Posted on 06/18/2009 6:29:59 PM PDT by dayglored
Wow, Gondring, we’ve butted heads before here in freeper land, but I gotta say GREAT POST. Nothing like citing the actual law...
Much appreciated.
FWIW, I originally requested back at comment #3, but maybe that one tripped and fell into the bit-bucket-in-the-sky somewhere along the line... ;-) Thanks!
I don't understand the legal basis for the fines that show up in these cases. They're beyond absurd.
Don't the record companies have to make some proof of damages? Isn't there some legal doctrine concerning reasonable actual and punitive damages?
The RIAA only fans flames of utter hatred for them and their clients with this kind of vicious, malicious lawsuits.
You are absolutely wrong about that. Judgments are made void in bankruptcy. the only exceptions are Child support, and IRS levies. All other judgments are dischargeable under chapter 7. It pretty much wipes the slate clean.
Sorry about that.
I hope they were good songs.
“I don’t understand the legal basis for the fines that show up in these cases. They’re beyond absurd.”
Statutory damages under the copyright law - posted above.
At the current pace of change in copyright law, nothing will ever enter the public domain again.
The original intent of the founders was to allow the creators of intellectual property to have an exclusive right to its earnings for a LIMITED time, after which that property was to enter the public domain where it could be used for derivative works that could themselves be copyrighted.
And I agree - the term is WAY too long.
One nit: The original term in the 1790 act was 28 years, or more accurately 14 yrs plus an optional 14 year extension. That seems reasonable enough. It really got ridiculous in the 1998 Act (nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act for obvious reasons).
Sucks to be her. I don't care about $80,000 per song. Statutory damages are there for a reason, and in many cases this amount, and more, is reasonable. But looking at the person, $80,000 is WAY more than they need to recoup potential losses and discourage further infringement. I hope this isn't used to lower statutory damages, but I wish they'd be applied more reasonably.
Her attorneys are working for free. They are part of a group that is against the RIAA. They advanced some strange theories, but I think the judge was against Thomas.
He let in MediaSentry's evidence on a technicality. Their actions were illegal under Minnesota's law, but since they were in another state he said that didn't apply. I think by investigating someone in a state by directly connecting to her computer you are automatically operating in that state. This case would have fallen apart without that evidence.
Sony WANTED $150,000 per song.
>>Or manslaughter...
Or bombing the Pentagon and pledging stateside support for the North Vietnamese military during a war.
Fined $80,000 per song. Sony wanted $150,000. Must’ve been a 2-for-Tuesday sale.
Sony and the other majors were caught price fixing. They paid an out of court settlement in millions to dozens of states. Of course, they paid out the debt in cutout crap to children’s music programs.
They aren’t innocent.
Two wrongs don’t make a right but they are corrupt as the Obama Administration’s tax cheats.
And the first person that every damn record label steals from is the artist who recorded the song.
Correct, it was to be like a patent. A limited term of exclusive (or licensed) use.
Now our nation’s cultural history is pwned by a few major corporations and the heirs see little if any return of their ancestors’ works.
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.