The Cost of Suing: Gene Simmons Edition

  Just because I'm bored out of my skull of doing probability homework, I thought I would do the math of Gene Simmon's recent proposal that the RIAA should sue every Peer-To-Peer user. Using this Ars Technica article for numbers and process, lets begin.

1.   How many Peer-To-Peer users are out there? Well, that really isn't all too clear. Ars Technica (who first wrote about the comments of Mr. Simmons), estimates the number of peer-to-peer users to be around 60 million from 2005. We're in late 2010. That 60 million has most likely ballooned into something MUCH, MUCH larger. Just keep that in mind as we keep doing these calculations. So for the sake of working with numbers, there are 60 million estimated peer-to-peer users globally. 
2.   So now that we have our total number of P2P users, lets look at the number of filings the RIAA does per year. Once again, Ars Technica points out that its between 18,000 to 20,000. Average it out, and it's about 19,000. So 19,000 filings a year to P2P users. Ars Technica goes on to multiply that number by the total number of P2P users to compute the cost of suing everyone. But that doesn't give us anything. We need to find the cost of each individual legal filing and multiply it by the total number of P2P users. Well here's the thing, the cost of P2P legal filings is really unknown. But just so you get an idea of the hoops the RIAA jumps through to get these filings out, not taking into account the time and money spent on finding the infringer's in the first place, lets look at it step by step.

1.   They contact their legal team, or a legal team to send a notice to a suspected infringer. There are all the legal fee's and overhead associated with that all. They eventually send a letter out, which needs to be paid, and they wait to hear back from the accused.
2.   They hear back from the suspected infringer. If the infringer decides to take it to court, they begin the long process of a trial, which brings with it its own set of legal fees and overhead. Then once a verdict is reached, someone may or may not appeal. Should one party decide to appeal then there are all of those legal fees and overhead to pay, and a possible retrial, which again brings in more legal fees and costs that need to be paid.
1.   BUT, if the accused decides on an out of court settlement, then there are still many legal fees that need to be paid before the process is over and done with. 

  I really hope the cost of just one case is starting to sink in, because if not, I have failed.
  So that was just a picture of what one lawsuit would look like. But for the sake of using numbers lets use Ars Technicas way of computing the total cost of suing every P2P user. So we have the average 19,000 filings a year and 60 million users. Multiply the two and we get 1,140,000,000,000. Throw a dollar sign on that and we get $1,140,000,000,000. HOLY S**T! One trillion, 140 billion dollars. or just 1.14 trillion dollars. That isn't the most accurate number (number of users has grown, actual cost of one legal filing is unknown, and number of legal filings a year is a useless number), and its already astonishing.
  Knowing this, would Gene Simmons still support suing every P2P user out there? Of course. So long as he didn't have to front the bill. I know the dude is worth and has some serious amount of money, but even though he says the entertainment industry should do everything it can to stop piracy, I'm sure he and the entertainment industry can find a better way to spend 1.14 trillion dollars, even if they had it. Oh, I know, start a foundation or work with the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation to promote the arts and creativity in the developing world. 
  *GASP!* GENIUS! I should patent and trademark that!

Lets Have Some ACTA Fun!

(Photo credit: xkcd.com)

  ACTA, that fun and wonderful little anti-counterfeiting trade agreement (Hence the name ACTA), that has eluded the constituents of its member nations for years, may finally get an official and complete release! Ars Technica is reporting that ACTA negotiations are "finished", and that the text of the agreement is 'consolidated and largely finalized' YES! 1 point for the worlds copyright/trademark/patent law whistle blowers! Disregarding the fact that the text of the ACTA agreement has been leaked, oh I dont know, FIVE TIMES, the news of a complete and official release is more of a "you finally got your act together!" moment, than it is a moment of relief for the whistle blowers. That isn't to say that ACTA isn't important. Far from it! Probably the biggest reason behind the formation of this agreement is to tackle copyright, patent, trademark, and Intellectual Property infringement in the 21st Century on a global scale (Well, by global I mean 'only pertaining to the participating parties'). This undoubtedly affects the Internet and nearly everything having to do with it. If that isn't important now int he 21st Century, I don't know what is.
  I'm not going to start dissecting and analyzing ACTA here on my blog. Ars Technica has done a pretty good job doing that with the official draft release from April of 2010. Along with analyzing the major provisions, they do a pretty damn good job giving background and what effects passing ACTA will have on global Copyright and IP enforcement.
  Is ACTA good or bad? For now I'm sticking to bad. US Copyright, patent, and IP law are a bit crazy and antiquated. I think that before the US began ACTA talks, they should have gone back and revised it's own copyright, patent and IP laws. Simply taking a look at the ridiculous length of copyright protection, along with the sheer abuses committed by companies such as Monsanto, it really becomes clear that something is wrong. Before you go spreading that around the world, you gotta make it work, albeit better, at home. But those are my two cents on the issue of Copyrights and the such.

Happy reading, readers!