Go ahead and read this court transcript. It’s a 35-page PDF of the London-Sire Records. Does 1-4 copyright infringement case. It’s the same song and dance you’re all familiar with: RIAA catches someone downloading a song, which entitles it to thousands upon thousands of dollars in remuneration. Only this time, the presiding judge, Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, actually recognizes the complete absurdity of suing these people so much money for downloading music. Some highlights:
• “There’s a huge imbalance in these cases. The record companies are represented by large law firms with substantial resources. The law is also overwhelmingly on their side.”
• “I can’t say this is a situation that is a goof situation or a fair situation, it is , however, the situation.”
• “You know, it seems to me that counsel representing the record companies have an ethical obligation to fully understand that are fighting people without lawyers, to fully understand that, more than just how do we serve them, but just to understand that the formalities of this are basically bankrupting people, and that it’s terribly critical that you stop it…”
• “…that it was his son who did the downloading and his son has no assets, you’re getting water from a stone. What are you pursuing here?”
The whole thing is pretty tremendous.
Here’s what I don’t understand about all of this. Let’s say the RIAA catches me downloading a song. All of a sudden I owe them several thousand dollars for copyright infringement, right? Now, let’s say I walk into Best Buy and physically steal a copy of an album. Do I owe the RIAA thousands of dollars in that scenario? Because if copyright infringement=theft and theft=small fine, why is the RIAA suing these people for thousands of dollars? How does that make sense?
via Slashdot
So what if you download the file, but do not share the file. Is it copyright or theft ?
@brian
-you just downloaded file without knowing what copyright status it has, the same as listening radio or anything else related to arts. in general noone can be punished for that.
Walking into a store and stealing a CD violates a criminal statute. That is to say, the State prosecutes you, not a private citizen. (Although, Best Buy could, in theory, sue you under various civil theories.)
What the RIAA is bringing against these defendants are civil causes of actions. Hence, the RIAA versus the defendants. There are no State actors involved.
The RIAA is suing these defendants and seeking the civil remedies allowed to them by statutes. In this case-copyright laws and such.
So, while the penalty for stealing a CD may be 30 days off community service and $200 in court costs, the penalties for being found liable in violating copyright laws are quite a bit more.
“Only this time, the presiding judge, Nancy Gertner of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, actually recognizes the complete absurdity of suing these people so much money for downloading music.”
No, that isn’t what she realizes.
Actually, this judge is bending over backwards to make sure that the defendants understand what problems they might encounter if the defendants don’t get involved in the case.
Most judges hate to render a “default judgement” on anyone. So this judge is trying to get all the defendants to show up in court, negotiate with the RIAA, hire lawyers – do something, but don’t let the record companies just get a default judgment just because you ignored everything and didn’t show up to court.
In fact, at one point she says something like, and I’m not trying to make an exact quote here…”I’m open to any new novel defense, just be aware that it isn’t likely to be successful.”
I think this is my longest post ever on CG. Those that were bored can rest assured that it will never happen again.
Totally different situations. Stealing a cd from a B&M is theft of a legally produced copy of the material, hence “theft”. Downloading via bt is making an illegal copy of the material (and most likely an illegal copy of an illegal copy) hence “copyright infringement”.
The harm caused by downloading copyrighted material is similar to the harm caused by stealing a CD with copyrighted material and ripping it to your hard drive. Not very much harm. It would cost the record companies a lot more if they had to sue everyone who downloads copyrighted material for small amounts. Likewise it would cost a lot for the police to charge hundreds of thousands of people with copyright infringement. Thus, in true American style, a small group of unfortunate individuals are made examples of. This is not the purpose of our legal system. We should be very critical.
It seems that the record companies want us to think of copyright infringement as stealing. That’s certainly the idea they are trying to foist on the masses. Legally, as you said, copyright infringement is very different from stealing. Therefore, record companies should be criticized for their propaganda (as well as their unethical legal strategy).
Often when there is a blog post like this, some know-it-all (seriously, not you Alex, you made a good point) comes along and tries to educate people about how downloading copyrighted material illegally is bad, unethical, etc. Everyone understands this logic. There is nothing really difficult about it.
Comparing downloading a file of a song to listening to that song on the radio is absurd. Downloading a file is making an illegal copy of the material. Comparing that to remembering a song you hear on the radio is the funniest thing I’ve ever heard. Is that you Johnnie Cochran.
Making an un-authorized copy of the material isn’t illegal. Unless bound by another contract (such as a EULA) copyright law allows a person to make copies of a work for their own use. Where things become illegal is when you distribute un-authorized copies to other people. What this means is the penalty of law is entirely on in the court of the person offering the copy.
The radio example is a valid one, except for the memorize part. The responsibility in the eyes of the law is on the distributor to ensure legality of distribution (or broadcast which under copyright law is seen as the same). Should you be held responsible for receiving a signal of a pirate radio station?