The Judge suggested the defense lawyers? Because they once represented her?

This is one weird trial.

Graduate student Joel Tenenbaum faces nearly a million dollars in possible fines after being sued by the RIAA.

Bankruptcy might be the cheapest option.

The parties are advised that any such recording without permission of the participants, as well as the broadcast of such communications, runs afoul of Mass. Gen. L. c. 272 § 99.

That law only prohibits "secretly" recording another. You do not need consent.

statutory damages of up to $150,000 per song

Really RIAA? Really?


/Now go fark yourselves

What I find interesting is the bit about the defense implying culpability but seeking to limit the amount demanded by RIAA.

I mean... $150,000 per song?

Being a total noob when it comes to the US legal system, I wonder what is the purpose of demanding so much money? I doesn't seem the guy has that kind of money to pay. What happens then? Farkers?

I see that headline, and all I can think of is, "Shaka, when the walls fell."

IP anonymizer + IP Filter + P2P encryption FTW!

/amateurs.

A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu: I doesn't seem the guy has that kind of money to pay. What happens then?

Fearful of bankruptcy, guy settles out of court for something still outrageous but not financially devastating -- maybe $20,000 total or so. RIAA doesn't have to risk a trial.

Or - Guy actually goes to trial, hopefully has a decent judge and/or lawyer, gets the case thrown out due to questionable RIAA tactics (pretending that an IP address uniquely identifies a person, overstating damages, employing unlicensed investigators, etc.)

$150,000 per song

That's the amount of punitive damages set by copyright law for intentional violations. The upper end of the range. The judge or jury can award less, and almost certainly will.

The ranges are:

Innocent (accidental) infringement - $200 to $30,000

Ordinary infringement - $750 to $30,000

Willful infringement - $750 to $150,000

The RIAA (or whoever) can always collect actual economic damages if they are proved. If you copy a Britney Spears CD and they prove that a million sales were lost as a result, you owe millions of dollars.

overstating damages

That doesn't matter here because they aren't trying to prove damages. Copyright law anticipates that actual damage is hard to prove in some copyright cases and sets the standard rates I posted above. You can prove that there was no loss and still have to pay.

ZAZ: The RIAA (or whoever) can always collect actual economic damages if they are proved. If you copy a Britney Spears CD and they prove that a million sales were lost as a result, you owe millions of dollars.

Is that net or gross?

Anything that screws over, f's up, fines, disables, restricts, or disbands the RIAA is a good thing in my book. fark those guys with a long, hard, serrated pole.

I gotta say, if I was in trouble, a Harvard law professor, with class in tow, seems like a good team to have on my side. I hope they learn something besides the true meaning of futility.

/I'd like to see the RIAA treated as a criminal organization.
//That may not be relevant to anything, but I still thought it.

This would be why Apple/RIAA/MPAA are in financial difficulties now. Much like Sony, instead of listening to their customers and giving them what they want (a way to download single songs to their computer that could be played anywhere instead of having to buy whole CD's), they just provide one thing and sue everyone who tries to do something different.

Sue your customer base, yes, that's the ticket to making money...

Its called peerguardian. GET IT.

I'd feel better about this lawsuit if it didn't seem from TFA that the prof and his students aren't entirely cognizant of all the applicable laws. I think asking to record all conversations is hilarious and must be done. But not knowing that they have to be present at each hearing? Ehhh. That looks like poor defense.

ZAZ: If you copy a Britney Spears CD and they prove that a million sales were lost as a result, you owe millions of dollars.
Zagloba: Is that net or gross?

Britney is gross.

I think the rule says the greater of net ill-gotten profits or net revenue lost, but I am not at all sure. If it's net, I don't know how the accounting works for distributing fixed costs. Getting the CDs printed and sent to market costs only a few dollars per unit, maybe only a dollar. So is the profit $8 per CD ($10 wholesale cost less $2 manufacturing and distribution)? Or is it $2 per CD after you figure some way to account for the millions in up front costs getting a major artist product ready to ship?

Whether or not he's guilty isn't the point of all the weirdness.

I applaud his efforts to:

1) Publicize the trial, as it will publicize the RIAA's semi-illegal tactics. Hopefully, this will increase public scrutiny of those a-holes.

2) Continuously burn billable hours for the RIAA's lawyers, potentially costing them more money than would be recovered in so-called "damages." I'm fairly sure the professor is using it as a teaching experience, and those law students will do an amazing job just for the experience and recommendation.

3) As a matter of principle, drag it out for as long as possible. Hopefully, it's possible to make the fight simply not worth fighting.

noobs

Jury Nullification

You, the jury, can stop this abomination in it's tracks every time it goes to trial.
http://www.fija.org/index.php?page=staticpage&id=1

Spread the word. Twitter away. Text whom you need to. The jury is still the most powerful hammer in our hands. Enumerated no less than three times in our Constitution. You The Jury can put an end to this.

PS - for law lurkers and RIAA sweeper teams, let me blunt. You screwed the pooch. This problem is of your making. When we had cassettes, your employers encouraged us to copy tapes of music we'd purchased. But with the advent of zero-cost digital transmission of music and entertainment NOW you want to close the barn door. Oops. That's a non-starter. Because if it was cool then, it's cool now. You don't get to go back and reinvent history. And we will be on your juries until you get tired of wasting money on trials. Bada-bing.

stoutde: This would be why Apple/RIAA/MPAA are in financial difficulties now. Much like Sony, instead of listening to their customers and giving them what they want (a way to download single songs to their computer that could be played anywhere instead of having to buy whole CD's), they just provide one thing and sue everyone who tries to do something different.

Sue your customer base, yes, that's the ticket to making money...

I wouldn't put Apple in this boat. They've been asking the record industries to end DRM since the iPod was invented.

The recording industry hates the iPod. They would have stopped it entirely if they could have.

The English Major: I see that headline, and all I can think of is, "Shaka, when the walls fell."

*grin*

I just watched that episode last month.

LasssiterBeRight

I, for one, would never vote to convict in a copyright trial. The RIAA and their ilk have been too evil, too long.

Burn in hell, you miserable bastards.

stoutde: This would be why Apple/RIAA/MPAA are in financial difficulties now.

Apple has $25B in the bank (new window). They could buy a bank if they wanted to.

The movie industry had a record year (new window) at the box office in 2008.

Looks as though the trial could go either way. Once it finally does there are miles of reasons for appeals.

squishy2: IP anonymizer + IP Filter + P2P encryption FTW!

/amateurs.

Eh? Download from a wifi hotspot. If you're lucky enough to have line of sight to one (say, living on a hill or something) you can often use a cantenna to get a connection from the comfort of your own home.

Not that I know anything about this.

/Has 7 ips beside the one granted by his ISP.
//Has been evil enough to channel bond them.
///Linux advanced IP routing kernel config option FTW!

One more time.....

Common sense dictates that the minute you introduce an Idea or a sound into the public that you risk having it digitally recorded and replayed in a venue out of your control.

This isn't like a particular brand of car which you manufacture at huge cost and sell in the open market to private people.

This is more like an inflatable car that you package in a very expensive clam shell case and then tell people that every time they drive it they have to send you a dollar.

It would bankrupt the law enforcement community to prosecute every instance of illegal use of a copyrighted work, so there is no sense in even trying.

Its like claiming possession of the air above your yard and then suing your neighbor because some of it drifted over there and he inhaled it.

Our solution has been to allow groups like the RIAA to 'MAKE EXAMPLES' of hundreds of people and essentially prosecute them into bankruptcy.

We would be better off as a society if performers only really controlled access to live performances and could block live performances or rebroadcasts for profit only.

Digital content is too difficult to protect, society at large should not be responsible for regulating its ownership.

If I stored my money in a cardboard box with my name on it out on my front lawn.....would you expect the police to care much when it disappeared? That is roughly the same as placing digital content on a cd rom and sending it out into the world of digital studio computers in every dorm room.

Oh and we would probably be better off if we just rounded up all the RIAA lawyers and owners and sent them to live in the Mumbai Slums for a year to see how the other half of the world really lives.

siromega: stoutde: This would be why Apple/RIAA/MPAA are in financial difficulties now.

Apple has $25B in the bank (new window). They could buy a bank if they wanted to.

The movie industry had a record year (new window) at the box office in 2008.

Then they should shut their farking yaps before people in real pain from the recession storm their mansions and hang them.

Give them (RIAA) hell

Every bad thing has a silver lining.

Possible silver lining of the present near-depression: copyright MAFIAA may collapse.

Fast Thick Pants Quote 2009-02-28 12:18:07 PM
A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu: I doesn't seem the guy has that kind of money to pay. What happens then?
Fearful of bankruptcy, guy settles out of court for something still outrageous but not financially devastating -- maybe $20,000 total or so. RIAA doesn't have to risk a trial.
Or - Guy actually goes to trial, hopefully has a decent judge and/or lawyer, gets the case thrown out due to questionable RIAA tactics (pretending that an IP address uniquely identifies a person, overstating damages, employing unlicensed investigators, etc.)

You are essentially correct on all points.
Usually, they offer to settle for (around) $2,300.00, which is less than most lawters charge to defend these cases.

/I represent defendants from these R.I.A.A. claims. ( I generally charge $1,500.00)
Just like most bullies, if you stand up to .RI.A.A., they will slink off, muttering continuing threats.
//Haven't lost a case to them yet!

dwade: Its called peerguardian. GET IT.

And exactly how is a port blocker going to stop people from logging your IP?

As squishy2 said above ANONYMIZE YOUR IP.

/and please don't give out bad advice.

A-Rth-Urp-Hil-Ipdenu: What I find interesting is the bit about the defense implying culpability but seeking to limit the amount demanded by RIAA.

I mean... $150,000 per song?

Being a total noob when it comes to the US legal system, I wonder what is the purpose of demanding so much money? I doesn't seem the guy has that kind of money to pay. What happens then? Farkers?

The purpose of high statutory fines is to punish and discourage commercial infringers without the copyright holder having to prove actual damages song by song, case by case. I believe there is a 7th circuit case that held file sharing is commercial because [they assume] if people download it for free they won't buy it [there is also some sort of assumption that people would have bought all the songs the down load for free if there was no Internet]. Since there is some sort of effect on the market, free file sharing has been considered "commercial" n at least one case and the RIAA ran with that.

Personally, I think treating non for profit sharing of copyrighted works the same as commercial for profit infringers violates the intent and purpose of the limited monopoly grants we call a copyright. I agree with the defense that applying such high statutory fines to non profit infringers seems so disproportionately punitive for the wrong done that it should be stricken as unconstitutional if applied in the way that the RIAA and 7th circuit have applied it. There are many studies showing the RIAA's claims about lost sales due to file sharing are wrong (or at least grossly exaggerated), so maybe the experts can battle that out. From a reasonable person standpoint, illegal file sharing seems a lot like shoplifting, and the fines and penalties should be similar and not so extreme. At the very least, if someone goes after non profit infringers for more than $3,000 total (the average RIAA settlement amount) the plaintiff should have to prove actual damages in each case. Otherwise the statute just stands to keep people without money from defending themselves in court, and they accept the settlement terms because they cannot afford the fight and potential loss if their reasonable defense fails. It's a sad statement about our values as a country if our laws and legal system makes it cheaper to commit manslaughter or rape than to share copyrighted materials over the Internet.

BTW I think if a defendant can't pay the damages when a court finds for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may pursue freezing the defendant's assets and garnishing wages. Sort of an incentive to quit your job and go on welfare.

Zagloba: ZAZ: The RIAA (or whoever) can always collect actual economic damages if they are proved. If you copy a Britney Spears CD and they prove that a million sales were lost as a result, you owe millions of dollars.

Is that net or gross?

There are no distribution costs associated with digital content if it's done through a third party, so they're honestly probably pretty close to the same number.

//In actuality, not as reported to the IRS. Record labels are hollywood types, costs are likely always magically high enough to make them more or less untaxable.

Isn't the "then it gets weird" meme supposed to go "[something really weird] and then it get weird"? what's weird about a bunch of lawyers representing someone against the RIAA?

RIAA wants two things - precedent after precedent, and positive perception. But, given their cause, these two concepts are mutually exclusive. Add a third element that they're used to having their way 99% of the time, and they'll get annoyed when it looks like any of those three are not going the way they'd like.

/Nothing wrong with an RIAA - free country
//Plenty wrong with the way they operate

Aunt Crabby: BTW I think if a defendant can't pay the damages when a court finds for the plaintiff, the plaintiff may pursue freezing the defendant's assets and garnishing wages. Sort of an incentive to quit your job and go on welfare.

That, or get all shooty. I'm actually kind of surprised nobody has yet.

voyvf:
/Has 7 ips beside the one granted by his ISP.
//Has been evil enough to channel bond them.
///Linux advanced IP routing kernel config option FTW!


*NEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRDDDDD*

/off Ogre

Sorry man, sounds damn cool however the hell you do that.

So many posts in and no one farker to troll for the RIAA?

Alright, I'll give it a go...

Those kids are stealing someones elses INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. They desvere to be punished for it, now Lars has to wait a few weeks before he can get his diamond encrusted gold topped dolphin bar by the side of his Olympic swimming pool.

These artists and producers make the big bucks because they have TALENT, and they don't deserve to be stolen from.

/I tried....didn't give my best effort...I'll do better next time if the situation arises again

Setting aside the whole fark-the-RIAA aspect of this (and seriously, fark the RIAA) I think submitter's point was that for a Harvard Law professor backed up by a team of amphetamine-fueled Harvard Law 3Ls, he's really blundering his way through basic courtroom procedures.

What a shoddy operation this Harvard Law must be. I'm glad they rejected my application ten years ago.

/srsly
//off to go put cover pages on my TPS reports
///mostly srsly

senseiturtle: Continuously burn billable hours for the RIAA's lawyers, potentially costing them more money than would be recovered in so-called "damages."

Copyright law is designed to prevent that tactic. Those billable hours you spend winning a copyright case get billed to the loser. If RIAA wins Mr. Infringer will owe six figures in legal bills. If RIAA loses they will owe the lawyer's costs of... oh, pro bono? Oh well. Maybe they won't owe.

Maybe they can't get blood from a stone, but they'll sure enough have a piece of paper saying they come out ahead if they win.

LasssiterBeRight: Jury Nullification

We already saw that doesn't work -- in the case of poor innocent confused woman vs. big bad corporation the jury sided with the "bad guys." The jury found, correctly in my opinion, that poor innocent defendant was guilty as hell of making files available for copying. The case is headed for retrial, last I heard, because the judge now thinks plaintiffs have to prove that somebody did actually copy.

ZAZ: We already saw that doesn't work -- in the case of poor innocent confused woman vs. big bad corporation the jury sided with the "bad guys." The jury found, correctly in my opinion, that poor innocent defendant was guilty as hell of making files available for copying. The case is headed for retrial, last I heard, because the judge now thinks plaintiffs have to prove that somebody did actually copy.

In my understanding, guilt or innocence plays no role in jury nullification. It is a method of ignoring what the law says should happen because the jury finds that the law itself is flawed in some way and should not be enforced. Is that incorrect?

Convincing the jury that the law should be ignored is another matter entirely. Wonder if your defense can consist of "The law is shiat and the jury should nullify."

I know the case you refer. I appreciate your mentioning it, because Jury Nullification means people on the jury being informed. Most citizens are not informed and can be led around by the nose. Federal judges even try to stop a "fully informed jury" by ... you guessed it ... withholding information, and even threatening a jury that doesn't return a 'correct' verdict.

The first step in a fully informed jury pool is to Twitter, text, post, web-cast, email and in every other manner get the word out and get people 'fully informed'. Then, when in the jury pool Keep Your Biscuit Trap Shut. If you start broadcasting your intentions you violate the first rule of Fight Club. This is legal-guerilla work, amigos. You must be informed, and you must be cool about it. If you never "say" it, you never have to explain it. If you never "say" it., you never have to take it back. Be quiet, be subversive, be a stake in the heart of the RIAA. Beat them at their game.

stoutde: This would be why Apple/RIAA/MPAA are in financial difficulties now. Much like Sony, instead of listening to their customers and giving them what they want (a way to download single songs to their computer that could be played anywhere instead of having to buy whole CD's), they just provide one thing and sue everyone who tries to do something different.

Sue your customer base, yes, that's the ticket to making money...

I doubt this guy was buying anything. I think that's kind of the point...

LasssiterBeRight: I know the case you refer. I appreciate your mentioning it, because Jury Nullification means people on the jury being informed. Most citizens are not informed and can be led around by the nose. Federal judges even try to stop a "fully informed jury" by ... you guessed it ... withholding information, and even threatening a jury that doesn't return a 'correct' verdict.
The first step in a fully informed jury pool is to Twitter, text, post, web-cast, email and in every other manner get the word out and get people 'fully informed'. Then, when in the jury pool Keep Your Biscuit Trap Shut. If you start broadcasting your intentions you violate the first rule of Fight Club. This is legal-guerilla work, amigos. You must be informed, and you must be cool about it. If you never "say" it, you never have to explain it. If you never "say" it., you never have to take it back. Be quiet, be subversive, be a stake in the heart of the RIAA. Beat them at their game.

* CITATION NEEDED *

The_EliteOne: So many posts in and no one farker to troll for the RIAA?

Alright, I'll give it a go...

Those kids are stealing someones elses INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. They desvere to be punished for it, now Lars has to wait a few weeks before he can get his diamond encrusted gold topped dolphin bar by the side of his Olympic swimming pool.

These artists and producers make the big bucks because they have TALENT, and they don't deserve to be stolen from.

/I tried....didn't give my best effort...I'll do better next time if the situation arises again

I'll give you a 2/10 for including both Lars and a dolphin in the same sentence.

Last of the Crazy People: peerguardian

It IS called Peer Guardian. You SHOULD get it. And also anon yourself. And run good firewalls. And use proxies, etc.

With Peer Guardian, "they" can never connect. "They" can never prove you did it because "they" cannot observe any actual data transmission.

But the other items I mentioned are also important.

/former Prof. CompSci.
//also adviser to FBI on Comp Sec.
///also expert witness in court cases. Have seen PG foil attempts to collect money.
////flame on.

Dictatorial_Flair

In the broadest sense, jury nullification is the power of the jury to follow their feelings whatever the law says. In most states you aren't allowed to suggest to the jury that they disregard the law.

A provision of the Maryland constitution had been thought to expressly permit jury nullification -- but it may be dead now because federal judges don't like it and will throw out any conviction in a case where the jury was told about the state constitution.

In the copying case I mentioned, the jurors did not think "I must fight for the individual against the evil corporation." They followed the law as explained to them.

I thought Sir USCLaw2010 would be all over this by now.

Zagloba: ZAZ: The RIAA (or whoever) can always collect actual economic damages if they are proved. If you copy a Britney Spears CD and they prove that a million sales were lost as a result, you owe millions of dollars.

Is that net or gross?

Its britney, so i would go with gross.

ZAZ: Dictatorial_Flair

In the broadest sense, jury nullification is the power of the jury to follow their feelings whatever the law says. In most states you aren't allowed to suggest to the jury that they disregard the law.

A provision of the Maryland constitution had been thought to expressly permit jury nullification -- but it may be dead now because federal judges don't like it and will throw out any conviction in a case where the jury was told about the state constitution.

In the copying case I mentioned, the jurors did not think "I must fight for the individual against the evil corporation." They followed the law as explained to them.

So federal judges are afraid of not having absolute control over what juries do. Figures. Why even have juries if they're just there as a prop to help the government go through the motions of convicting people? It may be total bull, but I was perusing a site about jury nullification that mentioned people being held in contempt of court for attempting to educate people on their power of juror nullification.

I think people failing to question whether laws are useful, good, or make sense is a lot of what got us where we are today.