Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless

As every federal judge must be painfully aware by now, an estimated 30,000 ordinary people2 have been sued during the past four years in U.S. district courts by the world’s four largest record companies, EMI, SONY BMG, Warner Brothers Records, and Vivendi/Universal, or their affiliates. The suits have been brought for alleged infringement of sound recording copyrights. Although these companies are represented by a trade association, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), none of the hundreds of other members of this association has participated in the litigation campaign. The large majority of the defendants have defaulted, and the default judgments against them have been in amounts that represent more than 2,000 times the actual damages sustained by the plaintiffs.3

Of those remaining, most have paid settlement amounts that exceed 1,000 times the plaintiffs’ actual damages, and a great number of the settling defendants—perhaps most of them— are people who did not actually engage in file sharing, let alone copyright infringement through file sharing, and against whom no legally cognizable claim for secondary infringement could be mounted. However, they are settling because the alternative—protracted, costly federal litigation—is not possible for them.

As to the handful of defendants who have neither defaulted nor settled, most are pro se. Only a very few have had any form of legal representation. And in those instances where there has been representation, the attorneys are usually working pro bono, or on a basis closely resembling it, sometimes as a favor and sometimes even involuntarily.4

The courts of other countries—notably the Netherlands and Canada—are not clogged with these cases for the simple reason that they were quick to recognize the paucity of the RIAA’s evidence and refused to permit the identities of Internet subscribers to be disclosed to the record companies.5

"The courts of other countries—notably the Netherlands and Canada—are not clogged with these cases for the simple reason that they were quick to recognize the paucity of the RIAA’s evidence and refused to permit the identities of Internet subscribers to be disclosed to the record companies."

What Canada did was tack on a tax of some sort to recordable media such as cd's in which recording artists share in the pool. Canadians as far as I know can still file share within Canada. I don't know if this has been changed recently or not.

Nobody complains when judgments against big companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc. exceed actual damages. Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot, huh?

At least the big companies have Legal Departments and law firms, and can make a defense.

What the RIAA members did was to create another litigation industry, but selected defendents and award levels where defense was not worthwhile or possible. 30,000 lawsuits at a settlement of $3000 to Make It Go Away has created a $90,000,000 cash cow.

It used to be called abuse of Process.

Right; and those big companies, doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc., pass those costs onto the consumer. The RIAA is not going after big companies. They are going after you, in your own home, downloading music for your own personal use.

You are neither buying it nor selling it. You likely would not buy it if it were not available through this means. Or, you will buy it anyway. There is no actual loss of revenue through file sharing. It is strictly conjecture on the part of the RIAA that if you were not file sharing you would be rushing to buy the CD. The opposite is more the case.

No, the RIAA and all its predecessors had the opportunity to stop this when the very first wire recorder was made. They had another big opportunity when the post WWII military was coming home from overseas duties with high end stereo systems and every conceivable recording tool. They made a half-hearted try when the digital tape recorder was developed and began commercial sales. The DAT was quickly overshadowed by the Compact Disc so the “problem” went into hybernation.

They failed to aggessively protect their copyrights because they “thought” it was too isolated to be an issue. Then along comes the computer and broadband and its a whole new ball game.

Stealing is stealing but is must be measured in the actual harm done. File sharing is not denial of use or access. I pay for the CD and the music on the CD. That music on that CD is mine. I paid for it. I share it everytime I play the CD and friends are over. I just can’t make copies and sell it as my own personal property.

In reality, though, by failing to aggressively protect their copyright over the history of the recording industry, the recording industry gave tacit approval to and was complicit in the “sharing” process. To change the “rules” now because they want to blame file sharing for loss of revenue when in fact it is because they have an abysmal product is simply wrong. To go after the public who do not have the financial means to adequately defend themselves is extorsion. It should be investigated under RICO.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.