User:Gloudas/sandbox

// ORIGINAL SECTION The RIAA typically seeks $750 statutory damages per song file. The Copyright Law In the Brooklyn lawsuit UMG v. Lindor,[62] the defendant argued that the RIAA's damage theory was unconstitutional, because it sought 1071 times the actual amount of $0.70. In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal Court upheld the legal theory behind this defense.[63][64] UMG subsequently dropped the suit.

On Oct. 4, 2007 Jammie Thomas's case filed against for illegal sharing of 24 songs on Kazaa was adjudicated, with a $222,000 ($9,250 per song) verdict awarded to the RIAA.[65] The verdict, however, was set aside in September 2008, after the judge in the case determined that he made a mistake in the definition of "making available", leaving this case once again unresolved.[66]

The evidence of the effectiveness of the suits is not conclusive. Recent research suggests that the lawsuits have reduced the number of files large file-sharers offer but have had limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time.[67]

// PROPOSED NEW SECTION By US Copyright Law, damages ranging between $750 and $30,000 can be sought for copyright infringement, and the RIAA typically seeks $750 statutory damages per song file.

In the Brooklyn lawsuit UMG v. Lindor,[62] the defendant argued that the RIAA's damage theory was unconstitutional, because it sought 1071 times the actual amount of $0.70 which the song costs in online stores. In November, 2006, a Judge in a Brooklyn Federal Court upheld the legal theory behind this defense.[63][64] UMG subsequently dropped the suit. On Oct. 4, 2007 Jammie Thomas's case filed against for illegal sharing of 24 songs on Kazaa was adjudicated, with a $222,000 ($9,250 per song) verdict awarded to the RIAA.[65] The verdict, however, was set aside in September 2008, after the judge in the case determined that he made a mistake in the definition of "making available", leaving this case once again unresolved.[66] In 2008, federal judge Xavier Rodriguez ruled that teenager Whitney Harper would only have to pay damages of $200 per song that she shared on the KaZaA network, citing the fact that KaZaA did not expressly inform Harper that her actions were illegal, and thus Harper was infringing on copyright infringement unknowingly.

The RIAA has stated on their website that they want to bring awareness to copyright infringement, and thus may have started high-damage lawsuits with the intention of reducing the number of files large file-sharers offer. However, there has been a limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time.[67]

// Final Draft

By US Copyright Law, between $750 and $30,000 in damages can be sought for copyright infringement. The RIAA typically seeks $750 per song file in statutory damages.

In UMG v. Lindor [62], the defendant argued that the RIAA’s damage theory was unconstitutional because they sought 1071 times the actual cost per track in online stores ($.70). After a Brooklyn Federal Court judge upheld the legal theory behind the RIAA’s assessment of damages in November 2006 [63][64], UMG dropped the lawsuit.

In 2008, federal judge Xavier Rodriguez ruled that teenager Whitney Harper would only have to $200 in damages per song that she shared on the KaZaA network. Since KaZaa did not expressly inform Harper that her actions were illegal, Rodriguez determined that she had unknowingly committed copyright infringement.

In Capitol v. Thomas, a Minnesota mother was ordered to pay $222,000 ($9,250 per song) in damages to the RIAA for illegally sharing 24 songs on Kazaa. Before they first sued, the RIAA offered a settlement of $5,000, which Thomas refused. She later refused a second settlement of $25,000, which would have been donated to music industry persons in need. After three trials and multiple appeals, the Supreme Court refused to hear Thomas’s case in March 2013. Thomas maintains that it will be impossible the RIAA to collect the $222,000 fee due to her inability to pay.

THE RIAA has stated on their website that they wanted to bring awareness to the illegality of file-sharing through their lawsuit program, which ended in 2008. Although there is evidence that program has reduced the amount of files offered by large file-sharers, there has been a limited effect on those who offer less than 1000 files. Overall, the lawsuits have had a negligible effect on the availability of files at any random time. [67]

// TALK PAGE

I would like to propose re-writing the Determination of Damages section, as it offers no information on how the RIAA fundamentally determines the damages sought in its lawsuits. Specifically, the section currently consists mostly of specific lawsuits from the RIAA and how they were or were not deemed constitutional (information that I consider somewhat irrelevant to this section), and offers very little information as to why the RIAA sought specific amounts from certain individuals. To change this I want to add information from US Copyright Law showing how copyright holders are eligible to seek between $750 and $30,000 per infringement, and then use specific court cases from the RIAA to show what factors might influence their decision to seek more or less damages from an individual for each infringement.

Additionally, the line "The evidence of the effectiveness of the suits is not conclusive. Recent research suggests that the lawsuits have reduced the number of files large file-sharers offer but have had limited effect on those who only offer small number of files (typically less than 1000) and have had negligible effect on general availability of files at any random time." does not seem to pertain to the section, as it alludes to the long term effects of lawsuits and not about the lawsuit damages themselves. At the very least, I believe this should be re-written to relate to the long-term effects that the RIAA hoped to achieve by seeking large damages from individuals. Gloudas (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)