SERVING THE QUANTITATIVE FINANCE COMMUNITY

 
User avatar
PaperCut
Topic Author
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

Intellectual Property

June 19th, 2009, 1:09 am

Music, algorithms, software?regarding music, here is a story from the AP:*****************************Jury rules against Minn. woman in download caseBy STEVE KARNOWSKI – 58 minutes agoMINNEAPOLIS (AP) — A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song....et cetera*****************************This seems pretty lame.
 
User avatar
brontosaurus
Posts: 2035
Joined: May 10th, 2004, 8:33 pm

Intellectual Property

June 19th, 2009, 7:08 am

talking of music and algorithms - anyone here use Pandora?
 
User avatar
ppauper
Posts: 70239
Joined: November 15th, 2001, 1:29 pm

Intellectual Property

June 20th, 2009, 10:31 am

the award certainly seems disproportionate.
 
User avatar
Cuchulainn
Posts: 62591
Joined: July 16th, 2004, 7:38 am
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Intellectual Property

June 20th, 2009, 10:43 am

QuoteOriginally posted by: ppauperthe award certainly seems disproportionate.If they now do the same with anyone who did this, they could make a lot of money. #people X #number of songs! Next step is to do it with QF books Bingo!
Last edited by Cuchulainn on June 19th, 2009, 10:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Step over the gap, not into it. Watch the space between platform and train.
http://www.datasimfinancial.com
http://www.datasim.nl
 
User avatar
trackstar
Posts: 27445
Joined: August 28th, 2008, 1:53 pm

Intellectual Property

June 21st, 2009, 5:46 pm

Papercut - this may be of interest to you:Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industry - Reuters June 20"LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - The recording industry secured a resounding victory last week when a Minneapolis jury awarded the four major labels $1.92 million in damages after unanimously finding that a 32-year-old mother had willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.But a question arose after the verdict about whether the sheer size of the damages could lead to a backlash against an industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching. Sony BMG attorney Wade Leak, who testified at the trial, said he was "shocked" by the damages award.No one expects that the labels will collect the entire amount from Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Brainerd, Minn., mother of four who testified during the retrial that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs. Thomas-Rasset lost her previous trial in 2007 and was ordered to pay $222,000, only to achieve a now-pyrrhic victory when the court tossed the verdict because of a faulty jury instruction.Even for law-abiding citizens who believe that labels have every right to protect their copyrights, a verdict of almost $2 million could be hard to swallow. Indeed, the Recording Industry Assn. of America said it was willing to reach a settlement with Thomas-Rasset, as it had been all along.The Copyright Act provides for awards of statutory damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, in the case of willful infringement. A number of copyright scholars on the "copyleft," led by Harvard Law School's Charles Nesson, have argued that such damages awards for personal use of file-sharing networks are excessive. Though no court has yet adopted that theory, the Thomas-Rasset verdict provides a very human face to the argument, which she will likely pursue on appeal if the case isn't settled.While the recording industry claims strong support in Congress, with powerful champions including House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., and his Senate counterpart Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Minneapolis verdict could well lead to a legislative move to reduce the damages awards available against individual infringers like Thomas-Rasset."...
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Intellectual Property

June 22nd, 2009, 10:50 am

Why do they call this "sharing" when it's clearly duplication and distribution? If the person in question had lent her legally bought copy to a friend such that either she or her friend (but never both people) had the one copy, then that would be sharing (like sharing toys or candy bars). But, instead, she clearly produced more copies and distributed them. The low marginal cost and ready availability of song duplication technology is no justification of or defense against either the legal or moral issue of illegal music duplication and distribution. People such as the defendant are clearly not paying their fair share to the folks that make and distribute music and should be fined/jailed for their thievery.
 
User avatar
PaperCut
Topic Author
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 12:50 pm

24 songs. That's like one cd. Call it two.What if you shoplifted two CDs? Would you be fined a million dollars?Give me a break. It's just more evidence that the American legal system is a shameful, corrupt coliseum of cruelty and bullying.Intellectual property my ass.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 1:06 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCut24 songs. That's like one cd. Call it two.What if you shoplifted two CDs? Would you be fined a million dollars?Give me a break. It's just more evidence that the American legal system is a shameful, corrupt coliseum of cruelty and bullying.Intellectual property my ass.The "shoplifted two CDs" analogy only applies to the recipients of the copies distributing by the defendant. The defendant, in duplicating and distributing copies of songs, may have "shoplifted" tens, hundreds, or thousands of CDs.
 
User avatar
PaperCut
Topic Author
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 4:22 pm

Show me that soembody lost money.Let's bring a court case that says, "The Defendant caused me to lose money. Well, I can't really prove that. I can prove she downloaded two CDs worth of my Genius. So I may have lost money, or I may have just Not Made some money. I want a million dollars for my unsubstantiated non-winnings."If this is what it takes, then I should bring a suit against Foxwoods casino. "I may or may not have lost or non-won money there. I want a million dollars."Anyways, we should find out what the music was. Because if this turns out to be Nickleback, I am going to really pissed off!
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 7:42 pm

The award, which does seem excessive to me (but then I wasn't in the courtroom), is tied to statutory damages rather than compensatory damages. The justification of such high levels of damages comes from a combination of likely total damages in the case of willfully unjust activities, the creation of strong disincentives for future misbehavior, and "send-a-message" example making. For example, an industrial polluter or negligent product maker might be forced to pay damages that are much higher than those created by the specific act but that reflect a broader pattern of miscreant behavior or that serve as a significant disincentive to future misbehavior. The large award in this trial and the previous one suggests that the defendant seemed guilty of much more than a one-time theft of 24 songs (one article about the case cites alleged duplication and distribution of a total of 1702 songs).
 
User avatar
PaperCut
Topic Author
Posts: 1616
Joined: May 14th, 2004, 6:45 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 8:02 pm

Fine, but what about Nickleback? They just suck.
 
User avatar
Traden4Alpha
Posts: 23951
Joined: September 20th, 2002, 8:30 pm

Intellectual Property

June 23rd, 2009, 8:11 pm

QuoteOriginally posted by: PaperCutFine, but what about Nickleback? They just suck.Indeed! In that case, the listening public should be able to sue Jammie Thomas-Rasset for making such material available on the internet.In the case of Nickleback, it's too bad that file "sharing" isn't really like other types of sharing because then downloading a song would REMOVE the song from the internet.
ABOUT WILMOTT

PW by JB

Wilmott.com has been "Serving the Quantitative Finance Community" since 2001. Continued...


Twitter LinkedIn Instagram

JOBS BOARD

JOBS BOARD

Looking for a quant job, risk, algo trading,...? Browse jobs here...


GZIP: On