Tag: lawsuits

Thoughts on Capitol v. Thomas

Post Image

Record labels have filed over 20,000 lawsuits related to file sharing since 2003, and the first one to go to trial received a verdict yesterday in Minnesota. The jury found defendant Jammie Thomas guilty and ordered her to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of the 24 songs they decided to focus on.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to realize that this is an extremely unfavorable outcome.

  1. The record labels will take this victory as “a validation of its “sue our fans” strategy, rather than realizing it’s finally time to try a different model.” (Techdirt)
  2. This case will have absolutely no effect on file sharing. “According to BigChampagne, an online measuring service, the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals.” (Wired)
  3. The record industry needs to stop fighting the inevitable. “Eventually, unless governments are willing to take drastic measures to protect the industry (such as a mandatory music tax), economic theory will win out and the price of music will fall towards zero.” (TechCrunch)

The case has potentially set a number of legal precedents favoring the record industry, such as “making available”, described by Declan McCullagh in his excellent analysis:

Jury Instruction 15 is more important. It says that the RIAA doesn’t need to offer any evidence that rapacious Kazaa users actually downloaded songs from Thomas’ computer. All they need to do is claim that Thomas left the songs in a publicly accessible directory where they could have been downloaded. Big difference.

Wired has more:

In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant’s computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas’ share folder.

Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.

That’s just wrong. Is it illegal to leave a music CD out in the open? Of course not, but anyone could come along and steal it or copy it. How is leaving music files out in the open any different? Copying media for personal use is considered Fair Use (though the RIAA is doing everything they can to change that). As I understand it, combining your Fair Use rights with an open Wi-Fi connection (the default setting on virtually all wireless routers) would then make you liable for copyright infringement, if the precedent set by this case holds.

I’m not sure the precedent will be upheld, however. Last December the judge in UMG v. Lindor ruled that the record labels would have to show that Lindor actually shared the files. Demonstrating that she made the files available for download was not enough. Actually, I’m not sure why that earlier decision was not used in this case against Thomas.

Another problem is the fine amount. I think $9,250 per song very clearly conflicts with the Eighth Amendment, which states: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The songs in question are available in the marketplace for less than $1. Furthermore, wholesale pricing has been confirmed by record label executives as being close to 70 cents per track. From that perspective, the fine levied against Thomas is almost surely excessive.

These lawsuits are very clearly about money, not about protecting artists. I look forward to the day when record labels as we currently know them cease to exist. It’s only a matter of time.

There is a ton of commentary on this story at Techmeme. That’s how I found Michael Geist’s post, in which he explains the Canadian context. Definitely worth a read.

Da Vinci Code Lawsuit Conspiracy Theory?

Post ImageAs you may have heard at some point in the last few weeks, “The Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown was sued by fellow authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who wrote “Holy Blood, Holy Grail”. The two asserted that Brown had violated copyright by taking elements from their book and using it in his own. The verdict was handed down today:

“The Da Vinci Code” author Dan Brown and his publishing house were cleared of copyright infringement in a British court Friday, with the judge finding the lawsuit based on a contrived and “selective number of facts and ideas.”

“It would be quite wrong if fictional writers were to have their writings pored over in the way DVC (`Da Vinci Code’) has been pored over in this case by authors of pretend historical books to make an allegation of infringement of copyright,” Judge Peter Smith said in his 71-page ruling.

The result should not surprise anyone, and this is where the idea for a conspiracy theory comes from. Let’s review a few facts:

  • “The Da Vinci Code” is fiction, while “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” is nonfiction. Does it make any sense for a work of fiction to be accused of copyrighting a work of supposed fact? Brown’s book is probably similar to hundreds of books and documents, because he uses a real idea as the basis for his fictional story. Whether or not Brown did any research or not, the idea that works of fiction could be sued for using real-world ideas is absurd.
  • “The Da Vinci Code” hardcover edition is published by Doubleday, which is a division of Random House. The paperback is published under Anchor, which is an imprint of Knopf, which is also a division of Random House. “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” hardcover is published by Delacorte, and the paperback by Dell, both of which are also divisions of Random House.
  • According to an article at BusinessWeek, Baigent and Leigh spent “two years on the lawsuit and nearly $3.5 million, between their own legal expenses, and Random House’s fees.” Something tells me they don’t have that kind of money, so maybe Random House has got their back?
  • Sales of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” have greatly benefited from the trial, as explained in this CBS News article: “Amazon.com reported a 3,500 percent increase in sales right after the trial began…”
  • Giles Elliott of Bookseller Magazine was quoted recently as saying, “The trial means both books are getting worldwide attention and sales increases in the UK have been dramatic.” He says sales of “Holy Blood, Holy Grail” increased 745% in the UK alone in the first week of the trial.

And it should come as no surprise that “The Da Vinci Code” has dominated bestseller lists for the last two or three years. As you can see, there is lots of evidence to suggest that Random House had something to do with it, as the lawsuit was a win-win for them. And I’m certainly not the first person to suggest this, I just wanted to collect some of the ideas into one place.

So what do you think, is Random House behind the lawsuit?