4 ms·

Between $500 and $1500 per sms? Where's the justice in that?

by richforrester 14y ago

JulianMorrison 14y ago
It pays for the ones that got away.
ww520 14y ago
$500 is the statue limit per incident of violation and $1500 is the punitive triple damage.
tlrobinson 14y ago
That's nothing compared to the $150,000 or whatever per song downloaded the RIAA was going for.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  Has anyone ever been asked to pay money for downloading a song (apart from the obvious, when buying it from a store)?
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Traditionally they send people scare-letters ("pre-litigation letters")^ offering a settlement for downloading. If people decided to fight it, they usually get brought to court for downloading and "making available" (distinct from uploading). "Making available" has generally been thrown out, as the ill-defined crap that it is. ""The court agrees with the great weight of authority that section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public," wrote the judge in his order. "Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution."" http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html So basically they sue/sued people for downloading as well as some crap they made up. Regardless, senseless pedantry. Here is a 'fixed' statement if you are terribly bothered: "That's nothing compared to the $150,000 or whatever per song downloaded and/or 'made available' the RIAA was going for." ^ http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/riaa/letter.pdf http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/riaa/letter.pdf This example pre-litigation letter uses the phrasing: "distributed (i.e., by uploading) and/or reproduced (i.e., by downloading)"
- tzs 14y ago
  In both cases where people ended up facing such large fines, the RIAA repeatedly offered to settle for much much much smaller amounts, typically around $2-4 per song that the person was sharing. The defendants decided to reject these offers, even though the MINIMUM POSSIBLE fine if they lost in court would be much larger than the RIAA was asking for. Typical numbers would look something like this. The person shared a couple thousand songs, and the RIAA asked for maybe $5k. When the person refused, the RIAA would sue over around 20 of the songs, and the RIAA would have an airtight case. The best case realistic outcome for the defendant would be for the jury to award the minimum possible damages: $750/song, so the defendant would end up owing about $15k, which is about 3 times what they could have settled for. That was their best case outcome. In reality, the jury would generally opt for something between the minimum and maximum, and so they got the big fines. Then they would appeal. Incredibly, the RIAA would then offer again to settle for a few thousand (total--not per song). And the defendant would refuse, get another trial, and get a jury that opted for even higher up on the damage scale. Oops. Basically, these defendants were either idiots, or they were taken advantage of by attorneys of questionable ethical judgement who put their desire to argue novel dubious copyright theories in court over the interests of their client.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Offering several thousand dollars for "several thousand songs" then ultimately only bringing up a couple dozen is complete crap. It is plain, if you can see through the legalese, what was going on. The RIAA was wielding the legal system and an asymmetric power relationship as a weapon.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
    - tzs 14y ago
      You have a person sharing a few thousand songs illegally. The RIAA offers to settle for a very reasonable amount--only a few dollars a song, which is far far below what it would normally cost to license a song to make available for free, unrestricted public redistribution. (And that is the correct license to compare to, not the $1 license that one purchases to download a song and use it privately). If the person does not accept and the RIAA sues, it would make little sense to sue over all the songs. For each song named, they have to ensure that certain formalities have been taken care of (such as copyright registration) have been taken care of for those songs, and make sure the necessary rights have been assigned to them, and they have to submit into evidence documentation that proves all of this. They also have to show that each song being shared is really the song they are suing over (as opposed to a misnamed file of some other song, for instance). Why go to all that effort, when suing over a dozen or two songs is sufficient to put the minimal damages at more than they have already indicated they are willing to accept to settle? I don't see how this is using the legal system "as a weapon". It's using it exactly how it is supposed to be used--someone violates their rights, they make a very reasonable offer to settle the matter out of court, the person refuses, and then they take the person to court.
wilfra 14y ago
I don't know but I'd be willing to settle with Round Table Pizza and AT&T Wireless for $100 per text and a promise that they will stop SMS spamming me.
arbuge 14y ago
I believe email spam is $16,000 per email now...
- lostlogin 14y ago
  Wish that went to me. Inbox overflowing.

Between $500 and $1500 per sms? Where's the justice in that?

JulianMorrison 14y ago

It pays for the ones that got away.

ww520 14y ago

$500 is the statue limit per incident of violation and $1500 is the punitive triple damage.

tlrobinson 14y ago

That's nothing compared to the $150,000 or whatever per song downloaded the RIAA was going for.

tedunangst 14y ago
Has anyone ever been asked to pay money for downloading a song (apart from the obvious, when buying it from a store)?
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Traditionally they send people scare-letters ("pre-litigation letters")^ offering a settlement for downloading. If people decided to fight it, they usually get brought to court for downloading and "making available" (distinct from uploading). "Making available" has generally been thrown out, as the ill-defined crap that it is. ""The court agrees with the great weight of authority that section 106(3) is not violated unless the defendant has actually distributed an unauthorized copy of the work to a member of the public," wrote the judge in his order. "Merely making an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work available to the public does not violate a copyright holder's exclusive right of distribution."" http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9932004-7.html So basically they sue/sued people for downloading as well as some crap they made up. Regardless, senseless pedantry. Here is a 'fixed' statement if you are terribly bothered: "That's nothing compared to the $150,000 or whatever per song downloaded and/or 'made available' the RIAA was going for." ^ http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/riaa/letter.pdf http://www-tech.mit.edu/V127/N24/riaa/letter.pdf This example pre-litigation letter uses the phrasing: "distributed (i.e., by uploading) and/or reproduced (i.e., by downloading)"
tzs 14y ago
In both cases where people ended up facing such large fines, the RIAA repeatedly offered to settle for much much much smaller amounts, typically around $2-4 per song that the person was sharing. The defendants decided to reject these offers, even though the MINIMUM POSSIBLE fine if they lost in court would be much larger than the RIAA was asking for. Typical numbers would look something like this. The person shared a couple thousand songs, and the RIAA asked for maybe $5k. When the person refused, the RIAA would sue over around 20 of the songs, and the RIAA would have an airtight case. The best case realistic outcome for the defendant would be for the jury to award the minimum possible damages: $750/song, so the defendant would end up owing about $15k, which is about 3 times what they could have settled for. That was their best case outcome. In reality, the jury would generally opt for something between the minimum and maximum, and so they got the big fines. Then they would appeal. Incredibly, the RIAA would then offer again to settle for a few thousand (total--not per song). And the defendant would refuse, get another trial, and get a jury that opted for even higher up on the damage scale. Oops. Basically, these defendants were either idiots, or they were taken advantage of by attorneys of questionable ethical judgement who put their desire to argue novel dubious copyright theories in court over the interests of their client.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Offering several thousand dollars for "several thousand songs" then ultimately only bringing up a couple dozen is complete crap. It is plain, if you can see through the legalese, what was going on. The RIAA was wielding the legal system and an asymmetric power relationship as a weapon.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - tzs 14y ago
    You have a person sharing a few thousand songs illegally. The RIAA offers to settle for a very reasonable amount--only a few dollars a song, which is far far below what it would normally cost to license a song to make available for free, unrestricted public redistribution. (And that is the correct license to compare to, not the $1 license that one purchases to download a song and use it privately). If the person does not accept and the RIAA sues, it would make little sense to sue over all the songs. For each song named, they have to ensure that certain formalities have been taken care of (such as copyright registration) have been taken care of for those songs, and make sure the necessary rights have been assigned to them, and they have to submit into evidence documentation that proves all of this. They also have to show that each song being shared is really the song they are suing over (as opposed to a misnamed file of some other song, for instance). Why go to all that effort, when suing over a dozen or two songs is sufficient to put the minimal damages at more than they have already indicated they are willing to accept to settle? I don't see how this is using the legal system "as a weapon". It's using it exactly how it is supposed to be used--someone violates their rights, they make a very reasonable offer to settle the matter out of court, the person refuses, and then they take the person to court.

wilfra 14y ago

I don't know but I'd be willing to settle with Round Table Pizza and AT&T Wireless for $100 per text and a promise that they will stop SMS spamming me.

arbuge 14y ago

I believe email spam is $16,000 per email now...

lostlogin 14y ago
Wish that went to me. Inbox overflowing.