LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
What Should the RIAA Sue For?
Posted by Ernest Miller on Friday, September 12 @ 10:59:12 EDT File Sharing
Many people are saying that the RIAA shouldn't be suing grandfathers and 12-year olds for filesharing. Fine. But unless you advocate eliminating copyright altogether, we are still going to have copyright law. If we still have copyright law, it is going to have to be enforced. Enforcement can be either public (the government) or private (corporations and individuals suing). If we know what can be enforced we will know the limits of the law and can decide whether that is a good idea or not.

So my question is, for everyone who opposes the RIAA lawsuits and still thinks there should be copyright law, what should the RIAA be permitted to sue for? Perhaps the RIAA should only be permitted to sue if the recording industry lowers its prices and anyone who doesn't pay the lower prices can be sued. Perhaps the RIAA should only be permitted to sue people over the age of 18. Perhaps the RIAA should only be permitted to sue people who demonstrate a requisite knowledge of copyright law. Perhaps the RIAA should be permitted to sue, but only for small amounts of money, like $0.99 per track. Perhaps the RIAA can sue along the lines of a combination of the above. Perhaps the RIAA shouldn't be permitted to sue, and only the government can enforce the law.

It is easy to say you are against the current lawsuits. What lawsuits are you for?

 
Related Links
· More about File Sharing
· News by Ernest Miller


Most read story about File Sharing:
Compulsory Licensing - The Death of Gnutella and the Triumph of Google

Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, September 12 @ 12:08:37 EDT
You ask lots of questions.
1) I generally agree that the RIAA has the right to sue. Where I disagree is the way DMCA lets them discover ip addresses simply by assertion, without presenting their evidence to a court; this seems like private law enforcement to me. And the damages are excessive as well, although your 99 cent suggestion would trivialize the offense.
2) The choice of targets up to them. I think suing grandfathers is stupid but it's their choice and I hope it boomerangs on them.
3) Tieing their right to sue to what they charge is a really really bad idea.

In general, I believe law enforcement needs to be left to the government.

I can only hope that this controversy will lead to a more sensible balance between copyright owners and users, and one that doesn't constrain innovations to suit the interests of the current cartel.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, September 12 @ 15:10:42 EDT
I believe the RIAA has a right to sue, and I'm glad they are doing it. I also believe that the current penalties are much too high, and these suits will cause public pressure to change them. And don't forget that the RIAA has paid-suaded Rep Berman into introducing a law that will also make these same actions a felony punishable by up to 5 years (has the guy any sense of proportion, or any shame?).

I believe once the public wakes up to what is going on, they will not be satisfied with anything more punitive than an infraction (such as a speeding ticket). The only tragedy that might occur is if we shift into today's guilty-until-proven-innocent traffic court system. I'm of course talking about non-commercial infringement; I think there will be still be support for stiff penalties true pirates and counterfeiters.

I also believe that the DMCA subpoenas are too easy to misuse, and it will either take law changes or some very strict after-the-fact penalties to curb abuse.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Friday, September 12 @ 17:56:32 EDT
Wait a second... You're missing something. What if copyright is valid, but the RIAA simply decides, instead of suing, to come up with a legitimate business model?

Just because you can sue, doesn't mean you should sue.

Just because copyright law is in place doesn't mean the wisest business decision is to go after those who infringe. There's plenty of evidence that encouraging "copyright infringement" can open up a much wider market for a company (some say Microsoft became a monopoly this way...).

Anyway, there are business models for the music industry that actually encourage the dissemination of intellectual property for free. Here's one that I wrote up:

http://www.techdirt.com/fotr/20030912/1032238_F.shtml [www.techdirt.com]

Mike
Techdirt [www.techdirt.com]


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 1)
by Ernest_Miller on Friday, September 12 @ 21:02:33 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.corante.com/importance/
Matthew Morse of Matt Rolls a Hoover [mattrolls.blogspot.com] responds to this question ( Ernest Miller asks a really good question [mattrolls.blogspot.com]). Matt proposes that the maximum penalty for sharing any particular song be $5. He acknowledges that, at this rate, it would not be economical for the RIAA to enforce its members copyrights.
But that is precisely the problem. If you cannot enforce copyright, you might as well not have copyright. If, as Matt suggests, the record companies should sell "music online at reasonable prices and terms" what happens to those who still think music should be free? To keep them from eventually ruining the system they have to be dissuaded. The usual means of doing so would be to sue them. However, it would be uneconomical to sue them under Matt's plan. Creates a bit of a conundrum.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 1)
by BamaTalker on Friday, September 12 @ 21:51:54 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
To me the idea of copyright protection lasting but more than a year or two seems to be at odds with the aim of accelerating the creation of additional works (maximizing profits notwithstanding.) To the contrary one could produce a substantial drag on the creative process particularly using a cross licensing scheme and even bring the entire creative process to a grinding halt through threatened litigation if one were able to achieve a significant gatekeeper status. Imagine the nightmare Beethoven, Bach, Chopin or Mozart would have had if they had to either pay fees to everyone from whom they borrowed or to a single individual holding the vast majority of copyrights of all known works of the time (if copyrights had existed at the time.) Compound this situation with not having to show the copyrighted (infringed) work (in effect asking the alleged infringer to proving a negative?) before bringing suite claiming some maner of trade secret (after all someone might get "ideas" if they see the work too closely.) It's not too difficult to imagine a pre-Gutenberg era where using secure marketing channels, copyright and patent protections, access protection and threats of litigation a few could control the development, acquisiton and distribution of substantial amounts of knowledge. It would be a "brave new world" indeed.

Having said all that I think the RIAA should be precluded from monetary damages mainly because they are an intermediary and the monies they potentially could receive as a result of litigation are not likely to reach the authors of the works they claim are infringed and which they supposidly are protecting. Here I'm acknowledging that the copyright holder is not necessarily, in fact not likely to be, the author of the work but rather the publisher or some such who gets his take befor anything ever reaches the author. I could be much more sympathetic to the RIAA if all or even most of the money would go to the authors of the copyrighted works. Compensation to the RIAA should be limited to actual costs of litigation. That would remove the profit motive for the RIAA and make their efforts more believable.



[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Saturday, September 13 @ 18:03:17 EDT
They should be able to sue when someone PROFITS from a copyright infringement. If someone purchases a CD, DVD, etc., and then allows someone else to copy it FOR FREE, no action should be allowed.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Sunday, September 14 @ 22:33:23 EDT
Sue people who willfully remove their copyright notice. Oh yeah, Congress saw fit to remove the copyright notice requirement.

Gee... Now there's no way to tell free speech from copyright. Screw the RIAA. Give me back my right to speak and be heard by willing listeners.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, September 15 @ 09:23:58 EDT
I believe that the RIAA is suing exactly the right people [www.nypost.com]. They are protecting their legal rights. I also think that doing so will create a public backlash which just might destroy the RIAA or at least shoot their cash cow. The backlash might come in the form of new legislation, or simply people staying away from record stores and using ever-more-difficult-to-pierce anonyminity to trade music online. And I'll be pleased when they're gone. I've never understood why RECORD COMPANIES should own the copyrights on music, rather than MUSICIANS. Obviously, the contracts are completely legal. But that doesn't mean that they're good, either for the musicians themselves or for society as a whole. -- Michael Chermside


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, September 17 @ 20:45:44 EDT
The RIAA should sue us for being good capitalists.
the system works.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Tuesday, September 23 @ 06:13:41 EDT
They should only be able to sue if they can demonstrate either that the person they are suing made money from their products without permission, i.e. professional counterfeiters, or that the individual would have purchased the product in the first place (current suits are based on the completely erroneous assumption that people would buy if it weren't available for free).

The professionals should face criminal charges as well as fines and payment of their profits to the artists. Individuals should be restricted to paying the original purchase price plus legal costs; however the industry can very cheaply inform an individual that they believe they are infringing giving them the chance to pay upfront and avoid any legal costs.

Furthermore they should lose all rights to sue if they are not currently publishing the material, i.e. all that stuff they hold in their archives and refuse to release should be considered unprotected. Also failure to publish for a certain period should automatically restore the ownership to the musician, and if the musician fails to release the material for a similar period then it goes into the public domain permanently. This limit should be around 12, maybe at most 24 months. This should apply to all media - use it or lose it.

Copyright needs to be drastically shortened - no-one has the right to expect a single work to support them for their entire lives, never mind their heirs. The original maximum of 28 years is more than sufficient.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Monday, September 29 @ 20:08:22 EDT
First comment: The RIAA is a trade organization that represents major record companies and a few large independents. Although I've laid my eyes on any of the subpeonas or petitions, I would suspect that RIAA is more of a mouthpiece than a plaintiff -- the RIAA doesn't actually own the copyrights that are alleged to have been infringed.

What should they sue for? How about unfair competition? Tortious interference in the business relationship between the Artist and Label? Fencing stolen property? There are lots of other possible bones of contention here, and that's just before the point where the music publisher who has been granted the right to publish the song by its writer gets involved.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 1)
by whoozhe on Wednesday, October 01 @ 05:03:20 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message)
I may not be against RIAA lawsuits but maybe broadcasters should reverse the trend and charge the record companies an advertising fee for every play. After all without broadcasting CD sales would hardly exist.
Extend this to P2P and just how many downloads have lead to an actual purchase of a CD. Maybe Kazaa can also charge for promoting music.
Would be nice to see the tables turned.


[ Reply to This ]


Re: What Should the RIAA Sue For? (Score: 0)
by Anonymous on Wednesday, October 01 @ 13:58:56 EDT
All they can get!!! As a member of a Township Juvenile Conference Committee, by far the greatest number of cases sent to us by our County Court pertain to shoplifting. I equate song downloading to shoplifting and am familiar with the cost of shoplifting to the merchants of this country. Years back, in the days of singles it was compararetely inexpexsive to buy a song you liked, Today, though, most CDs have one or two tracks worth anything. The rest is filled with stuff not worth the price being asked. So, in a way the record industry brought this on themselves but it is still not legal. What to do; sorry but my name is not Solomon.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die

Contributors retain copyright interests in all stories, comments and submissions.
The PHP-Nuke engine on which LawMeme runs is copyright by PHP-Nuke, and is freely available under the GNU GPL.
Everything else is copyright copyright 2002-04 by the Information Society Project.

This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions
set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later.
The latest version is currently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/.

You can syndicate our news with backend.php



Page Generation: 0.256 Seconds