Sony Exec: RIAA Lawsuits Cost Us Millions

**Lemur** · 10-03-2007, 16:36

This is very interesting. A Sony executive is put on the stand in the lawsuit Capitol Records vs. Jammie Thomas, and she admits all sorts of funky things. Doesn't she know you can lie under oath?

One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

The admission came during questioning over the amount of damages the RIAA is seeking in the case. Toder asked Pariser how much Sony was suing the defendant for, and she replied that the amount was for the jury to decide and that the labels weren't suing for actual damages. As is the case with the other file-sharing lawsuits, the record industry is only seeking the punitive damages available via the Copyright Act, which can range from $750 to $150,000 per song. "What are your actual damages?" asked Toder.

"We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," replied Pariser, who was reminded by Judge Michael Davis to answer the questions actually asked by Toder, not hypotheticals.

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works." [...]

The next line of questioning was how many suits the RIAA has filed so far. Pariser estimated the number at a "few thousand." "More like 20,000," suggested Toder. "That's probably an overstatement," Pariser replied. She then made perhaps the most startling comment of the day. Saying that the record labels have spent "millions" on the lawsuits, she then said that "we've lost money on this program."

This is fascinating. One of the theories for why the sue-your-customers strategy continues is that the lawsuits pay for themselves with so many out-of-court settlements. Clearly that's not the case.

Let's see,they don't have any idea what actual damages they're suffering, the lawsuits are costing them millions, they're throwing away any goodwill they may have had in the marketplace ... why do they keep it up? Who was it who said that a functional definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result?

**Goofball** · 10-03-2007, 16:59

This is extremely interesting. Especially this part:

Toder then pressed the Sony executive on the question of how many people actually downloaded music from the defendant. "We don't know," she replied. "I can't identify any other entities aside from what SafeNet reported, but I know that many others did... that's the way the system works."

It seems to me that if Sony can't demonstrate that people specifically downloaded music from Thomas, they've got a gaping hole in their case.

Any of our resident lawyers want to flesh this out a bit for the rest of us unwashed masses?

**drone** · 10-03-2007, 17:08

Ars has another article about other testimony by this exec:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post...-stealing.html
Basically, in her mind you need to pay them each time you listen to the music. Fair Use? Whats that?

Originally Posted by Ars

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

And people wonder why I have a Sony boycott going...

**Don Corleone** · 10-03-2007, 17:18

I've actually had a complete reversal on this topic. Lemur, between your endless parade of atrocities and a weeklong series of articles I heard on NPR, I'm switching sides. Screw the recording industry, I hope they all go bankrupt and I hope sellouts like Metallica go bankrupt right along with them.

Why the dramatic change of heart?

All along, I've viewed this case as an effort by an industry to use legal means to protect its intellectual property. As a semiconductor guy that sees knockoffs made of my company's chips available in the gray market all the time, I could sympathize with that.

But that's not what the recording industry has been doing. They're not going after competitive threats that are costing them market share or depriving them of profits, at least not intentionally (every now and then, I'm sure they actually do sue an actual bad guy, but that's not their intent). Their intent is to spam the world with lawsuits. Their trolling. The tip point for me was when a senior executive for one of the recording companies actually got quoted, with respect to innocent people that have been hit with 50K legal bills trying to ward off 100k lawsuits "Hey, when you fish with a dragnet, you're going to catch some dolphins.". In other words, they have no idea who they're targeting. And they vehemently fight to the end resisting paying the other side's legal bills, even when it's been patently proven that their lawsuits were malicious and without merit. They sued one woman who has advanced multiple sclerosis. The woman doesn't even know what a computer is at this point, let alone can work one to run or contact a piracy server, and even when presented with this information, they kept coming after her, running up her families legal bills (like they didn't have enough worries with medical bills).

This whole effort is about an industry running scared that has allowed its lawyers to engage in the most evil of practices. They deserve to go belly up, and frankly, the fact that so many judges are complicit in this by not assigning judgements based on malicious lawsuits against the RIAA has me convinced that our whole legal system is more corrupted than I had previously thought. This is bigger than any cadre of sheisters. This is the legal establishment continuing to try to establish an aristocracy on the rest of us, and the judges in these cases are every bit as guilty as the RIAA lawyers.

Now, if I write the RIAA or call them, they'll list me as a defendant in their next round of claims, so that option is out. What else would you recommend that I could do that would really put the screws to them? I don't buy CD's anymore, I already get everything off of I-tunes. I don't want to get hauled into a courtroom for my own personal lawsuit, but I'm willing to a a lot else.

**CrossLOPER** · 10-03-2007, 17:48

Attention: Sony hates you. Sony hates you more if you buy something from them. If businesses had no oversight they would all be like Sony. That's the way the system works.

**Don Corleone** · 10-03-2007, 17:55

Originally Posted by CrossLOPER

Attention: Sony hates you. Sony hates you more if you buy something from them. If businesses had no oversight they would all be like Sony. That's the way the system works.

You'll never get anywhere name-calling against a corporation. They'll just forward your name, email address and any other personal information you give them to their lawyers and they'll 'create' a history of illegal downloading activity and sue you over it.

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations. Don't buy games for Playstations. Don't buy Sony portable DVD players. Don't listen to Sony artists on the radio. Seriously. Shut the radio off when Madonna comes on. Don't listen to anything by any of these guys. I was sad to see the Allman Brothers band on their website. I'm going to pack up all my old vinyls and CDs and send them, along with a big "F-U" letter, to Gregg himself, down in Macon, Georgia. Maybe when artists realize how much people despise them for the practices done in their name, they'll apply some pressure on the rats in the legal department to stop what they're doing.

**lars573** · 10-03-2007, 18:05

Actually Don as an avid console gamer I can tell you that the best way to put the screws to Sony would be to target their one profitable divison. The games division. All the others, music, movies, home electronics. Not doing so well.

**TB666** · 10-03-2007, 18:06

So in other words, Sony is wasting millions for no good reason at all.
They are saying their are losing money thanks to downloading and now they are saying that they have no idea if it does or not ??
Is Sony being run by monkeys or something ??
Wait, scratch that. Monkeys probably would have changed tactic when realising that one type method isn't working.
Sooner these guys and other companies like it get's knocked out the better.

**Banquo's Ghost** · 10-03-2007, 18:07

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations. Don't buy games for Playstations. Don't buy Sony portable DVD players. Don't listen to Sony artists on the radio. Seriously. Shut the radio off when Madonna comes on.

Good advice Don, but I suspect the executives' world view is so skewed by now they will conclude: "OMG, our sales are falling - must be the pirates! We're not suing enough 12 year olds, grandmothers and dead people."

**ICantSpellDawg** · 10-03-2007, 18:09

Any band who makes money using a record company is a joke. Bands should make money playing shows or releasing official copies of their albums. EVeryone should be able to record noises that they hear and listen to them anytime they want. If this happened, better bands would have more money - label created pop bands would have none.

the whole lawsuit issue smacks of a McCarthy era witch hunt by cruel, detached corporations.

**CrossLOPER** · 10-03-2007, 19:32

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

You'll never get anywhere name-calling against a corporation. They'll just forward your name, email address and any other personal information you give them to their lawyers and they'll 'create' a history of illegal downloading activity and sue you over it.

The trick is to hit them where it hurts. Don't buy Playstations.....

That's.... the point I was trying to make.

**R'as al Ghul** · 10-04-2007, 11:13

Originally Posted by Lemur

[indent]One of the biggest bombshells from the cross-examination was Pariser's admission that the RIAA's legal campaign isn't making the labels any money, and that, furthermore, the industry has no idea of the actual damages it suffers due to file-sharing.

I woke up tonight and was certain to have heard millions of people shout "Told you so!!" at the same time. Seems I was right.
This is so ridiculous and pathetic.