Harvard Prof strikes back at RIAA

madanthonywayne

Morning in America
Registered Senior Member
Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law Professor has jumped in to defend a guy charged with pirating 7 songs. He intends to challenge the constitutionality of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999. While I support intellectual property rights, I don't support the tactics being used to enforce the law. Look at the guy in this law suit. He downloaded 7 songs and offered to settle out of court for $500. I'd say $500 for 7 songs is a pretty good deal. But the music industry wants $12,000. You hear stories of little old ladies being sued because their grandchild downloaded a song, or the woman ordered to pay $220,000 for downloading 24 songs. WTF? Anyway, here's the story:
BOSTON (AP) - The music industry's courtroom campaign against people who share songs online is coming under counterattack.

A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defense of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group - the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA - carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law. He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court.

Nesson, the founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal is to "turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency."

Nesson is best known for defending the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and for consulting on the case against chemical companies that was depicted in the film "A Civil Action." His challenge against the music labels, made in U.S. District Court in Boston, is one of the most determined attempts to derail the industry's flurry of litigation.

The initiative has generated more than 30,000 complaints against people accused of sharing songs online. Only one case has gone to trial; nearly everyone else settled out of court to avoid damages and limit the attorney fees and legal costs that escalate over time.

Nesson intervened after a federal judge in Boston asked his office to represent Joel Tenenbaum, who was among dozens of people who appeared in court in RIAA cases without legal help.

The 24-year-old Tenenbaum is a graduate student accused by the RIAA of downloading at least seven songs and making 816 music files available for distribution on the Kazaa file-sharing network in 2004. He offered to settle the case for $500, but music companies rejected that, demanding $12,000.

The Digital Theft Deterrence Act, the law at issue in the case, sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. That means Tenenbaum could be forced to pay $1 million if it is determined that his alleged actions were willful.

The music industry group isn't conceding any ground to Nesson and Tenenbaum. The RIAA has said in court documents that its efforts to enforce the copyright law is protected under the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress of grievances. Tenenbaum also failed, the music group noted, to notify the U.S. Attorney General that that he wanted to contest the law's constitutional status.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said her group's pursuit of people suspected of music piracy is a fair response to the industry's multibillion-dollar losses since peer-to-peer networks began making it easy for people to share massive numbers of songs online.

"What should be clear is that illegally downloading and distributing music comes with many risks and is not an anonymous activity," Duckworth said.

Still, wider questions persist on whether the underlying copyright law is constitutional, said Ray Beckerman, a Forest Hills, N.Y.-based attorney who has represented other downloading defendants and runs a blog tracking the most prominent cases.

One federal judge has held that the constitutional question is "a serious argument," Beckerman said. "There are two law review articles that have said that it is unconstitutional, and there are three cases that said that it might be unconstitutional."

In September, a federal judge granted a new trial to a Minnesota woman who had been ordered to pay $220,000 for pirating 24 songs. In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis called on Congress to change copyright laws to prevent excessive awards in similar cases. He wrote that he didn't discount the industry's claim that illegal downloading has hurt the recording business, but called the award "wholly disproportionate" to the industry's losses.

In the Boston case, Nesson is due to meet attorneys for the music industry for a pretrial conference on Tuesday, ahead of a trial set for Dec. 1......... read the rest: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081117/D94GM61G1.html
 
One should be required to accept the consequences of his own illegal actions.
A reduced sentence or even settling out of court is just going to encourage others to violate that same law. At some point, this issue has to be settled decisively ...perhaps now is the time.

People simply should NOT be permitted to take the law into their own hands.

Baron Max
 
Charles Nesson, a Harvard Law Professor has jumped in to defend a guy charged with pirating 7 songs. He intends to challenge the constitutionality of the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999. While I support intellectual property rights, I don't support the tactics being used to enforce the law. Look at the guy in this law suit. He downloaded 7 songs and offered to settle out of court for $500. I'd say $500 for 7 songs is a pretty good deal. But the music industry wants $12,000. You hear stories of little old ladies being sued because their grandchild downloaded a song, or the woman ordered to pay $220,000 for downloading 24 songs. WTF? Anyway, here's the story:
Hey,
we agree on something. It is ridiculous. Seven songs is a hell of a lot less 'information' and work than goes into a couple of volumes of The Encyclopedia Brittanica I loaned to someone. Let alone all the books I have given away after a read, the cassette tapes I once made for friends, etc.

500 was more than fair.
 
Hey, we agree on something. It is ridiculous. Seven songs is a hell of a lot less 'information' and work than goes into a couple of volumes of The Encyclopedia Brittanica I loaned to someone. Let alone all the books I have given away after a read, the cassette tapes I once made for friends, etc.

Basically you're making a case for stealing songs ...if you can get away with it. But, even if you're caught, then the fine should be low so it doesn't harm the criminals!

If someone robs you, but only takes $5 from your wallet when you had several hundred dollars, should he get away with robbery? ...jsut because he didn't take all of it?

Baron Max
 
Basically you're making a case for stealing songs ...if you can get away with it. But, even if you're caught, then the fine should be low so it doesn't harm the criminals!

If someone robs you, but only takes $5 from your wallet when you had several hundred dollars, should he get away with robbery? ...jsut because he didn't take all of it?

Baron Max
It seems you did not read my post. 500 hundred dollars is more than fair.

I think 12,ooo is too much. We could work out some income based sliding scale. But that doesn't happen much in the states.
 
$12,000 for seven songs he probably went out and bought later on CD anyways? Ridiculous.

The music industry does not seem to understand that they are the cuase of their own losses. Crappy records overloaded with features and overpriced in the extreme. Not to mentio a flooded market where there are just too many sounds to sort through. I know people who use P2P to shop for new music and then go out and buy the CD's. If the music inductry was smart they would just oofer midgrade recording for free, or with the purchase of each CD allow you to browse a few dozen of their songs. They would see their losses slow and actually level out to where their business whould be in todays economy.
 
SA, you know at one point there was talk of making it illegal to lend someone a book. The goverment rejected the notion however and at the time said the ability to share books and other art and entertainment is one of the great things about our culture. Its interesting that this has never been passed into the record industry.
 
SA, you know at one point there was talk of making it illegal to lend someone a book. The goverment rejected the notion however and at the time said the ability to share books and other art and entertainment is one of the great things about our culture. Its interesting that this has never been passed into the record industry.
Interesting.

I don't think the issue is an easy one. I don't like the government and industry urges to overkill. I do want the artists to make money and administrators to make money, though the latter less. It is easy now to give someone a permanent NEW product digitally. Record companies treat most of their 'clients' like shit and suck them dry, try to make them fit in square holes and keep most of their money. It was not the companies' intellects at the root of the creative property.

These companies did not lower prices when they shifted from analogue to much cheaper digital. I spit in their general direction.
 
imagin if they did take it to the logical extention. We would be require to have one copy of every book you own for ever person in the household. So for instance that would have been 6 copies of harry potter when my family were all still living under mum and dads roof. Compleatly stupid, unenforcable and againt the cultural norms. Just not going to happen. I have always been facinated that libaries can run on such comparitivly low budgets where as record companies cry poor, it just makes no logical sence
 
It definitely seems like they should focus on those making money off the copying.

I think possession should be legal.
 
People should make a point of ceasing to use the services of a recording industry that treats its best customers this way. They are offending the people who buy the most albums and motivating them to become the people who never pay for albums.

Here's a legal way to download that should work for most people: Put a TV card in the computer that has an FM band on it and record that audio.
 
One should be required to accept the consequences of his own illegal actions.

And yet you are still free instead of behind bars for illegally driving while drunk.

A reduced sentence or even settling out of court is just going to encourage others to violate that same law. At some point, this issue has to be settled decisively ...perhaps now is the time.

I agree. Do the honorable thing and turn your ass in. Demand the full punishment the law will allow.

Or are you just talking shit?
 
A bunch of little facts I would like to throw in for the sake of argument:

- He was also sharing 867 songs.

- The music industry sues them for ridiculously high prices not to make money, but for the shock value so that when people hear about it, they become afraid and don't commit the act. For example, the act of getting caught illegally downloading (which is already VERY low), will not bother me if the fine is proportional to my crime - like 500 dollars. However something like 12000 or 200 000 dollars does make a difference because that can ruin most people financially.

- The large recording industries blames piracy for its decline. But that could not be the only reason.... far more artists now are able to get their music out to people across the world simply because they can make a website. I do think piracy hurt the music industry, however I think even without file sharing programs, it would still be in trouble due to things like myspace, cdbaby, and other websites where people can just listen, and purchase music from unsigned artists. Some websites even let you download songs for free. So in a way... only the big shots are affected by this, the multi-billion recording companies that had the power to actively select which artists could make it and which could not.
 
what's the difference between downloading a song illegally from the net and recording that same song from the radio? nothing.
but yet you NEVER hear of someone being sued for the latter.
 
what's the difference between downloading a song illegally from the net and recording that same song from the radio? nothing.
but yet you NEVER hear of someone being sued for the latter.

It used to be legal to distribute free copies. The DMCA fixed that. I don't think they've outlawed recording for your own personal use when you don't distribute.

I believe that it is dishonest to claim a loss from free distribution because free distribution induces people to buy more albums.
 
Back
Top