Monday, July 06, 2009

RIAA moves to amend judgment to add injunction in Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset

The RIAA has moved to amend the judgment to add an injunction in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset.

Plaintiffs' motion to amend judgment

Commentary & discussion:

Det Standard (German)

Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player


Eric said...

This motion should be quoted by Camera as evidence that Copyright law was never intended to be used in this way against non-commercial infringement; every single one of the cases cited was commercial in nature. It's also very mean spirited, as they have already won a kings ransom against this woman, now they want to throw additional fuel on the fire knowing that the award will probably not withstand scrutiny.

Anonymous said...

Is the RIAA really asking for an injunction saying Defendant must not "make [their works] available"? Ha!

And is the RIAA asking Defendant to destroy copies of songs that are on CDs she owns? That sounds absurd to me.

On another note, one could find a strict upper boundary on actual damages. Her connection speed and when she stopped filesharing are known. Given a filesharing start date, we can calculate the maximum possible downloaded songs in that interval, multiply that by $0.70/song, and get a definite upper limit on actual damages. Probably that limit is well below $2 million.


Randy said...

Or maybe the judge should rule that he thought the $80,000 per song is a license to reproduce and distribute.

Anonymous said...

Copyright and Patents having been birthed from the same constitutional womb, the argument that irreperable harm is to be assumed and an injunction granted almost as a matter of course in copyright cases seems a bit off the mark in light of MercExchange v. eBay.

Anonymous said...

This man is certain that this piling on of the Defendant is an attempt to strike while the iron is hot in the sense of trying to slip through additional precedents that they can then use to buttress future cases - except that there aren't supposed to be any future cases according to their press releases.

{The Common Man Speaking}

Anonymous said...

> cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money

Which court case was it that denied the "irreparable injury" claim by countering that (paraphrased) they were monetary injuries, so money would cure them?