The legal system in most developed countries have measures in place to prevent the theft of intellectual property. These measures often involve a consequences. More recently there has been a discussion about the use of imprisonment, but traditionally the consequences have come in the form of a heavy fine (to say the least). Take for example the recent decision of Sony BMG music entertainment v Tenenbaum in the United States.
The defendant, Joel Tenenbaum, was found guilty of downloading songs illegally online through peer-to-peer file sharing sites. The jury awarded the claimants, Sony BMG, a total of $675,000 in statutory damages. This decision would seem logical, if Tenenbaum stole close to 675,000 songs (seeing as the average price of a song on iTunes is 99¢). However, in all actuality Tenenbaum stole only thirty songs. This averages to about $22,500 per song.
The amount was originally reduced at first instance to $67,500 on constitutional grounds. However on appeal by both parties to the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the original amount of $675,000 was reinstated. Tenebaum appealed again to the First Circuit Court of Appeal this past Sunday, and the previous decision was upheld. A further appeal to the US Supreme Court is unlikely to materialise.
Believe it or not, things could have been a lot worse for Tenenbaum. The US Copyright Act allows the jury to award anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per willful copyright infringement. (non-wilfull infringement is limited to $30,000). Each song which Tenenbaum illegally downloaded is considered its own separate instance of copyright infringement. Thus, potentially the jury could have awarded the defendants a total of 4.5 million dollars.
In the most recent appeal Tenenbaum tried to argue that the award was too large and thus violated his constitutional right to a due process. However, the court rejected this argument, and stated that the function of the Copyright Act was to provide compensation and discourage wrongful conduct.
I do not doubt for even a second that the function of the Copyright Act is to provide compensation and discourage wrongful conduct. I do, however, doubt that the Court of Appeal’s decision provides fair compensation and proportionately discourages wrongful conduct.
I’ve mentioned in previous blog posts that I do somewhat sympathise with the music industry. They have been providing practical alternatives to piracy in recent years (although somewhat begrudgingly), and even with the advancements the decline in piracy has seemingly plateaued. However its decisions like this which make me loose all sympathy for the industry and makes them seem like the antagonist.
Link to sources:
http://www.natlawreview.com/article/copyright-infringement-damages-upheld-file-sharing-case
http://www.copyrighttrademarkmatters.com/2012/08/28/are-you-willing-to-pay-22500-to-download-a-song/
Link to case report:
http://media.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=12-2146P.01A
