QuadCEM/QuadBlog

At this point, even the legal system is starting to realize that the RIAA is just making a mockery of the court systems. The RIAA continues to launch lawsuits by misapplying copyright laws with unjustifiable, extortionate amounts of money against the P2P offenders. The first file-sharing conviction ever, which forced a single mother from MN to pay $222,000 for having 24 songs available to download on KaZaA, was “recently” thrown out by the judge.

Judge Michael Davis stated that “statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit … it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market.”

He goes on to explain that

“Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing … In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer-to-peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits. This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.”

“Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.”

This makes me wonder … where in the world does the RIAA come up with damage costs for sharing songs?
Maybe this: (next trial)

What’s next? Will the RIAA bash in the doors to karaoke bars across the nation because the people aren’t authorized by the copyright holders to perform the songs in public? Watch your back, the RIAA is watching us … and they definitely aren’t happy.

Now don’t get me wrong, I certainly don’t condone downloading music when artists are trying to sell it; artists should be getting their fair share of profit for their work. The level that the RIAA is stooping to, however, is nearly robbery of both their consumers and the artists they represent. The days of the dinosaurs are over … there is no longer a need for giant record companies taking excessive profit shares when there can be nearly cost-free publicity and distribution on legitimate resources like iTunes and MySpace.

The RIAA is pretending to be looking after their artists’ best interests, but all they’re doing is money mongering. Their lawsuits are actually losing them money more than anything, however. For instance, in their case against Debbie Foster, they refused to drop charges against Debbie even after it was found that her adult daughter was actually the one who shared music. The RIAA claimed that since the internet account was in Debbie’s name, she was liable for damages as well. Clearly this was nonsense, and the judge ordered the RIAA to compensate her over $68,000 in attorney fees. Their appeal was denied.

What a brilliant business model. The way I see it, since the RIAA stocks are plummeting, we’re one step closer to getting rid of them every day. Good riddance.