> How were those punitive as opposed to not? Should they have not sued at all and just let the infringers continue?
In Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, they tried to sue for more money than existed on earth. I'm not saying they didn't have a case against individual cases of infringement, but it was quite clear what they were doing while they were doing it. The goal was always to intimidate would-be pirates with high-profile cases about grandmas and teenagers losing the family house because they downloaded an MP3 off Kazaa. The damages the RIAA sought from these people were completely disproportionate to the actual financial losses they demonstrated, to the point of being unconscionable. It's notable that they eventually abandoned this strategy by the end of the 2000s as public opinion began turning against them.
There's pretty much no way any court ever gives any copyright holder the maximum amount allowed under statutory damages, which is only trebled to the possibility of $150k when the infringement was willful. I love Weird Al, but I don't go to him for legal advice or analysis!
Maybe the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York will convince you where Weird Al could not:
> 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. See Dkt Entry No. 461 (“Thousands (or even millions) of uploads and downloads occurred across disparate users.”) 3 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.”
I'm not sure how this is actually a response to my comment. I'm an IP litigator, asserting max statutory damages is something every attorney does at the outset otherwise they'd be waiving that recovery. It's really not the big deal you make it out to be, and nothing in your quote supports that either. Do you think a court is actually going to award more money than the entire world? No. So what are you going on about, really?
> asserting max statutory damages is something every attorney does at the outset otherwise they'd be waiving that recovery
Meaning that they could not have asked for a lower amount without waiving their rights to all statutory damages? What it sounds like you're saying is that this was just a fluke of the lawyers who drafted the brief abiding by an industry standard that ended up producing an odd result. This seems incredibly unlikely.
It seems incredibly unlikely on what basis? Your complete lack of legal expertise and any insight into legal practice?
If you draft a complaint in federal court saying you were owed $30,000, you don't get to later change that to a higher amount without amending. I'm not sure why you think it's a fluke, it's a basic practice of legal drafting. Look at any federal complaint and it's going to be written with language like "in an amount no less than..."
> It seems incredibly unlikely on what basis? Your complete lack of legal expertise and any insight into legal practice?
I worked in the industry for several years, though not in litigation. I've been nothing but courteous to you despite your posts being shallow and dismissive. Review the site guidelines; you are breaking several of them.
> If you draft a complaint in federal court saying you were owed $30,000, you don't get to later change that to a higher amount without amending.
They weren't asking for $30,000. They were asking for more money than has ever existed. Your contention is that this came about from an industry standard practice of multiplying the statutory maximum by the number of infringements. You already stated yourself that a court was never going to award these damages because it would be impossible to pay them, so the idea that they were leaving money on the table by revising down from the the statutory maximum is nonsensical.
You would then ask why they would bother to revise this figure; it's no big deal, right? Industry standard.
Maybe the big shots do things differently but I've seen a lot of money get left on the table to avoid bad press, which is why I find it hard to believe there was no one in the loop here who would have had the capacity to suggest that this was a bad idea. My contention is that this didn't happen, because the whole point of these lawsuits was not to recoup damages but to curtail piracy via a chilling effect.
> The RIAA's settlement amounts are typically in the neighborhood of $3,000-$4,000 for those who settle once they receive a letter from the music industry. On the other side of the balance sheet is the amount of money paid to SafeNet (formerly MediaSentry) to conduct its investigations, and the cash spent on the RIAA's legal team and on local counsel to help with the various cases. As Pariser admitted under oath today, the entire campaign is a money pit.
> I worked in the industry for several years, though not in litigation. I've been nothing but courteous to you despite your posts being shallow and dismissive. Review the site guidelines; you are breaking several of them.
Frankly, I don't find your correspondence courteous at all.
> They weren't asking for $30,000.
I'm well aware. Did you see the "if". I guess that you find this rude and/or dismissive, but you fundamentally misunderstand my point, and in a way that seems as if you are jumping to. After all, I started the sentence with "if" and then described a scenario explaining how pleading works. Which I guess you understand because you worked in the industry?
> Your contention is that this came about from an industry standard practice of multiplying the statutory maximum by the number of infringements.
No my contention is that the maximum amount of statutory damages allowed under law is $150k per work infringed, when willfulness is present. In every copyright case involving statutory damages, the pleading will seek the maximum amount of statutory damages available because if you do not, it will be waived. Do you understand the concept of waiver? I ask, not to be rude, but because it does not seem like you do. I'm happy to explain, but I'm sure google or chatgpt could provide perfectly adequate answers.
>Maybe the big shots do things differently but I've seen a lot of money get left on the table to avoid bad press, which is why I find it hard to believe there was no one in the loop here who would have had the capacity to suggest that this was a bad idea. My contention is that this didn't happen, because the whole point of these lawsuits was not to recoup damages but to curtail piracy via a chilling effect.
Yeah? You see a lot of attorneys in copyright cases not seeking the amount of statutory damages? Where did you see that? As I mentioned, I'm a litigator, and I do a lot of copyright. That's not my experience at all.
> The RIAA's settlement amounts are typically in the neighborhood of $3,000-$4,000 for those who settle once they receive a letter from the music industry.
I'm not sure what your point is. You do not seem to understand what I am talking about at all, which is that it would be malpractice to not claim the maximum amount of statutory damages available when you plead. You do not have to ultimately seek them at trial, but you cannot go the other direction. I hope that clears things up for you. And this is why I often complain about the reporting of legal cases on sites like ars, sometimes they do a good job, sometimes they only serve to confuse most readers.
> Frankly, I don't find your correspondence courteous at all.
Point out the specific comments you took issue with.
This comment, for example:
> It seems incredibly unlikely on what basis? Your complete lack of legal expertise and any insight into legal practice?
is a clear violation of the guideline to assume good faith interpretations of an argument.
> which is that it would be malpractice to not claim the maximum amount of statutory damages available when you plead.
Which is why I asked: Meaning that they could not have asked for a lower amount without waiving their rights to all statutory damages?
And you still haven't really clarified the issue, since I have no idea whether you are saying that these statutory limits have to be claimed for a lawyer to remain in good standing irrespective of a client's instructions or if the client has the option to claim less than the statutory damages and simply didn't in this instance. If it's the former, okay, sure, you were right. If it's the latter, my original argument stands: Someone representing the plaintiff went over the details of the brief with the attorneys who drafted it prior to it being filed. They had the opportunity to claim a lower limit, and didn't. These are not unsophisticated clients, and they would know what the PR implications would be of a headline like "RIAA sues Limewire for more money than God." My contention is that they didn't pump the breaks on this because the whole point of these lawsuits was to scare people into not pirating music anymore.
> Yeah? You see a lot of attorneys in copyright cases not seeking the amount of statutory damages?
Where was that stated?
> I'm not sure what your point is.
They lost money on these suits.
You made the claim originally:
> Record companies, artists and other rights holders are not pursuing lawsuits because they are "somehow vindictive" or want to send a message. [...] Like anyone else who goes through the trouble of pursuing a case on IP grounds, they feel their rights have been violated and they want redress.
The message they were trying to send was that if you pirate music, you will be financially ruined. If it had ever been about the damages, they would have stopped when it became clear that they weren't recovering their costs.
I never thought your arguments were in bad faith, just not based in actual fact nor understanding of the legal issues at play. I imagine you are capable of appreciating the difference.
My point was making a big deal out of the statutory damages claim really on reflects a complete lack of insight into copyright lawsuits and you taking away your conclusion is really besides the point, because it is normal practice (I've said this how many times?) to claim the entirety of statutory damages.
Sure, clients can do what they want to. That doesn't make the attorney's advice and/or work not malpractice if the attorney didn't advise against it, so what's your point? They could have asked for less? Sure. They could have also not sued at all! The statutory damages is a red herring being obsessed over by you because you lack the faculties to otherwise make your point, which isn't served by highlighting the completely normal practice of claiming all the available statutory damages in a pleading.
>Point out the specific comments you took issue with.
The one where you completely ignored everything I wrote and then quoted the judge. It's incredibly rude and dismissive, even when offered politely. You might be polite, but I don't find it courteous to engage in conversation with someone who makes absolutely zero effort to engage with my response, and then continues the conversation any way. To me, it's like souther hospitality, facially polite but masking of, sometimes, deep loathing. I'm from NYC, we don't pull that kind of crap. We are direct because it is more respectful to someone to be honest with them than to lie to their face with a smile.
> I imagine you are capable of appreciating the difference.
I imagine you appreciate the difference between what you are saying now and what you originally wrote, which was:
> It seems incredibly unlikely on what basis? Your complete lack of legal expertise and any insight into legal practice?
This is not assuming good faith. I know that you know that because you would never get away with this kind of disingenuous behavior on the basis that "I'm a New Yawker" when dealing with an opposing counsel. You're capable of regulating your behavior; you're choosing not to.
> The one where you completely ignored everything I wrote and then quoted the judge.
You were making the claim that these suits were not punitive. I contested that idea by pointing to the RIAA's history of engaging in punitive lawsuits. You then stated:
> There's pretty much no way any court ever gives any copyright holder the maximum amount allowed under statutory damages, which is only trebled to the possibility of $150k when the infringement was willful. I love Weird Al, but I don't go to him for legal advice or analysis!
This dismissed both the point that I was making and implied that the entire basis of my understanding was based on a song by Weird Al. I did not provide a more substantive reply because yours was not substantive and just obnoxious.
> We are direct because it is more respectful to someone to be honest with them than to lie to their face with a smile.
You've been rhetorically asking "What's your point?" the whole time we've been having this discussion even when I've stated my position plainly. You did it in this post. This isn't being direct or respectful, it's obvious from how you've been speaking (and how you've interacted with others in the thread) that you aren't a respectful person, and now you're leaning into "This is part of my culture," to try to evade the issue that you are being abrasive and obnoxious, and are now insisting that I'm the one being rude to you.
> Sure, clients can do what they want to. That doesn't make the attorney's advice and/or work not malpractice if the attorney didn't advise against it, so what's your point?
I've stated this plainly three times and you haven't listened so you can read the thread again or I'll take it as a concession that you have no point to make.
> The statutory damages is a red herring being obsessed over by you because you lack the faculties to otherwise make your point, which isn't served by highlighting the completely normal practice of claiming all the available statutory damages in a pleading.
You are the one fixating on it. Even if we ignore the Limewire case, you still haven't addressed the years and millions of dollars the RIAA spent suing individual pirates at a net loss.
>This is not assuming good faith. I know that you know that because you would never get away with this kind of disingenuous behavior on the basis that "I'm a New Yawker" when dealing with an opposing counsel. You're capable of regulating your behavior; you're choosing not to.
My behavior is perfectly fine, and you're not opposing counsel and this isn't a court and I don't have any obligations to you that are on the order of magnitude that I do to other attorneys, so this is completely misplaced if not outright ridiculous.
>You were making the claim that these suits were not punitive. I contested that idea by pointing to the RIAA's history of engaging in punitive lawsuits. You then stated:
No, I said that pointing to the damages as a reason why they are punitive only reflects a misunderstanding of the basic practice of copyright law in the US.
>This dismissed both the point that I was making and implied that the entire basis of my understanding was based on a song by Weird Al. I did not provide a more substantive reply because yours was not substantive and just obnoxious.
Sorry, you are calling my response to Weird Al not substantive? Weird Al isn't a source for insight into the legal profession. So, my response was perfectly in line with the kind of substance you were bringing to the conversation.
> You've been rhetorically asking "What's your point?" the whole time we've been having this discussion even when I've stated my position plainly. You did it in this post. This isn't being direct or respectful, it's obvious from how you've been speaking (and how you've interacted with others in the thread) that you aren't a respectful person, and now you're leaning into "This is part of my culture," to try to evade the issue that you are being abrasive and obnoxious, and are now insisting that I'm the one being rude to you.
You're entitled to that opinion. I disagree. You can find me abrasive and obnoxious. I do not particularly care as I have not found you to be a respectful conversation partner warranting any greater effort on my part than that which I've received from you.
>I've stated this plainly three times and you haven't listened so you can read the thread again or I'll take it as a concession that you have no point to make.
My point is the same it has been. Pointing to the damages number as punitive only reflects a misunderstand of basic aspect of the practice of copyright law in the US.
>You are the one fixating on it. Even if we ignore the Limewire case, you still haven't addressed the years and millions of dollars the RIAA spent suing individual pirates at a net loss.
Why would I address that? It has nothing to do with my point.
This is what, the fifth post I've written, explaining my point, which you continue to dispute? You act like you're a fair conversation partner, but you aren't. You repeatedly misstate my point and twist it around. It's obnoxious and rude and that's why you are getting the short treatment from me. If I wanted to actually insult you, which is what you're acting like, I promise you it would come off differently. But I don't think there is anything unfair about pointing out that you aren't relying on any insight into the profession when you are quoting Weird Al. Feel free to report me!
In Arista Records LLC v. Lime Group LLC, they tried to sue for more money than existed on earth. I'm not saying they didn't have a case against individual cases of infringement, but it was quite clear what they were doing while they were doing it. The goal was always to intimidate would-be pirates with high-profile cases about grandmas and teenagers losing the family house because they downloaded an MP3 off Kazaa. The damages the RIAA sought from these people were completely disproportionate to the actual financial losses they demonstrated, to the point of being unconscionable. It's notable that they eventually abandoned this strategy by the end of the 2000s as public opinion began turning against them.
Weird Al wrote a song about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY