Copyright Infringement
Kudos to Judge Nancy Gertner, who shocked the RIAA on Friday by reducing the damages awarded to five record companies in their case against Joel Tenenbaum from $675,000 to $67,500. For a young man it’s still a stupid amount of money that he probably doesn’t have, but then again he did the crime.
This case is interesting because he admitted his guilt to sharing 30 songs, so the main issue for the original jury was simply about what kind and to what extent damages should be awarded. Other important facts were that he did it willfully but made no money or other gain.
There are two ways damages can be awarded, either the actual damages, or what they call statutory damages. These statutory damages are specifically authorised by the american congress so that remedy may be obtained when the cost of actual damage is hard to establish or calculate.
In the original court case it was the RIAA who specifically decided they would like statutory damages.
Using this statutory damages legislation, designed to give guidelines to corporations as to what reasonable damages might be, the jury awarded the $675,000, being $22,500 for each of the 30 songs Tenenbaum shared.
Tenenbaum appealed on the basis that $675,000 far exceeded any plausible estimate of the harm suffered by the record company plaintiffs.
Judge Nancy Gerner basically agreed with that assessment, stating;
‘This award is far greater than necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives … the award here is simply “unprecedented and oppressive”’
In it’s statement to the Boston Globe, in response, the RIAA said the court has ‘substituted it’s judgement for that of the 10 jurors as well as Congress [and ignored the] profound economic and artistic harm to the recording industry that occurs when people illegally share songs online’.
It’s this response I want to comment on.
RIAA complaint one.
The court substituted it’s judgement…
But this is not new, it is the normal daily business of judges. Jurors are given no guidelines and no experience in what are accepted norms in the situation. They are only given the Congress guidelines, which are a quite huge range; 22,500 to 4,500,000. Those same laws allow this review, called Due Process Clause to protect proportionality. And it’s worth remembering these guidelines were primarily designed for corporate damages. All that is being done here is make sure it’s reasonable and proportional.
RIAA complaint two.
Ignored the profound economic and artistic harm…
But if the harm was profound, why didn’t take actual damages instead of choosing statutory damages? In the light of the judge’s statement that the damages were excessive it makes the RIAA seem unreasonable and strident. What reasonable person or group would deny the need for a fair and proportional response?
RIAA complaint three.
People illegally shared songs online…
The way this is stated, it becomes plain that the RIAA are not focused on this individual but on the wider issues. Sadly for the RIAA, ‘people’ in general are not being sentenced here, just one person for 30 songs they illegally shared with others.
So much can be said about the on going saga of the recording industry suing it’s customer base, but very little of it useful. The weight of this lobby is causing distortions in law and impacting the wider community in negative and long reaching ways. It’s not healthy. Their business model has changed, their product have become worth less in the marketplace, but they are proud, rich and bitter so the road ahead looks bleak.
One can only hope some common sense transpires and we can all be spared from their ritual suicide.
The judgement can be read in full here: LINK
Comments
Post new comment