“Nominated for 2nd Best Picture at this year's Oscars.”



Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 908 posts ]  Go to page 1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 42  ( Previous  |  Next )
Author Message
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:29 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Linda wrote:
Quote:
MP3tunes goes bankrupt due to record industry

Music is ending for MP3tunes.com, the service created by Michael Robertson in 2005 as a “cyber locker” ahead of its times and inevitably sued by the record industry for copyright infringement. The company filed for bankruptcy in the Southern District of California, and its founder isn’t wary of directly accusing the music majors for this unfortunate outcome.

Already well known for MP3.com and his Lindows/Linspire project, Robertson funded MP3tunes to let people share their music with others and access it on-line from any device – in DRM-less digital format and with no need to pay a single cent to the copyright-owning labels.

MP3tunes was obviously taken to court by one of these labels (EMI), a case filed in 2007 and that still has to celebrate a proper trial. Robertson now explains that after four years of fruitless legal cost, “MP3tunes has no choice but to file” for bankruptcy.

It’s how the “Big Four” of the recording industry operate, the entrepreneur states, “the labels engage in multiyear legal battles and put small companies through hell for years” so that they don’t have the opportunity to flourish and develop their business.

MP3tunes is going bankrupt with debts valued between 1 million and 10 million dollars, while Robertson previously managed to get a now–Pyrrhic victory when a court in Manhattan judged that his company was not liable of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for letting its users download audio tracks with no known legal status.

http://www.neowin.net/news/mp3tunes-goe ... d-industry

They did the same to Jem importers in the 80's on the subject of "parallel imports" (selling a legit European or Japanese pressing in the USA of an album that was also released in the USA by a USA record co.). The RIAA lost, but Jem (the largest USA wholesale music importer at the time) was forced into bankruptcy by the legal costs. And people wonder why I HATE the RIAA.

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:31 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 4:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 2941
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Mon May 14, 2012 5:34 pm 
User avatar
Pure Evil Gold!!

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 32844
Location: Witness Protection Program
Bannings: Ask Linda
How dare they refer to themselves as "ICE!"

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 

IMWAN Mod
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 9:03 am 
User avatar
The Modfather; Wizard of WAN

Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 46736
Location: Under the Iron Bridge
Bannings: freely handed out
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:

Sorry, but I'm never going to be an apologist for this behavior. I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of it unless they were an industry insider who benefited financially from it somehow.


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:53 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Jeff wrote:
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:

Sorry, but I'm never going to be an apologist for this behavior. I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of it unless they were an industry insider who benefited financially from it somehow.


:agree:

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 3:56 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Sans wrote:
--Dutch ISPs Ordered by Court To Block Pirate Bay
(11th May 2012)
In The Nederlands a Dutch court has issued an order to 5 of the
country's ISPs to block access to the Pirate Bay file-sharing service.
In addition, the Court of The Hague has forbidden the Dutch Pirate Party
from informing the public on how to circumventing the blocking
mechanisms or providing any proxy services to bypass the filters. In
response the Pirate Party claims the court is censoring the Internet.
"This is a slap in the face for the free internet and a novel judicial
decision. The judge decided to give the Netherlands another nudge on the
sliding scale of censorship," said a Pirate Party spokesman. In January
of this year a separate court order required 2 separate ISPs to block
access to Pirate Bay. The Pirate Party operated a proxy service which
allowed clients of those ISPs to bypass the filters.
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2174066/ ... pirate-bay


_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:04 pm 
User avatar
Super Genius

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 6979
Jeff wrote:
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:

Sorry, but I'm never going to be an apologist for this behavior. I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of it unless they were an industry insider who benefited financially from it somehow.


I'll tell you why you should be supportive of it in 20 seconds.



19...



18...



17...


16...


15...


14...


13...


12...


11...



10...


9...


8...


7...


6...


5...


4...


3...


2...


1...


Nah, you're right. It's stupid, ineffective, and only irritates legitimate customers.

By the way, you notice they only tell you how many people are pirating, not how many AREN'T? Because if people knew what the ratio really was, they'd question why so much time and energy is being spent by the gov't coming up with stuff like this.

Alan

_________________
Alan

"Keepin' it classy, all the way to Christmas!" - Craig Ferguson


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:07 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 2941
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.


Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:

Sorry, but I'm never going to be an apologist for this behavior. I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of it unless they were an industry insider who benefited financially from it somehow.


:agree:

I'm getting a lot of this on these boards--the George W. Bush argument: If I don't find endless Who best-ofs unacceptable, I must find them acceptable. If I don't condemn the FBI and MPAA, I must be "supportive" of them.

Frigging conservatives--I'm telling Linda!

LINDAAAAAA!!!


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:17 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
The reason I post so much of this information is because I assumed as music lovers & consumers we need to be informed. To protect oneself & one's interests requires being informed.

If the MAJORITY of icer's prefer, I'll be glad to stop posting this information; though imo not sharing information is just one more victory for the Orwellian corporations.

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 

ICE Mod
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 4:35 pm 
User avatar
Yes...my real name is Steve..REALLY!

Joined: 20 Sep 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Boston Area, MA
Bannings: Living on the edge.
Geff R. wrote:
The reason I post so much of this information is because I assumed as music lovers & consumers we need to be informed. To protect oneself & one's interests requires being informed.

If the MAJORITY of icer's prefer, I'll be glad to stop posting this information; though imo not sharing information is just one more victory for the Orwellian corporations.


Actually Geff, I greatly appreciate your posts and read most of them. Regardless of your feelings on the issue, it's important to know what's going on. I, for one, vote for you to continue, assuming you're able of course.

_________________
Championships this Century...Red Sox-3, Yankees-1

Boston Red Sox - 2004, 2007 & 2013 World Series Champions!


Top
  Profile  
 

IMWAN Admin
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:18 pm 
User avatar
Helpful Librarian

Joined: 13 Jan 1966
Posts: 102394
Location: IMWAN Towers
Bannings: If you're not nice
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Brainiac McGee wrote:
Geff R. wrote:
Jeff wrote:
Way to learn absolutely nothing and continue treating your customers as criminals, MPAA.

Good for horror movies, though. Get 'em scared before the movie even starts. And as the old studios used to say.......... "That's Entertainment!".

Yeah, it's like twenty whole seconds of your life that you're never going to get back :roll:

Sorry, but I'm never going to be an apologist for this behavior. I don't understand how anyone could be supportive of it unless they were an industry insider who benefited financially from it somehow.

:agree:

I'm getting a lot of this on these boards--the George W. Bush argument: If I don't find endless Who best-ofs unacceptable, I must find them acceptable. If I don't condemn the FBI and MPAA, I must be "supportive" of them.

Frigging conservatives--I'm telling Linda!

LINDAAAAAA!!!

In theory, if a person posts a topic then it's open to dissenting opinions. Those dissenting opinions are then further open to disagreement by the OP or others.

In practice, all topics which go on for long enough will ultimately meet at Glee and need to be closed.

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 15, 2012 5:23 pm 
User avatar
Pure Evil Gold!!

Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 32844
Location: Witness Protection Program
Bannings: Ask Linda
Geff, I see you as our "ICE watchdog" when it comes to these issues.

If you didn't post them here, I wouldn't know about them.


So...keep posting 'em!

:ohyes:

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 

IMWAN Admin
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 1:21 am 
User avatar
Helpful Librarian

Joined: 13 Jan 1966
Posts: 102394
Location: IMWAN Towers
Bannings: If you're not nice
Quote:
The Pirate Bay case goes to the European Court of Human Rights

Fredrik Neij, co-founder and one of the former admins of The Pirate Bay, is going to the European Court of Strasbourg to pursue his cause: the Swedish authority can’t put him in jail because the “Bay” doesn’t infringe copyright, it is first and foremost a medium promoting freedom of expression.

Together with businessman Carl Lundstrom and the other two TPB admins Gottfrid Svartholm Warg and Peter Sunde, Neji was recently sentenced to pay a monetary fine and to spend a year in jail after the Supreme court denied a retrial on the landmark case.

But now Neji’s lawyer Jonas Nilsson states that, on behalf of his client, he will take the TPB case up to the European Court of Human Rights. Nilsson says that the Swedish authorities have denied Neji his right to freely express himself, thus infringing the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The complaint presented to the European Court states that The Pirate Bay service was not meant to infringe copyright but just “to transfer non-proprietary information among users through an automated process on the Internet”, a kind of activity protected by the aforementioned convention on human rights.

Fredrik Neij can’t be considered guilty of sharing copyrighted contents through the Bay BitTorrent tracker and servers, the admin’s lawyer states, because that would be comparable to charge the founders of an e-commerce site “after someone sold a stolen bicycle after it was advertised on the site”.

The Bay admins life after the Swedish Supreme Court sentence is harsh, but no one seems to be willing to give up the fight yet: just before Neji’s complaint to the European Court, another admin (Peter “Brokep” Sunde) demanded clemency because of unknown health concerns and his involvement with the social payments system Flattr.

http://www.neowin.net/news/the-pirate-b ... man-rights

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 16, 2012 1:32 am 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Even I think the PB's lawyers are reaching for it a bit here............. Though I guess that's often law in general, technicalities are more important than what actually happens!

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Fri May 18, 2012 4:38 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Sans wrote:
--The Pirate Bay Back Online After DDoS Attack
(May 16 & 17, 2012)
The Pirate Bay is back online following a distributed denial-of-service
(DDoS) attack that kept the site inaccessible for more than a day.
Anonymous does not appear to have been behind the attack; an individual
who is not a fan of Anonymous has claimed responsibility. Wikipedia has
also been the target of a DDoS, but it is not known if the same group
or person is responsible for that attack.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/the- ... in;content
http://arstechnica.com/security/2012/05 ... ver-a-day/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-18095370

I'm surprised it took this long; web attacks aren't the property of only one political persuasion! I've read more about this elsewhere; apparently this person is a former member of the "Anonymous" hacking group who had a 180 degree change in their personal beliefs.

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Tue May 22, 2012 11:14 pm 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
Sans wrote:
--Supreme Court Will Not Hear Tenenbaum File-Sharing Appeal
(May 21, 2012)
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a man who is
facing a US $675,000 fine for illegal filesharing. The decision not to
hear the case means that Joel Tenenbaum will return to the trial level.
The judge in Tenenbaum's initial case ruled that the jury's award was
unconstitutional, but the ruling was overturned by an appellate court
because the process of "remittitur" should have been used to reduce the
verdict before its constitutionality was questioned. Tenenbaum's
attorney maintains that the music industry is seeking excessive fines
"for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to
[those] using the Internet ... that they will somehow reverse the tide
of the digital future."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... ping-case/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... e-sharing/

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 1:04 am 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 2941
Geff R. wrote:
Sans wrote:
--Supreme Court Will Not Hear Tenenbaum File-Sharing Appeal
(May 21, 2012)
The US Supreme Court has declined to hear the appeal of a man who is
facing a US $675,000 fine for illegal filesharing. The decision not to
hear the case means that Joel Tenenbaum will return to the trial level.
The judge in Tenenbaum's initial case ruled that the jury's award was
unconstitutional, but the ruling was overturned by an appellate court
because the process of "remittitur" should have been used to reduce the
verdict before its constitutionality was questioned. Tenenbaum's
attorney maintains that the music industry is seeking excessive fines
"for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to
[those] using the Internet ... that they will somehow reverse the tide
of the digital future."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012 ... ping-case/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/0 ... e-sharing/

Tenenbaum's lawyer may well have made a reasonable argument about whether these gigantic awards of statutory damages can stand up under constitutional scrutiny. Clearly at least one federal judge feels that they do not; unfortunately, that judge wasn't supposed to make that particular ruling at the time that it was made.

The problem is that these weren't punitive damages (damages designed to punish Tenenbaum), but statutory damages, written into the law by Congress.

Another problem for Tenenbaum is that the jury found that he willfully infringed, and Sony managed to gather quite a bit of evidence to support this. That finding of willful infringement is what allowed such a large award under the Copyright Act. One of Tenenbaum's main obstacles was that Sony established that he was well aware of the Copyright Act, and of the possible statutory damages.

The courts (with the possible exception of the judge who erroneously reduced the original award) really have not addressed the issue of whether such excessive statutory damages have any bearing on the legitimate interests of both the govenrment and the plaintiff, or whether Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution allows Congress to not only pass copyright laws, but to set statutory damages pretty much wherever it wants to.


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 2:01 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 2941
Interestingly, Jammie Thomas (remember her?) is explicitly gearing up to challenge exactly this. This is from an appellate brief she filed back in March:

Quote:
"Thomas agrees to entry of an injunction that bars her from making the recording companies’ music available to the public online. Thomas is interested in litigating the constitutionality of copyright statutory damages as applied to no-damages file-sharing cases like hers. In an attempt to present that issue as cleanly as possible for this Court and the Supreme Court, Thomas is mooting the “making available” issue by agreeing on appeal to the specific relief that the recording companies seek on the basis of their argument that making available constitutes distribution."

In other words, Thomas is no longer attempting to mount any defense claiming that she didn't knowingly download the songs, or that she didn't share the songs, or that the Act itself is unconstitutional--she is now trying to force a court to rule on the constitutionality of the statutory damages provided by the Copyright Act. Tenenbaum screwed up because of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, in which a federal court is not allowed to rule on the constitutionality of a case if (as in his case) the matter can be resolved another way.

This is interesting stuff, and the statutory damages provision of appears to be where the Act is most vulnerable. The problem is finding a federal judge willing to question the judgement of Congress. In his article, "Damages in Dissonance: The 'Shocking" Penalty for Illegal Music File-Sharing', Jeffrey Stavroff writes:
Quote:
"Congressional actions pursuant to an enumerated power receive substantial deference from the judiciary. In the context of the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court reconfirmed this notion in Eldred v. Ashcroft. At issue in Eldred was Congress' authority, pursuant to the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, to extend the duration of copyright protection from fifty years after the author's death to seventy years. By a seven-to-two margin, the Court held that Congress had not exceeded its powers by extending the duration of copyright protection.

"First, the Court held that Congress possessed the power to extend the terms of existing copyrights. “Text, history, and precedent,” the Court concluded, “confirm that the Copyright Clause empowers Congress to prescribe ‘limited Times' for copyright protection and to secure the same level and duration of protection for all copyright holders, present and future. In analyzing the history of American copyright legislation, the Court noted that the congressional history surrounding past copyright term extensions confirmed Congress' power to extend copyright. The Court further analogized to patents-a type of intellectual property also covered in the same constitutional clause as copyrights-and emphatically reaffirmed a case which held that duration of a patent “‘depend[s] on the law as it stood at the emanation of the patent, together with such changes as have been since made.”’

"Second, the Court found that the copyright extension legislation at issue was a rational exercise of Congress' authority under the Constitution. The Court cut straight to the chase: “[W]e defer substantially to Congress.”

"The Eldred Court simply was not willing to second-guess Congress' judgment in matters of copyright law. Thus, Eldred instructs that the federal courts should not second-guess Congress' judgment as to the range of statutory damages for copyright infringement."

Stll, like technology, the law has a tendency to evolve. As Thomas now argues:
Quote:
"In fact, the Supreme Court has never considered the constitutionality of statutory damages awarded under the Copyright Act. As for why the Court has never considered the constitutional question despite taking up statutory-damages cases, any number of explanations are possible: the absence of a circuit split on the issue, making it not worthy of certiorari; the failure of the litigants in the earlier cases to preserve or present constitutional questions; or the fact that the statutory-damages cases in the Supreme Court all predate the Court’s recent line of decisions (Gore, State Farm, etc.) on due-process limits on civil punishments.

. . .

"The recording companies similarly misapprehend Thomas’s argument about whether Congress considered and approved the statutory damages awarded in this case. Congress may or may not have considered whether copyright statutory damages would apply to file sharing. Whether Congress did or not is beside the point. Thomas’s argument is simply that a broad and general range, like the one that Congress put into the Copyright Act, is, by its nature, not tailored to any specific sort of infringement. This is an argument about what tailoring means, not an argument about Congress’s intent.

"Unlike earlier versions, the current Copyright Act sets out a single range of statutory damages for all infringement (with the minimum and maximum dependent on whether the defendant infringed innocently, knowingly, or willfully), regardless of the kind of work, the kind of infringer, or the kind of infringement. The same statutory range applies to stealing and publishing a presidential memoir, pirating and reselling copies of Microsoft Office, and the noncommercial individual file sharing at issue in this case.

"Given the many different circumstances to which the statutory range applies, this Court cannot in good conscience say that Congress tailored the statutory range to any particular set of circumstances. The problem is compounded when one considers that the recording companies claim infringement of thousands of songs, but chose to sue on 24 only. If the recording companies are correct, then they are claiming that Congress considered and approved damages ranging from one song times the minimum ($250) to thousands of songs times the maximum (hundreds of millions of dollars or more). While deference to Congress may sometimes be appropriate, it is appropriate only when Congress has actually made a specific decision.

"Consider, for example, a statute that simply provides for an award of statutory damages “in such amount as the court considers just” without stating a range. This could be argued to reflect Congress’s judgment that any amount considered by a court to be just is appropriate for any situation to which the statute applies. But that argument would be unpersuasive: the statute reflects not Congress’s judgment about what amount would be appropriate, but rather Congress’s decision to leave that judgment for courts to make in particular cases.4 Indeed, in operation, the statutory range is so broad and the number of songs the recording companies can choose to sue on is so large, that the Copyright Act functions in file-sharing cases just like the hypothetical any-amount statute."


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 

IMWAN Admin
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 6:20 pm 
User avatar
Helpful Librarian

Joined: 13 Jan 1966
Posts: 102394
Location: IMWAN Towers
Bannings: If you're not nice
Quote:
RIAA request for trillions in LimeWire copyright case is 'absurd,' judge says

Computerworld - The music industry's contention that file-sharing software maker LimeWire owes it trillions of dollars in damages for enabling the illegal distribution of 11,000 copyrighted songs is "absurd," a federal judge has ruled.

In a scathing ruling filed earlier this month, Judge Kimba Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York flatly rejected the industry's claims that LimeWire should pay up to $150,000 for each download of some 11,000 songs included in the RIAA lawsuit.

The plaintiffs' position on statutory damages "offends the canon that we should avoid endorsing statutory interpretations that would lead to absurd results," Judge Wood wrote in a 14-page ruling. "If Plaintiffs were able to pursue a statutory damage theory based on the number of direct infringers per work, Defendants' damages could reach into the trillions."

Judge Wood last October had ordered LimeWire to cease its file-sharing operations after agreeing with the music industry's claims that the company was enabling and inducing massive copyright infringement.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) filed a lawsuit on behalf of several music labels some four years ago, claiming that the music industry had lost millions of dollars because LimeWire's P2P software allowed users to easily download and distribute copyrighted songs for free,

Since the RIAA's victory last fall, the two sides have been wrangling over how much money LimeWire owes recording companies.

In her ruling this month, Judge Wood noted that this is the first time a court has been asked to consider the issue of whether a copyright holder can claim multiple awards for one copyrighted work.

The RIAA had contends that LimeWire enabled potentially thousands and even millions of people to illegally download one or more of the 11,000 songs. As a result, the association said its members are entitled to statutory damages for every single illegal download.

An award based on the RIAA calculations would amount to "more money than the entire music industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877," Woodsaid in her ruling. The 'absurdity' of such a result requires the court to reject the music industry's argument, she added.

The judge pointedly noted that even the RIAA had not used such an argument until last September -- or more than three years after it had first filed the lawsuit. The court will permit the RIAA to seek one statutory award for each infringed song, Wood said.

Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who has represented individuals in RIAA music piracy lawsuits, said Judge Wood's decision is not surprising considering what he called the RIAA's "ridiculous argument."

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/ ... judge_says

_________________
Image


Top
  Profile  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Wed May 23, 2012 10:53 pm 
User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2011
Posts: 2941
Funny how this article "went viral" a full fourteen months after it was written (March 25, 2011) but it illustrates exactly what I was trying to explain--federal judges don't like these statutory damages, but at the same time, they are either unable or unwilling to do anything about them.

For what it's worth (funny how these articles always omit these details) Judge Wood ruled that LimeWire was liable "for only a single statutory damage per work, rather than one award for each user's infringement."

Technically, Arista Records et. al. didn't seek an award of $70 trillion dollars or whatever the internet says it was, for no better reason than they were polite enough to allow the judge and the defendant to actually sit down and figure out the math. Again, from Judge Wood's opinion:
Quote:
"Plaintiffs asserted over four years ago that they would be seeking one statutory damage award per work infringed. In their amended complaint, Plaintiffs stated that they would be seeking “$150,000 with respect to each timely-registered work that was infringed.” (First Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 74, 87, 99 (Dkt. Entry No 45).) Plaintiffs' prayer for relief requests “$150,000 per work with respect to each and every timely registered sound recording owned by Plaintiffs that was willfully infringed.” (Id. at 33.) That remained Plaintiffs' position until as recently as June of 2010, when they again stated that they are seeking statutory damage awards “[f]or each work for which Lime Wire owes Plaintiffs a statutory award within a Congressionally prescribed range.” (Pl. Mem. of Law in Support of Mot. for Permanent Injunction, at 10 (Dkt. Entry No. 235).) Notwithstanding their previously consistent position on statutory damage awards, just months ago, Plaintiffs began to assert that they are “seek[ing] a separate statutory damage for each act of direct infringement for which Defendants are jointly and severally liable with separate infringing actors.” (Pl. Letter, September 23, 2010.)"

So...what was Limewire finally forced to pay? There still has been no final judgement. Apparently both sides are litigating. As mentioned, however, they still face punitive damages of roughly a billion dollars, per the aforementioned Copyright Act provision. For the record, here it is:
Quote:
17 U.S.C.A. § 504

§ 504. Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(a) In General.--Except as otherwise provided by this title, an infringer of copyright is liable for either--

(1) the copyright owner's actual damages and any additional profits of the infringer, as provided by subsection (b); or

(2) statutory damages, as provided by subsection (c).

(b) Actual Damages and Profits.--The copyright owner is entitled to recover the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the infringement, and any profits of the infringer that are attributable to the infringement and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages. In establishing the infringer's profits, the copyright owner is required to present proof only of the infringer's gross revenue, and the infringer is required to prove his or her deductible expenses and the elements of profit attributable to factors other than the copyrighted work.

(c) Statutory Damages.--

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in section 118(f)) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.

(3) (A) In a case of infringement, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that the infringement was committed willfully for purposes of determining relief if the violator, or a person acting in concert with the violator, knowingly provided or knowingly caused to be provided materially false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in registering, maintaining, or renewing a domain name used in connection with the infringement.

(B) Nothing in this paragraph limits what may be considered willful infringement under this subsection.

(C) For purposes of this paragraph, the term “domain name” has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Act entitled “An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes” approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the “Trademark Act of 1946”; 15 U.S.C. 1127).

(d) Additional damages in certain cases.--In any case in which the court finds that a defendant proprietor of an establishment who claims as a defense that its activities were exempt under section 110(5) did not have reasonable grounds to believe that its use of a copyrighted work was exempt under such section, the plaintiff shall be entitled to, in addition to any award of damages under this section, an additional award of two times the amount of the license fee that the proprietor of the establishment concerned should have paid the plaintiff for such use during the preceding period of up to 3 years.

17 U.S.C.A. § 504 (West)


Top
  Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Copyright legal issues in the news
PostPosted: Thu May 24, 2012 2:44 am 
User avatar
I HATE MP3'S, RAPPERS AND CORPORATIONS!

Joined: 27 Sep 2006
Posts: 21956
Location: The Pasture
I see the current topic as a political one (both the "activist judges" argument & the "powerful lobbyists argument"), so I will regretfully refrain from commenting farther though I definately have strong feelings on both sides of this issue.

_________________
"Where soulless singers sang over beats built by machines" - Ani DiFranco


Top
  Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Go to page 1 ... 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 ... 42  ( Previous  |  Next )
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 908 posts ]   



Who is WANline

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  


Powdered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Closed captioning provided by the spirit of Gardner Fox.

IMWAN is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide
a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com, amazon.ca and amazon.co.uk.