Saturday, December 02, 2006

UMG v. Lindor Decision Granting Leave to Amend Answer Now Available on Westlaw

The November 9th decision in UMG v. Lindor, granting defendant's motion for leave to amend answer to include defense of unconstitutionality of RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory, is now reported in Westlaw, and can be cited as 2006 WL 3335048.

Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs


Alter_Fritz said...

[I]t is hard to see how the addition of an
affirmative defense would prejudice the
plaintiffs other than simply expanding the
scope of discovery to include the valuation
of a license for illegal reproduction and dis-
tribution of the sound recordings.

"alter_fritz" scratches his head and ask himself if he understands it correctly that you can get a license from the devi err I mean plaintiffs for illegal stuff, or if that is simply an "il" typo? ;-)

raybeckerman said...

I knew what he meant and so do you. You're what they call in English a "stickler".

Alter_Fritz said...

May I try to go to school again and become a lawyer too?

No, seriously. I was not just because of the typo refering to it, but also because I don't understand what the cost for a distribution and reproduction license has to do in this case. Lindor does not want to compete with apple itunes musicstore for example.
The question at issue is how much does it cost to "buy" the music for personal use and how much the record companies get from that, isn't it?
And since the record companies are not the source of the stuff they sell, isn't it also important to know how much they pay to the artist the composer the lyricswriter since this would be money they must give to them and as you pointed out in your "how litigation works"-link in there demand letters those people (composers/writers) are not involved

raybeckerman said...

RIAA claims measure of damages isn't what download cost would be, but what a distributor's license would be worth.

It's nonsensical because if you read Copyright Act Section 106 where it defines "distribution", it is clear that these people -- even those who did engage in p2p file sharing of copyrighted files -- aren't "distributors" unless they actually sold, transferred, licensed, leased, or rented out the files.

raybeckerman said...

The judge isn't necessarily agreeing with them, he's just saying

"so if they say the value should be the value of a distribution license, then how are they being prejudiced by letting her assert the affirmative defense, except that it might expand the scope of discovery a little, which is no big deal".