Ignoring RIAA Lawsuits Cheaper Than Going to Trial

Jammie Thomas-Rasset and Joel Tenenbaum captured the nation's attention when they were defendants in the RIAA's first two trials against accused online infringers. But here's the mind-warping reality: both defendants would have been far better off monetarily if they had simply ignored the complaint altogether and failed to show up in court.

That counterintuitive logic played out again this week in Massachusetts, where federal judge Nancy Gertner issued four default judgments against accused P2P file-swappers who never bothered to respond to the charges against them. Their failure to appear meant an automatic loss, and though the judge does have some discretion in setting penalties, judges often pick the minimum awards in such cases.

That was true in all four cases, where Gertner accepted the record labels' claims and awarded them the minimum statutory damages of $750 per song. The defendants were accused of downloading an average of ten songs, putting total awards in the $7,500 range, in addition to a few hundred more for court costs.

Having $7,500 in damages assessed against you by a federal court is no picnic, but it pales in comparison to the two twenty-somethings who actually showed up to court, got attorneys, went through a multiyear process and a nationally covered trial, and came out the other side owing far more money.

The chart below illustrates the point by graphing the various damage awards per song:



When it comes to total damages, the disparities are even greater. Thomas-Rasset's retrial ended up with a $1.92 million award, while Tenenbaum faces $675,000 in damages. Those who didn't show up owe around $7,500.

In fact, this might well have been Tenenbaum's fate. He was actually included in a massive complaint consolidated into a single docket, and it was only when he showed up to a court hearing that Gertner stopped the default judgment proceeding against him and actually helped find him a lawyer—Harvard Law prof Charles Nesson. Now, Tenenbaum faces a life-altering damage award and the prospect of bankruptcy if not reduced or overturned on appeal.

Update: I was interested more in what happens within the federal court system for this article, but several commenters rightly point out that "not showing up" isn't the cheapest way out of such situations. Settling with the RIAA usually leads to payments of between $3,000 and $5,000, lower than the default judgments issued here by Judge Gertner. Convincing a jury that you're innocent could be cheaper still (if you find a pro bono lawyer), though it comes with certain obvious risks.

French Lawmakers Reject Internet Piracy Bill

French legislators on Thursday rejected legislation to permit cutting off the Internet connections of people who illegally download music and films. But a stubborn government plans to resurrect the bill for another vote this month.

Backers of the bill -- record labels, film companies and law-and-order parliamentarians -- couldn't rally the needed support during in a near empty lower chamber ahead of the Easter holiday. Lawmakers voted 21 to 15 against it.

The measure would have created a government agency to track and punish those who pirate music and film on the Internet. Analysts said the law would have helped boost ever-shrinking profits in the entertainment industry, which has struggled with the advent of online file-sharing that lets people swap music files without paying.

The government, intent on gaining the upper hand in piracy, managed to slip the measure into an April 28 special session devoted to initiatives by President Nicolas Sarkozy's conservative UMP party.

The president's office reaffirmed Sarkozy's wish to get the law passed "as quickly as possible."

He "does not plan to renounce this whatever the maneuvers" to try to stop the bill's passage, a statement said.

Music labels, film distributors and artists -- who have seen CD and DVD sales in France plummet 60 percent in the past six years -- almost universally supported the measure, hailing it as a decisive step toward eliminating online piracy and an example to other governments. Artists' groups in France have said the future of the country's music and film industries depends on cracking down on illegal downloads, and the legislation received industry support from around the world.

"It is disappointing that the law was not confirmed today," said London-based John Kennedy, Chairman and CEO of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which represents the recording industry worldwide and supported the bill.

Legislators and activists who opposed the legislation said it would represent a Big Brother intrusion on civil liberties -- they called it "liberticide" -- while the European Parliament last month adopted a nonbinding resolution that defines Internet access as an untouchable "fundamental freedom."

Opponents also pointed out that users downloading from public WiFi hotspots or using masked IP addresses might be impossible to trace. Others called its proposed monitoring structures unrealistic.

"It is a bad response to a false problem," said Jeremie Zimmerman, coordinator of the Quadrature du Net, a Paris-based Internet activist group that opposed the bill, calling it "completely impossible to apply."

He said the bill's rejection is proof of a widespread sense that it was a draconian approach.

Under the legislation, users would receive e-mail warnings for their first two identified offenses, a certified letter for the next, and would have their Web connection severed, for as long as one year, for any subsequent illegal downloads.

French Culture Minister Christine Albanel had said the bill did not aim to "completely eradicate" illegal downloads but rather to "contribute to a raising of consciousness" among offenders.

"There needs to be an experiment," said Pierre-Yves Gautier, an Internet law expert at the University of Paris, noting the plummeting profits of the entertainment industry. "Frankly, it's worth it."

A Shared Culture

Michael Moore on File Sharing

Examining Where the Industry Went Wrong

Trailer for "Copyright Criminals"

Creative Commons - Get Creative

Copyright Criminals

Copyright Criminals: This Is a Sampling Sport examines the creative and commercial value of musical sampling, including the related debates over artistic expression, copyright law, and (of course) money.

This documentary traces the rise of hip-hop from the urban streets of New York to its current status as a multibillion-dollar industry. For more than thirty years, innovative hip-hop performers and producers have been re-using portions of previously recorded music in new, otherwise original compositions. When lawyers and record companies got involved, what was once referred to as a “borrowed melody” became a “copyright infringement.”

The film showcases many of hip-hop music’s founding figures like Public Enemy, De La Soul, and Digital Underground—while also featuring emerging hip-hop artists from record labels Definitive Jux, Rhymesayers, Ninja Tune, and more. It also provides an in-depth look at artists who have been sampled, such as Clyde Stubblefield (James Brown's drummer and the world's most sampled musician), as well as commentary by another highly sampled musician, funk legend George Clinton.

As artists find ever more inventive ways to insert old influences into new material, this documentary asks a critical question, on behalf of an entire creative community: Can you own a sound?

http://www.copyrightcriminals.com

How Creativity is Being Strangled by the Law

Lawrence Lessig Interview - Author of "Remix"

Let Your Fans Invest in Your Music