http://www.pcworld.com/article/223431/riaa_thinks_limewire_owes_75_trillion_in_damages.html?_r=1&hp
QuoteRIAA 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.
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.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 11:30:47 AM
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.
but it's still in court. Taking up valuable court time for other, non frivolous cases.
LOL.
These copyright cases always do demand crazy sums but this is a new level...
Quote from: viper37 on April 17, 2011, 02:26:07 PM
but it's still in court. Taking up valuable court time for other, non frivolous cases.
The case itself is not frivolous.
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.
Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. :D
Quote from: szmik on April 17, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. :D
Actually the opposite. The requested damages were derived by a formula.
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. :mad:
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.
I don't know what Limewire is. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on April 17, 2011, 04:48:13 PM
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.
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2011, 04:43:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: szmik on April 17, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. :D
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 17, 2011, 05:22:37 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 17, 2011, 03:32:29 PM
Quote from: szmik on April 17, 2011, 03:24:29 PM
Good showing that all those "damages" are taken out of thin air. :D
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.
One advantage of not cropping quotes is it lets you see the statement I was responding to. :)
Quote from: Siege on April 17, 2011, 04:43:30 PM
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.
http://www.spotify.com/
Limewire is still around? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 11:30:47 AM
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.
I'm glad that some is willing to stand up and extol the virtues of the Polish legal system.
Quote from: Fireblade on April 17, 2011, 08:35:51 PM
Limewire is still around? :huh:
It died back in November.
There are other tools out there smiliar to Limewire that still work (e.g. Frostwire)... or so I've heard. :shifty:
I don't know why they'd bother to shut down Limewire. Another program that works exactly like it will, if not already, crop up and be able to be used by the masses. Besides, other programs, such as Napster (is that still around?) and, like Caliga said, Frostwire. Seems to be a waste of judicial time and expenses.
Poor people and their piracy. Tsk tsk
Quote from: Zeus on April 18, 2011, 07:08:43 AM
I don't know why they'd bother to shut down Limewire. Another program that works exactly like it will, if not already, crop up and be able to be used by the masses. Besides, other programs, such as Napster (is that still around?) and, like Caliga said, Frostwire. Seems to be a waste of judicial time and expenses.
By that logic should we not prosecute shoplifters? That's been going on since there were stores. Clearly these actions hae some deterrent effect, even if it's now clear how great it is.
Quote from: Zeus on April 18, 2011, 07:08:43 AM
I don't know why they'd bother to shut down Limewire. Another program that works exactly like it will, if not already, crop up and be able to be used by the masses. Besides, other programs, such as Napster (is that still around?) and, like Caliga said, Frostwire. Seems to be a waste of judicial time and expenses.
If you don't protect your copyrights, stuff might slip into public domain. It seems that public domain is bad.
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2011, 07:15:38 AM
Poor people and their piracy. Tsk tsk
Actually I think rich people like to steal as well.
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 11:30:47 AM
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.
Read more carefully.
RIAA already won the case in summary judgment. The ruling referred to in the OP was in connection with a separate trial on damages. So a loser pays rule would not deter this as the RIAA already won.
What a way to add legitimacy to your claim.
Quote from: DGuller on April 19, 2011, 04:45:17 PM
What a way to add legitimacy to your claim.
Does not seem to have hurt RIAA. Shortly after this ruling (which was last month BTW), LimeWire made a couple more motions to limit damages: one to limit damages to per album infiringement rather than per song, and another to block recovery against LimeWire where the RIAA members already successfully sued the individual making the downloads. Lime Wire lost both motions.
Quote from: garbon on April 18, 2011, 11:43:24 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on April 18, 2011, 07:15:38 AM
Poor people and their piracy. Tsk tsk
Actually I think rich people like to steal as well.
If anything, they like it far more.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 19, 2011, 04:43:52 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 17, 2011, 11:30:47 AM
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.
Read more carefully.
RIAA already won the case in summary judgment. The ruling referred to in the OP was in connection with a separate trial on damages. So a loser pays rule would not deter this as the RIAA already won.
Perhaps not a percentage court costs rule, but the "loser pays" rules in some places are more flexible than that - they can take into account the making of absurd claims that result in further litigation, even if one wins on liability.
Quote from: Malthus on April 19, 2011, 05:13:16 PM
Perhaps not a percentage court costs rule, but the "loser pays" rules in some places are more flexible than that - they can take into account the making of absurd claims that result in further litigation, even if one wins on liability.
That sounds dangerously vague to me.
The position that the RIAA advanced was a plausible potential reading of the statute. Certainly it wouldn't be the first nor the last time that Congress did something that could have an absurd result.
I wonder how much a "loser pays" system would chill socially valuable litigation?* I understand that's the rationale for the American rule, but obviously it hasn't caused English rule countries to collapse in themselves or anything like that.
*Not a great deal of which is to be found this particular example, obviously.