RIAA sues LimeWire for $75,000,000,000,000

[Syt]

http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html?_r=1&hp

RIAA Thinks LimeWire Owes $75 Trillion in Damages

By Sarah Jacobsson Purewal, PCWorld    Mar 26, 2011 5:44 AM

The music industry wants LimeWire to pay up to $75 trillion in damages after losing a copyright infringement claim. That's right . . . $75 trillion. Manhattan federal Judge Kimba Wood has labeled this request "absurd."

You're telling me. To put that number into perspective (I bet a lot of you didn't even know "trillion" was a real number), the U.S. GDP is around 14 trillion -- less than one fifth of what the music industry is requesting. Heck, the GDP of the entire world is between 59 and 62 trillion. That's right, the music industry wants LimeWire to pay more money than exists in the entire world.

Popular file-sharing service LimeWire was shut down last October, after Judge Wood found them liable for copyright infringement in May 2010.

According to Law.com, the RIAA and the 13 record companies that are suing LimeWire for copyright infringement have demanded damages ranging from $400 billion to $75 trillion, and have claimed that Section 504(c)(1) of the Copyright Act allow them to request damages for each instance of infringement where two or more parties were liable. In other words, the RIAA thinks it should be entitled to damages not only for the individual works, but for every time that work was infringed (i.e. downloaded by another user).

At the moment, about 11,000 songs have been identified as "infringed" material, and each song has probably been downloaded thousands of times. The RIAA thinks it should be compensated for each individual download.

Judge Wood disagrees. In a 14-page ruling (PDF), Judge Wood said that the music industry is entitled only to a "single statutory damage award from Defendants per work infringed," for several reasons, including "Absurd Result." According to the document, the "Plaintiffs' position on statutory damages also offends the 'canon that we should avoid endorsing statutory interpretations that would lead to absurd results.'"

The document goes on to read: "As it stands now, Defendants face a damage award that 'could be in the hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over a billion dollars.'"

Judge Wood also points out that "if one multiplies the maximum statutory damage award ($150,000) by approximately 10,000 post-1972 works, Defendants face a potential award of over a billion dollars in statutory damages alone. If Plaintiffs were able to pursue a statutory damage theory predicated on the number of direct infringers per work, Defendants' damages could reach into the trillions. As Defendants note, Plaintiffs are suggesting an award that is 'more money than the entire music recording industry has made since Edison's invention of the phonograph in 1877.'"

This "absurd results" clause isn't anything new, Judge Wood points out. She mentions the 2010 Arista Records LLC v. Usenet.com, Inc. case, in which Arista Records requested the court calculate the damages by multiplying the maximum amount of damages ($150,000) by the number of infringements (878), or $131,700,000. The court found the defendants liable for $6,585,000, by multiplying the number of infringements by $7,500.

Unfortunately, this still isn't great news for LimeWire -- while Judge Wood says the music industry is entitled to only a single statutory damage award per infringed work, there are still 11,000 works. That means LimeWire could still be liable for damages in excess of one billion.

[Martinus]

If they had to pay 1% of this as a court fee (which is forfeited if they lose) they wouldn't come up with ridiculous stuff like that. American judicial system = broken.

[Ideologue]

If they had to pay 1% of this as a court fee (which is forfeited if they lose) they wouldn't come up with ridiculous stuff like that. American judicial system = broken.

You read the part where a judge said it was stupid, right?  It's just a few dumbass/overzealous lawyers.

[viper37]

but it's still in court.  Taking up valuable court time for other, non frivolous cases.

[Josquius]

LOL.
These copyright cases always do demand crazy sums but this is a new level...

[Admiral Yi]

but it's still in court.  Taking up valuable court time for other, non frivolous cases.

The case itself is not frivolous.

[Zanza2]

Their goal is to shut down LimeWire, right? Why can't they just sue for a less silly amount that will still do the job? I doubt LimeWire has massive assets, so just about any verdict would force them to close shop.

[szmik]

Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. 

[Admiral Yi]

Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. 

Actually the opposite.  The requested damages were derived by a formula.

[Slargos]

Wow. Piracy to the tone of 75 trillion. Think of all the lost wealth creation.

If everyone simply bought all that music, we'd all be driving flying cars made out of gold and diamonds.

But instead they steal. And baby Jesus cries. 

[Siege]

How could we make limewire and the likes legal?

I'm really tired of the record industry and their greed.
We are in the internet era. No fucking way I am going to buy a CD.
I think we should abandon the album formatt completely.

[Razgovory]

I don't know what Limewire is.

[Siege]

I don't know what Limewire is.

Its a long range bomber designed to penetrate enemy territory and drop nukes on enemy command and control centers.

[Admiral Yi]

How could we make limewire and the likes legal?

Vote in a president and a majority in both houses of Congress that are willing to overturn the existing law.

[jimmy olsen]

Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. 

Actually the opposite.  The requested damages were derived by a formula.

When the formula returns a demand that is greater than the GDP of the Earth that formula is irretrievably broken.