” said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. “We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so.”
In the US juries can hand out fines up to an unbelievable $150,000 per infringement on a single song. The average settlement in related RIAA cases is around $3000.Jammie Thomas-Rasset has lost her retrial against the RIAA and was ordered to pay... more
A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result, finding a Minnesota woman to have violated music copyrights and ordering her to pay hefty damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she was resigned.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle but she refused to name a figure.A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same... more
"The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary basis, using information provided to it by Universal Music. The ISP announced on Monday that it would, before Christmas, launch an all-you-can-eat music download service for its users, based on a monthly subscription fee. The tracks will all be DRM-free. 'In parallel, the two companies will be working together to protect Universal Music's intellectual property and drive a material reduction in the unauthorized distribution of its repertoire across Virgin Media's network,' a statement read. 'This will involve implementing a range of different strategies to educate file sharers about online piracy and to raise awareness of legal alternatives. They include, as a last resort for persistent offenders, a temporary suspension of internet access.' DTecNet has already been working with UK content companies for some time to do much the same thing, and is also working with RIAA in the United States.""The UK's Virgin Media could start suspending persistent file sharers on a temporary... more
In what will no doubt be a landmark case whatever the verdict, the retrial for copyright infringement of Jammie Thomas kicks off on Monday. Thomas, 32, from Brainerd, Minnesota, is the first US Web user to be tried in court for illegal downloading and file-sharing after she was sued by six major record companies. At least 30,000 alleged file sharers have been sued in the US so far, but they tend to settle out of court to avoid the cost of a trial.
In October 2007 a jury in Duluth ordered Thomas to pay $222,000 worth of statutory damages. But the judge later decided he had given the jury faulty instructions and declared a mistrial. After two postponements, Thomas is now back in court, this time in Minneapolis.
The judge had originally instructed the jury that making files available on the KaZaA file-sharing website was enough to constitute infringement of the record companies’ copyright. The jury duly found Thomas guilty of charges. But in September 2008, the judge ruled that he had given the jury erroneous instructions. In light of this he ordered a retrial.In what will no doubt be a landmark case whatever the verdict, the retrial for... more
The retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota woman who was ordered to pay six record companies $222,000 in damages for music piracy, is set to begin Monday in federal district court in Duluth.
As with the first trial, the new one is shaping to be a contentious battle, with Thomas' new attorney challenging some fundamental assertions made by the music labels and the latter spiritedly defending them in a flurry of pre-trial motions by both sides.
Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of copyright infringement by a jury in October 2007 and ordered to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs that the music companies said she illegally downloaded and shared with others on a peer-to-peer file sharing network.
In their lawsuit, the six music companies claimed that Thomas-Rasset had illegally distributed 1,702 copyrighted songs, though they chose to focus only on a representative sample of 24.The retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota woman who was ordered to pay six... more
In Italy artists and musicians made a charity song to raise money for victims of the recent earthquake. Like most music these days the song found its way onto P2P networks before its official release. Italy’s answer to the RIAA reported the situation to the police, who are now reporting they have tracked down and arrested the leakers.In Italy artists and musicians made a charity song to raise money for victims of the... more
Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson has now gotten involved in two more file-sharing lawsuits, including the Jammie Thomas retrial in Minnesota. But it's in the other, lesser-known case, that Nesson and a former student demand the RIAA pay back all $100 million it has collected in settlement money over the years.Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson has now gotten involved in two more file-sharing... more
