Judge rejects multi-thousand dollar fines for filesharers

It's not quite that simple, and I'm not sure that it sets legal precedent, but it's undoubtedly a sign that even those outside the Kazaa/BitTorrent circles recognise how ludicrously out-of-proportion the MAFIAA fines are.

In Capitol v. Thomas, District Judge Michael J. Davis has set aside the jury's $222,000 verdict and ordered a new trial, ruling that his jury instruction -- which accepted the RIAA's "making available" theory -- was erroneous. He also rejected the 'offer to distribute' theory.

Although he did not formally reach the arguments going to the excessiveness of the damages, he had this to say on the subject:

Need for Congressional Action

The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer to peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts. The myriad of copyright cases cited by Plaintiffs and the Government, in which courts upheld large statutory damages awards far above the minimum, have limited relevance in this case. All of the cited cases involve corporate or business defendants and seek to deter future illegal commercial conduct. The parties point to no case in which large statutory damages were applied to a party who did not infringe in search of commercial gain.

The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit. Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market. Cf. Lowry’s Reports, Inc. v. Legg Mason, Inc., 271 F. Supp. 2d 42 737, 741, 42 (D. Md. 2003) (describing defendants as a “global financial services firm” and a corporation that brokers securities).

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer-to-peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.

September 24, 2008, decision setting aside verdict

Source.

RIAA strong-arms internet guitar teacher

The RIAA have instructed YouTube to pull over 100 guitar tutorial videos by a guy called John Sandercoe, because one of them features a "how-to" of a Rolling Stones song.

This is what's wrong with modern copyright law. Sandercoe, a guitar teacher from London, posts himself playing a song as an instructional tool, and the record industry tries to sue him. He wasn't distributing the actual song (not even as backing for his own performance!), just educating people on how to play it for themselves.

YouTube, and by extension Google, should be ashamed of themselves for giving in to this.

David Cameron can fuck off

This speech is nothing but lies, half-truths and PR spin.

If we increase the copyright term, so the incentive is there for you working in the industry to digitise both older and niche repertoire which more people can enjoy at no extra cost.

That's why, as we move on forward into the new digital age of the 21st century, I am pleased to announce today that it is Conservative Party policy to support the extension of the copyright term for sound recordings from 50 to 70 years.

How, exactly, would extending copyright to 70 years be better for the music industry?

For a start, we've got to look at why copyright exists in the first place.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to contribute artistic/literal/musical works by promising them a financial reward if their work is a success. However, the current copyright model means that, in addition to providing a reward for creation for the entire lifetime of the artist, the artist's family (or in practice, their publisher/record company) can also benefit from the work.

If a person has a successful enough work, they never have to contribute again, which it could be argued actually reduces the incentive to continue creating music or writing books or what have you.

It's utterly misleading of Cameron - or anyone else, for that matter - to suggest that increasing the duration of copyright would assist living musicians or writers more than it already does. And extension of copyright would do nothing but pay record label executives for the next 70 years.

I don't want to abolish copyright, but there's ways to make money by giving your stuff away for free, especially in this age of the internet. A musician can put an album online and distribute it worldwide for next to nothing (compared to CD shipping, at least). An author can publish online and have thousands of people read their work; if it's good enough, then enough people will pay for it to make you a profit.

Exposure is priceless, and copyright tries to limit the number of people who can read/listen to your stuff until they can pay for it. It should really be the other way around.