Harvard professor launches attack against music copyright law

[MrsCat 6]

The music industry's courtroom campaign against people who share songs online is coming under counterattack.

A Harvard Law School professor has launched a constitutional assault against a U.S. federal copyright law at the heart of the industry's aggressive strategy, which has wrung payments from thousands of song-swappers since 2003.

The professor, Charles Nesson, has come to the defence of a Boston University graduate student targeted in one of the music industry's lawsuits. By taking on the case, Nesson hopes to challenge the basis for the suit, and all others like it.

Nesson argues that the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 is unconstitutional because it effectively lets a private group — the Recording Industry Association of America, or RIAA — carry out civil enforcement of a criminal law.

He also says the music industry group abused the legal process by brandishing the prospects of lengthy and costly lawsuits in an effort to intimidate people into settling cases out of court.

Courts turned into 'low-grade collection agency'

Nesson, the founder of Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, said in an interview that his goal is to "turn the courts away from allowing themselves to be used like a low-grade collection agency."

Nesson is best known for defending the man who leaked the Pentagon Papers and for consulting on the case against chemical companies that was depicted in the film A Civil Action.

His challenge against the music labels, made in U.S. District Court in Boston, is one of the most determined attempts to derail the industry's flurry of litigation.

The initiative has generated more than 30,000 complaints against people accused of sharing songs online. Only one case has gone to trial; nearly everyone else settled out of court to avoid damages and limit the attorney fees and legal costs that escalate over time.

Nesson intervened after a federal judge in Boston asked his office to represent Joel Tenenbaum, who was among dozens of people who appeared in court in RIAA cases without legal help.

The 24-year-old Tenenbaum is a graduate student accused by the RIAA of downloading at least seven songs and making 816 music files available for distribution on the Kazaa file-sharing network in 2004. He offered to settle the case for $500 US, but music companies rejected that, demanding $12,000.

Damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement

The Digital Theft Deterrence Act, the law at issue in the case, sets damages of $750 to $30,000 for each infringement, and as much as $150,000 for a willful violation. That means Tenenbaum could be forced to pay $1 million if it is determined that his alleged actions were willful.

The music industry group isn't conceding any ground to Nesson and Tenenbaum. The RIAA has said in court documents that its efforts to enforce the copyright law is protected under the First Amendment right to petition the courts for redress of grievances. Tenenbaum also failed, the music group noted, to notify the U.S. Attorney General that that he wanted to contest the law's constitutional status.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said her group's pursuit of people suspected of music piracy is a fair response to the industry's multibillion-dollar losses since peer-to-peer networks began making it easy for people to share massive numbers of songs online.

"What should be clear is that illegally downloading and distributing music comes with many risks and is not an anonymous activity," Duckworth said.

Still, wider questions persist on whether the underlying copyright law is constitutional.

In September, a federal judge granted a new trial to a Minnesota woman who had been ordered to pay $220,000 for pirating 24 songs.

In that ruling, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis called on Congress to change copyright laws to prevent excessive awards in similar cases.

He wrote that he didn't discount the industry's claim that illegal downloading has hurt the recording business, but called the award "wholly disproportionate" to the industry's losses.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/story/2008/11...ht-harvard.html

[PlatyPius 5]

RIAA sucks #######.

I'm all for protecting musicians, but they aren't protect them - they're protecting their own profits. I think "damages" should be limited to $2 per song. $1 for the cost of downloading a copy online, plus $1 for legal fees for each song.

[IAMX 3,055]

What's interesting to me about the copyright thing of late are individuals who were caught sharing initially pleaded guilty in the face of making a file "available". Once that was torn down in the court, the RIAA has suddenly had a terrible case in court against individuals.

I've personally been very concerned about the RIAA/MPAA and their typical-of-today American model of business, which isn't evolution and innovation, but cornering the consumer and limiting their options via laws, i.e. lobbying, so they don't need to adapt to or embrace emerging technologies, rather, fight them instead. They've outright tried to limit how people could use cassette tapes, video tapes, make backup copies of their own bought music/movies (they get more money if you buy the same thing several times), and have successfully chopped down quite a bit of fair use since their initial campaigns in the 80s began. It's very akin to GM buying car battery technology in order to vault virtually oil-free cars out of the market. Strange how we talk about free market and more choices, but by their actions and clear intent, it's about stifling and hampering down consumer choices. This is why the DMCA should be entirely done away with, and copyright law completely redone to address, first and foremost, fair use.

[MrsCat 6]

RIAA sucks #######.

I'm all for protecting musicians, but they aren't protect them - they're protecting their own profits. I think "damages" should be limited to $2 per song. $1 for the cost of downloading a copy online, plus $1 for legal fees for each song.

[Ban Hammer 13,636]

RIAA sucks #######.

I'm all for protecting musicians, but they aren't protect them - they're protecting their own profits. I think "damages" should be limited to $2 per song. $1 for the cost of downloading a copy online, plus $1 for legal fees for each song.

i'll second that.

[PlatyPius 5]

RIAA sucks #######.

I'm all for protecting musicians, but they aren't protect them - they're protecting their own profits. I think "damages" should be limited to $2 per song. $1 for the cost of downloading a copy online, plus $1 for legal fees for each song.

Wow.... I need to proofread a little more before posting. I don't know if it lessens the offence or not, but I'm reading Engrish.com while reading/posting here.....

[rocks 494]

wow, good on him. the riaa have too much power over the government, same with hollywood. they should not be able to change laws to suit them and their agenda.

this reminds me a little of a story i read a while ago...

According to Nettwerk, Greubel heard the song and wrote an e-mail to Lars' Web site in which she said, "My family is one of many seemingly randomly chosen families to be sued by the RIAA. No fun. You can't fight them, trying could possibly cost us millions. The line, 'They sue little kids downloading hit songs' basically sums a lot of the whole thing up. I'm not saying it is right to download but the whole lawsuit business is a tad bit outrageous."

...

"I believe the RIAA's approach is wrong and there are a number of better alternatives out there," Mudd said. "I think they're misusing the copyright laws, which were designed to be used more as a shield than a sword. They're going after families that, in a lot of cases, don't know that what they or their children are doing is illegal." Unfortunately for the Greubels, Mudd said that "most" of his clients have been compelled to settle with the RIAA because the cost of fighting the charges was insurmountable.

http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1522669/2...?headlines=true

[Niels Bohr 72]

Well, I do agree that a fine should be imposed for pirating songs and distributing. However, I do disagree with RIAA for changing the laws by catering for their selfish purpose.

Edited November 16, 2008 by Niels Bohr

[NickD 203]

Well, I do agree that a fine should be imposed for pirating songs and distributing. However, I do disagree with RIAA for changing the laws by catering for their selfish purpose.

Believe it's legal to tape a song off the air with an FM radio, digitize it, and convert it to an MP3, any off the air is legal. But not legal to copy a song off a prerecorded CD, LP, or any purchased media. Even though that song or movie may be identical. Ironically, when my son was DJing for his university radio station, the recording companies were sending me CD's like crazy, but due to university laws they couldn't send them there, but got hold of his home address, my home.

Would estimate over a two year period, over 3,000 CD's came in, none to my liking, but with letters, begging my son to play these. They want to advertised these songs, and basically for free. Of course, he couldn't play them all, just a tiny fraction. And his station only was 10KW and not very long range. But the CD's came pouring in.

No very much profit is made selling media, never was that was, purpose of the media is to make that artist well known so the recording industry can clean up on concerts, that is where the big bucks are made or TV appearances if an artist makes it that far. So in a sense, by sharing MP3's one is indirectly aiding the recording industry because that music is being distributed, just like it is over any radio station.

The fines are crazy and scary, plenty of PTP sites available on the internet, make sure my kids stay off of them, many of the MP3's are loaded with virus's as well. Just buy the darn tunes or the media, there you have the right to convert it for your own use, pretty hard to jam an LP into a CD player or jam a CD into a cassette player, then you also have these continuous music stations if you want to pay ten bucks a month.