Copyright Infringement Verdicts of Music Upheld on Appeal

After trials, retrials, and years of appeal two defendants are now liable for fines of $675,000 and $222,000 for pirating 30 and 24 songs respectively. Joel Tenenbaum’s copyright infringement cost him $22,500 for each of the 30 songs, while Jamie Thomas-Rasset’s copyright infringement cost her $9,250 for each of 24 songs.

Computerworld reported about a blog by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) (which submitted a brief on behalf of Thomas-Rasset’s):

Frighteningly, the court suggested that statutory damages awarded by a judge or jury don't need to have ANY connection to the harm actually suffered by a copyright owner,…

Obviously these two verdicts are significant victories for the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and perhaps the 6 strike Copyright Alert System proposed by the Center for Copyright Infringement may be a better means to prevent copyright infringement from the Internet.
 

What's the Deal the New 6 Strike Copyright Alert System?

The Center for Copyright Information (CCI) claims that content theft cost America 373,000+ jobs, $16+ billion in lost wages, and $2.6+ billion in lost taxes, so the CCI proposes a new Copyright Alert System (CAS) with 6 alerts. CCI Member companies include:

  • Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (“MPAA”) and its members,
  • Recording Industry Association of America (“RIAA”) and its members,
  • 5 major ISPs - AT&T, Cablevision, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon,
  • Independent Film and Television Alliance, and
  • American Association of Independent Music

CCI’s website includes the following example of the Alerts of the CAS:

First Alert: In response to a notice from a copyright owner, an ISP will send an online alert to a subscriber, such as an email, notifying the subscriber that his/her account may have been misused or involved in copyright infringement. This first alert will also direct the subscriber to educational resources which will (i) help him/her to check the security of his/her computer and network, (ii) provide explanatory steps which will help to avoid copyright infringement in the future and (iii) provide information about the abundant legal sources of music, film and TV content. 

Second Alert: If the alleged activity persists despite the receipt of the first alert, the subscriber will get a second similar alert that will underscore the educational messages.

Third Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, he/she will receive another alert, much like the initial alerts. However, this alert will provide a conspicuous mechanism (a click-through pop-up notice, landing page, or similar mechanism) requiring the subscriber to acknowledge receipt of this alert. This is designed to ensure that the subscriber is aware of the third copyright alert as well as the previous educational alerts.

Fourth Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, the subscriber will receive yet another alert that again requires the subscriber to acknowledge receipt.

Fifth Alert: At this time, the ISP may take one of several steps, specified in its published policies and the alert itself, reasonably calculated to stop future copyright infringement. These steps, referred to as “Mitigation Measures,” may include, for example: temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to some educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. The ISP may decide to waive the Mitigation Measure at this point – but it would be applied if a further notice of copyright infringement associated with the same subscriber’s account is received.

Sixth Alert: If the subscriber’s account again appears to have been used for copyright infringement, the ISP will send another alert and will implement a Mitigation Measure as described above. As described above, it’s likely that very few subscribers who after having received multiple alerts, will persist (or allow others to persist) in the copyright infringement.

To get more perspective on CAS please read my good friend Erika Morphy’s recent eCommerce Times column entitled “6-Strike Copyright Warning System: Can You Hear Us Now?”

Given the RIAA and MPAA’s apparent failure to stem copyright infringement in the past it will be interesting to see if the new CAS will control infringement.
 

Second Trial Jury Verdict of $1.92M Against Single Mom For Copyright Infringement of 24 Songs

A Minneapolis jury awarded a number of recording companies damages for willful infringement of 24 songs in the only trial for file-sharing by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) of the estimated 30,000 lawsuits they filed before ceasing litigation last year. The RIAA settled most lawsuits for about $3,500 and now the RIAA stopped filing suits and is working with ISPs to stop file-sharing.

Second Trial

The first jury trial in 2007 resulted in a verdict of $222,000 but the federal judge vacated the verdict as result of improper jury instructions. Apparently the second jury was also convinced that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully infringed 24 songs by file-sharing and awarded damages of $80,000 per song. Ms. Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four, asserts that she cannot pay these damages.

Willful Infringement

Under the 1976 Copyright Act damages for willful infringement damages could be as high as $150,000. So in both of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s trials the juries concluded that she was a willful infringer. The fact that the RIAA stopped filing lawsuits was based on the large number of alleged infringers bespeaks volumes about the fact that file-sharing is a very large problem on the Internet, and litigation may not be the best way to solve the problem.

Apple to the Rescue

In 2001 when the 9th Circuit upheld infringement claims for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement against Napster under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) there were many requests for the US Congress to reform the Copyright Act and the DMCA since that the Internet had changed the way people listen to music, however neither the Copyright Act nor DMCA were changed. Actually Apple solved the problem by introducing the iPod and allowing people to inexpensively downloading music, tv shows, and movies. Not only did the iPod solve this copyright problem it also improved Apple’s financial circumstances and market share.