Recording Industry vs The People: July 2010

Friday, July 30, 2010

Joel Tenenbaum files appeal from judgment

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the defendant has filed a notice of appeal.

So now both sides have initiated their appeal, and the fireworks can begin.

Defendant's notice of appeal

[Ed. note. My prediction: if appeals court reaches constitutional question, it will agree that due process standards as enunciated by Judge Gertner are applicable, but will remand for proper computation of (a) approximate actual damages and (b) proper multiple of actual damages. Court will reject lower court's application of multiple of minimum statutory damages, instead of multiple of actual damages. -R.B.]

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

Indie music promoter @JessicaNorthey interviews me on "Finger Candy Media" website

Social media maven, indie music promoter, and all around great lady, @JessicaNorthey, has posted an interview of me on the Finger Candy Media website:

Law+Twitter+Music+Nature+Friendship= @RayBeckerman

Meet Ray Beckerman, to quote his own Twitter Bio: “Law, social justice, nature, human & animal rights, arts, ecology, indie music & film”

If you are on Twitter and you pay attention to who really connects with others, gives back and actually makes the community/ecosystem better, then you are no doubt aware of Ray Beckerman! If you haven’t heard of him, he is an ambassador of what Social Media is all about.....

Complete article

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

Thursday, July 29, 2010

ABA Journal: $17M for Legal Fees Is Money Well Spent, RIAA Says

Interesting article in the ABA Journal today:

$17M for Legal Fees Is Money Well Spent, RIAA Says

Posted Jul 29, 2010 6:00 AM CDT
By Debra Cassens Weiss

The Recording Industry Association of America is defending more than $17 million spent on legal fees in 2008 after bloggers claimed the organization’s aggressive pursuit of damages for illegal downloading was yielding little legal in the way of legal recoveries.

Complete article

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net

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

Thursday, July 22, 2010

RIAA appeals from SONY v Tenenbaum judgment

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the RIAA has appealed from the judgment awarding it $67,500 for defendant's downloading of 30 mp3 song files.

RIAA's notice of appeal

Commentary & discussion:

ZeroPaid
Ars Technica

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

Thursday, July 15, 2010

Both sides ask court to dispense with settlement mediation in Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, both sides have filed a joint motion to be relieved of their obligation to proceed to mediation under a Special Master.

Joint Motion for Relief from order directing settlement mediation under Special Master

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

An afterthought about the RIAA's financial "disclosures"

The amounts of money the RIAA spent on legal fees from 2006 to 2008 -- approximately $20,000,000 per year -- were in the ballpark with my estimates (I'd estimated $15,000,000).

But the amounts collected from the settlements were not; they were far lower. I would have expected the RIAA to have been collecting in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 per year during that period, rather than a mere $450,000 per year.

What if my estimates were correct, and 90% of the moneys collected were siphoned off to the Big 4 record labels who were the plaintiffs?

If so, it would mean the RIAA was spending general membership money to help just a few of its members.

But that would raise problems with

(a) the Internal Revenue Service, and

(b) the RIAA membership.

So it must not be the case. Right?

Just askin'.

If the RIAA lawyers out there could clarify this for me, I'd appreciate it. I understand the ABA Journal has asked you to comment, but you haven't responded yet.

Commentary & discussion:

Tuesday, July 13, 2010

Ha ha ha ha ha. RIAA paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 in 2008 to recover only $391,000!!!

Big hat tip to my friend Jon Newton at p2pnet.net for uncovering these documents.

The RIAA's "business plan" is even worse than I'd guessed it was.

The RIAA paid Holmes Roberts & Owen $9,364,901 in 2008, Jenner & Block more than $7,000,000, and Cravath Swain & Moore $1.25 million, to pursue its "copyright infringement" claims, in order to recover a mere $391,000. [ps there were many other law firms feeding at the trough too; these were just the ones listed among the top 5 independent contractors.]

Embarrassing.

If the average settlement were $3,900, that would mean 100 settlements for the entire year.

As bad as it was, I guess it was better than the numbers for 2007, in which more than $21 million was spent on legal fees, and $3.5 million on "investigative operations" ... presumably MediaSentry. And the amount recovered was $515,929.

And 2006 was similar: they spent more than $19,000,000 in legal fees and more than $3,600,000 in "investigative operations" expenses to recover $455,000.

So all in all, for a 3 year period, they spent around $64,000,000 in legal and investigative expenses to recover around $1,361,000.

Shrewd.

No wonder they get paid the big bucks

Commentary & discussion:

p2pnet.net
p2pnet.net
Slyck
Slashdot
Download Squad
Boing Boing
LeMonde (French)
Ars Technica
Business Insider
Tech Blog
reddit
Hacker News
Ferrett's Journal: Dinosaurs Must Die
opassande.se (Swedish)
bannination.com
ZeroPaid
digg
digg
winfuture (German)
OWNIlive (French)
metafilter
wearethemusicmakers
vnboards
phog..net
ComputerWorld
tribalwar
dailyswarm
TechDirt
Sitar Teli
gizmodo
drudge retort
bomb the music industry
dallas imports
maximumpc
sluniverse
torrentfreak
paste magazine
techmeme
betanews
tech eye
geek.com
NewLaunches.com
overclock.net
rage3d
linux today
trendalicious
whatreallyhappened.com
icerocket.com
ebusiness.info (French)
the present and future of post production business and technology
outerspace (Portugese)
habrahabr (Russian)
Hard Forum
Southern Maryland Online
GarrettWalker.com/Today
computeridee (Dutch)
gamevicio (Portugese)
The Big Lead
Lenta.ru (Russian)
AltDaily
HypeBot
Daily Online Examiner
Forte (Swedish?)
Jaakko Koivula blog (Finnish)
Tech News Today 31
Inside STL (top "Fail" of the day)
nezinau.lt (Lithuanian?)
switched
adslgr.com (Russian)
EfectoTequila (Spanish)
fyeahqueermusic
adslzone (Spanish)
metal insider
intern.de (German)
ABA Journal
ITProPortal
pcinpact (French)

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

Friday, July 09, 2010

$675,000 verdict reduced to $67,500 in SONY v Tenenbaum

In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the Court has reduced the jury's award from $675,000, or $22,500 per infringed work, to $67,500, or $2,250 per infringed work, on due process grounds, holding that the jury's award was unconstitutionally excessive.

In a 64-page decision, District Judge Nancy Gertner ruled that:

-to decide the issue on common law remittitur grounds would not have avoided the constitutional question, since plaintiffs had indicated they would not accept a "remitted" award, but would instead proceed to a second trial in the event of remittitur;
-the award of $22,250 per infringed work could not withstand scrutiny under the Due Process Clause and was unconstitutionally excessive;
-$2,250 per infringed work was the maximum amount that the Constitution would permit given the facts of this case;
-the Gore, Campbell, and Williams line of cases was applicable to determining the constitutionality of statutory damages awards
-statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages
-the actual damages sustained by plaintiffs was no more than $30
-the benefit to the defendant was in the neighborhood of $1500
-it was permissible to treble the minimum statutory damages due to defendant's wilfulness

Decision reducing jury verdict from $675,000 to $67,500

[Ed. note. Since the Court concluded that the actual damages were ~ $1 per work, or $30 total, I don't understand how it arrived at the conclusion that an award of 2250 times that amount passes constitutional muster. -R.B.]

Commentary & discussion:

Slashdot
p2pnet.net
ZeroPaid

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

JUDICIAL QUOTATIONS

"[T]he Court is concerned about the lack of facts establishing that Defendant was using that IP address at that particular time. Indeed, the [complaint] does not explain what link, if any, there is between Defendant and the IP address. It is possible that Plaintiff sued Defendant because he is the subscriber to IP address .... As recognized by many courts, just because an IP address is registered to an individual does not mean that he or she is guilty of infringement when that IP address is used to commit infringing activity." -Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz, Chief Judge, S.D. California. January 29, 2013, AF Holdings v. Rogers
"The complaints assert that the defendants – identified only by IP address – were the individuals who downloaded the subject “work” and participated in the BitTorrent swarm. However, the assumption that the person who pays for Internet access at a given location is the same individual who allegedly downloaded a single sexually explicit film is tenuous, and one that has grown more so over time." - Hon. Gary R. Brown, Magistrate Judge, E.D.N.Y. May 1, 2012, K-Beech v. Does 1-37
"The concern of this Court is that in these lawsuits, potentially meritorious legal and factual defenses are not being litigated, and instead, the federal judiciary is being used as a hammer by a small group of plaintiffs to pound settlements out of unrepresented defendants."
-Hon. S. James Otero, Dist. Judge, Central Dist. California, March 2, 2007, Elektra v. O'Brien, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 1555
"The University has adequately demonstrated that it is not able to identify the alleged infringers with a reasonable degree of technical certainty...[C]ompliance with the subpoena as to the IP addresses represented by these Defendants would expose innocent parties to intrusive discovery....[T]he Court declines to authorize discovery and quashes the subpoena as to Does # 8, 9, and 14" -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, November 24, 2008, London-Sire Records v. Does 1-4
"[C]ounsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that they are fighting people without lawyers... that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and it's terribly critical that you stop it...." -Hon. Nancy Gertner, Dist. Judge, Dist. Massachusetts, June 17, 2008, London-Sire v. Does 1-4
"Rule 11(b)(3) requires that a representation in a pleading have evidentiary support and one wonders if the Plaintiffs are intentionally flouting that requirement in order to make their discovery efforts more convenient or to avoid paying the proper filing fees. In my view, the Court would be well within its power to direct the Plaintiffs to show cause why they have not violated Rule 11(b) with their allegations respecting joinder. [I]t is difficult to ignore the kind of gamesmanship that is going on here.....These plaintiffs have devised a clever scheme... to obtain court-authorized discovery prior to the service of complaints, but it troubles me that they do so with impunity and at the expense of the requirements of Rule 11(b)(3) because they have no good faith evidentiary basis to believe the cases should be joined." -Hon. Margaret J. Kravchuk, Magistrate Judge, District of Maine, January 25, 2008, Arista v. Does 1-27, 2008 WL 222283, modified Oct. 29, 2008
"[N]either the parties' submissions nor the Court's own research has revealed any case holding the mere owner of an internet account contributorily or vicariously liable for the infringing activities of third persons.....In addition to the weakness of the secondary copyright infringement claims against Ms. Foster, there is a question of the plaintiffs' motivations in pursuing them..... [T]here is an appearance that the plaintiffs initiated the secondary infringement claims to press Ms. Foster into settlement after they had ceased to believe she was a direct or "primary" infringer." -Hon. Lee R. West, District Judge, Western District of Oklahoma, February 6, 2007, Capitol v. Foster, 2007 WL 1028532
"[A]n overwhelming majority of cases brought by recording companies against individuals are resolved without so much as an appearance by the defendant, usually through default judgment or stipulated dismissal.....The Defendant Does cannot question the propriety of joinder if they do not set foot in the courthouse." -Hon. S. James Otero, Central District of California, August 29, 2007, SONY BMG v. Does 1-5, 2007 ILRWeb (P&F) 2535
"Plaintiffs are ordered to file any future cases of this nature against one defendant at a time, and may not join defendants for their convenience."
-Hon. Sam Sparks and Hon. Lee Yeakel, District Judges, Western District of Texas, November 17, 2004, Fonovisa v. Does 1-41, 2004 ILRWeb (P&F) 3053
"The Court is unaware of any other authority that authorizes the ex parte subpoena requested by plaintiffs."
-Hon. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District Judge, Eastern District of Virginia, July 12, 2007, Interscope v. Does 1-7, 494 F. Supp. 2d 388, vacated on reconsideration 6/20/08
"Plaintiffs contend that unless the Court allows ex parte immediate discovery, they will be irreparably harmed. While the Court does not dispute that infringement of a copyright results in harm, it requires a Coleridgian "suspension of disbelief" to accept that the harm is irreparable, especially when monetary damages can cure any alleged violation. On the other hand, the harm related to disclosure of confidential information in a student or faculty member's Internet files can be equally harmful.....Moreover, ex parte proceedings should be the exception, not the rule."
-Hon. Lorenzo F. Garcia, Magistrate Judge, District of New Mexico, May 24, 2007, Capitol v. Does 1-16, 2007 WL 1893603
"'Statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Hon. Michael J. Davis, Dist. Judge, U.S.District Court, Dist. Minnesota, January 22, 2010, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset
"[T]his court finds that defendants' use of the same ISP and P2P networks to allegedly commit copyright infringement is, without more, insufficient for permissive joinder under Rule 20. This court will sever not only the moving defendants from this action, but all other Doe defendants except Doe 2."
-Hon. W. Earl Britt, District Judge, Eastern District of North Carolina, February 27, 2008, LaFace v. Does 1-38, 2008 WL 544992
"[L]arge awards of statutory damages can raise due process concerns. Extending the reasoning of Gore and its progeny, a number of courts have recognized that an award of statutory damages may violate due process if the amount of the award is "out of all reasonable proportion" to the actual harm caused by a defendant's conduct.[T]hese cases are doubtlessly correct to note that a punitive and grossly excessive statutory damages award violates the Due Process Clause....."Hon. Marilyn Hall Patel, Dist. Judge, N.D. California, June 1, 2005, In re Napster, 2005 US DIST Lexis 11498, 2005 WL 1287611
"[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered....."-Hon. David G. Trager, Senior District Judge, Eastern Dist. New York, November 9, 2006, UMG v. Lindor, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83486, 2006 WL 3335048
"'[S]tatutory damages should bear some relation to actual damages suffered'....(citations omitted) and 'cannot be divorced entirely from economic reality'". -Hon. Shira A. Scheindlin, Dist. Judge, Southern Dist. New York, August 19, 2008, Yurman v. Castaneda
"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.... The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts..... [T]he damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs." -Hon. Michael J. Davis, District Judge, Dist. Minnesota, September 24, 2008, Capitol v. Thomas
"If there is an asymmetry in copyright, it is one that actually favors defendants. The successful assertion of a copyright confirms the plaintiff's possession of an exclusive, and sometimes very valuable, right, and thus gives it an incentive to spend heavily on litigation. In contrast, a successful defense against a copyright claim, when it throws the copyrighted work into the public domain, benefits all users of the public domain, not just the defendant; he obtains no exclusive right and so his incentive to spend on defense is reduced and he may be forced into an unfavorable settlement." US Court of Appeals, 7th Cir., July 9, 2008, Eagle Services Corp. v. H20 Industrial Services, Inc., 532 F.3d 620
"Customers who download music and movies for free would not necessarily spend money to acquire the same product.....RIAA’s request problematically assumes that every illegal download resulted in a lost sale."
-Hon. James P. Jones, Dist. Judge, Western Dist. Virginia, November 7, 2008, USA v. Dove