That's not the issue you started discussing. You started discussing the amount of damages. You're shifting the issue mid-argument.
From the article: After a three-day trial, single mother Jammie Thomas was found to have willfully infringed on the record label's copyrights.
There is a problem with proving infringement. The RIAA is alleging that she made the songs available for download without having actually proven that anything was downloaded. The problem with this is that it doesn't violate any of the explicitly stated rights of copyright holders. The RIAA is attempting to expand the definition of "distribution" to include simply making these files available. Rhaddamanthus is right that there's a huge problem with proving infringement. However, that is a separate issue than the legality of the statutory damages.
The issue if of course the money. But there are two problems. Apologies if that was not clear from the get-go. 1) The lack of tangible evidence of infringement. 2) If you assume infringement occurred, the penalty, to me, seems high.
And it's directly related to the damages. If I left a CD out on a street corner and someone picked it up and played it, is that copyright infringement? If it is, are those songs worth 9,250 dollars a piece simply based off the potential of that CD to be subsequently lost and found by new people? It's a HUGE backdoor to assinine penalties.
You said, when I was discussing the money, that I was "dodging the issue". She was found, in trial by jury, that there was tangible evidence of infringement. If she disagrees with the judgment, she can appeal - but it appears she has only appealed the damages. Regardless, that's for the courts to figure out since we don't have all the evidence that was presented at trial. My posts were all discussing #2. How was I dodging the issue? True damages aren't important here. Are you suggesting if true damages can't be determined, there should be no penalty? The point of damages is to serve as an effective deterrent. I think a smaller penalty wouldn't serve as much of a deterrent. And of course, this could all simply be avoided if she had chosen not to illegally share music.
No - because the actual material was transferred to a new "owner". If that person then makes a copy of the CD and returns the CD to you, then yes, there was copyright infringement. If you intentionally left the CD there for someone to take with the purpose of copying it, you were certainly involved. Otherwise, the other person would be the only guilty party.
I agree. It's just that your initial argument was that the amount of damages is insane. How the infringement is proven has no effect on what amount of damages will be assessed. You can't counter an argument about the validity of the damages with a simple "no infringement was proven." They are two separate issues and simply because one discusses the possible merits of statutory damages doesn't mean they think they should be assessed in a particular case.
I thought it was pretty clear that I was addressing both problems. If I managed to unacceptably confuse the two, my apologies. Statutory damages are punishment, like you both said. However, the punishment is for a crime that cannot be proven outside of potential. As such, halfbreed's statement: is ridiculous. If the infringement cannot be proven, what on earth is the punishment for? Ergo the damages are insane. There is a link between the two. The punishment should fit the crime. Without any sort of details on the amount or "size" of crime, what is the discriminator used to assess 220k in damages!?!
Maybe it's my turn to apologize for not being clear. Let's see if I can state what I mean more clearly. When discussing the merits of the amount of damages, proof of wrongdoing doesn't come into play. Discussing the merits of a system of statutorily defined damages has nothing to do with burdens of proof regarding the offense. It's true that you can't get to the damages without finding infringement (which is a problem in this case on which I agree with you). However, Major was discussing the validity of stautory damages in theory and not in regards to a particular case. In that sense, an argument about the validity of the damages themselves have nothing to do with the commission of an offense because you're only discussing the merits of the possible damages. That's what statutory damages are. They are damages that are awarded without regards to the specifics and particulars of any given case.
With respect to copyright, they are given as a means to overcome the difficulty in proving the number of infringements that have taken place. So, assuming you buy the availability=infringement argumnt, the problem here is that the actual value of these items is paltry (70-99c), and the cost of reproduciton is basically zero. As such, the punishment seems crazy high. We are talking about 24 tracks. 220,000 dollars for 24 tracks. Perhaps I was not being clear. The argument that stat. dmgs are totally indepenent might be true, but that alone won't help me rationalize how 1 song is equal to 9,250 dollars.
I don't know. To me, the fact that it isn't being prosecuted criminally shouldn't mean the private lawsuit should have to serve as the deterrent to crime. The private lawsuit should be about paying the party that was damaged in a fair and equitable manner. If that amount happens to be a deterrent, so be it. If the government isn't putting forth a case in this instance, that's another matter altogether.
I'd appeal claiming unequal enforcement. If there are 4 million people online in the US sharing music right now then the laws are prosecutable only on a select basis. If the damages were as heinous as stated by the RIAA then I would guess they would be engaged in wholesale enforcement; to the full extent of the resources of the industry. There are several cases in the US where laws that were generally disregarded are changed or rendered moot.
This is getting ridiculous. ============================= Copy a CD, owe $1.5 million under "gluttonous" PRO-IP Act By Nate Anderson | Published: January 29, 2008 - 09:57PM CT Link
it is a tricky issue and certainly a complicated one. but for petes sakes....pay for your songs! Pay for your movies! and you wont have to worry about this crap. sorry, but i dont have much pity for people who are too cheap or "antiestablishment" to actually purchase something
In the original article from this thread (where the 9250 fee was awarded), they could not prove any actual infringement. Furthermore, they are arguing that simply making songs "available" for infringement is punishable. In that case, whether you bought the music or not is irrelevant.
im didnt get into these case details because i dont want to get sucked into the argument the previous statement was just general opinion on the matter. but isnt making cocaine "available" for use punishable?
