$1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions 439
Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas. While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost. "Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."
Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:4, Insightful)
It is not over (Score:5, Insightful)
Our country is run by the right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame. (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists. It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.
If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:
I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.
Absolutely it is. When you have ex-RIAA lawyers getting assigned to high Department of Justice positions by this administration, what chance does Jammie Thomas think she has? They can appeal it all the way to the supreme court, and it's still going to get shot down; like you said, the whole system is bought and paid for.
The saddest part about it is that it's not just the judicial system. Our Congressmen have literally been bought and paid for by big business lobbyists for years now. Depressing indeed.
Re:Duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. The Roberts court's infinite pity for poor beleaguered corporations such as Exxon and BMW will be replaced by complete concern for the victims of crimes committed by individuals.
Objectively, one would think that corporations would need more and clearer punishment, not leniency. The only thing preventing corporations from behaving amorally is the risk of financial punishment -- CEOs have almost no personal liability. Individual citizens risk criminal punishment, and have to answer to society's moral standards.
Why aren't all the people part of the RIAA in jail (Score:2, Insightful)
For some strange reason it is run by the record companies which are the biggest offenders for ripping off the artists. I have not seen one case of the RIAA trying to protect the artists from the record companies. There is also ample proof of them ripping off the consumers, suing on behalf of someone who released their songs for free download, blatant lies and slander. Oddly enough most of the proof of the lies and slander you can find by reading the press releases then going to the studies that they provide on the RIAA site that does not support their press releases.
So my question is with them being so blatantly illegal, why aren't these guys all in jail?
Thomas-Aide? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps all those artists could do a benefit concert for Ms. Thomas and raise enough money to pay off the RIAA.
The amount shoudn't be set by a stupid-ass jury! (Score:1, Insightful)
Who the hell gave a jury of dumb-asses the authority to set the amount of the fine? What a bunch of ignorant incompetent couch potatoes!
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:2, Insightful)
I hope the victory will be in the system no longer being able to pretend it is "for the people, by the people".
And then what? Just because people don't read /. doesn't mean they're stupid. They know what's going on as well as we do. Maybe they know it because their pension plans are gone or their kids are dead in a dummy war the US is fighting to keep the economy afloat. This broken system is the best we've got. No reform and no revolution could change that. What would you revolt into that would be incorruptible? People are incapable of governing themselves. Someday we'll design better people or machines who will be able to conquer and govern the rest of us effectively. Until then, just try to lay low.
Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why I never bought CDs in the first place. The RIAA is not concerned with the welfare of its "Clients" it is only concerned with the lining of its own pockets. They care little for who they destroy in the name of "Justice" when their justice is just bullying those who cannot defend themselves. Its like putting someone to death for parking in a handycap space.
Seriously. This woman, and by extension her children, will never again live a normal life. The purpose of the justice system is to impress on those who break the law the seriousness of their infractions, NOT to doom them to "Prison without chains". She will never again have a financially stable life. She will never again be able to do anything but stare at the sheer weight that the twisted law has put on her shoulders. Her children will NEVER go to college if they are not given a free ride, which is more and more difficult to do in this world, and because of one small infraction(Yes, an INDIVIDUAL doing this is a small infraction even if it is part of a larger problem, the actions of the whole cannot be lumped on the shoulders of any single individual) she will be in all senses of the word, dead.
But so long as the wheels are greased by the right people laws will never be written to curb this kind of gross abuse of the system. All in all she's liable for what? 5-10 dollars per song when everything is taken into account? Even with a list that long it barely makes it into the realm of theft and far from the minimum of grand theft.
And all the while the artists, who this is supposedly done in the name of, are receiving how much of this money? How many dollars actually makes it back to them when a case is won? I'm doubting its very much after the lawyers exorbitant salary, the money used to grease the right wheels on capitol hill and the money that flat out goes to the RIAA as "Payment" for a "Service rendered". I don't think they care if they get to buy two sports cars that year instead of one. Or line a little more of their pool with gold.
The Day the RIAA closes its doors... is going to be a good day.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Misapplication of the law (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened to infringement needing to have some sort of commercial or otherwise monetary gain? P2P sharing is (generally) not for monetary gain. Regardless of whether it's right or wrong to do so, the intent of large damages is to discourage commercial copyright infringement, not to pick on the little people.
What a sad joke (Score:4, Insightful)
What a sad joke the judicial system is.
Is that supposed to be "justice"? I think by anyone's definition that is just plain stupid.
Not to mention pointless. The fine might as well be for a Gajillion dollars, 'cause she ain't got that either.
Re:time for a new job (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:1, Insightful)
Two Chickens in Every pot, Two cars in every garage.
Hey man, we have mortgage payments, car payments, the kids schools to pay for, transportation, Internet services, TV services, that rental couch my wife just HAD to have, the big screen TV, our DVD collection. Don't forget the BBQ next sunday with all the neighbors! We have to prepare for that too. Don't forget about nana's prescriptions, and the new game console for little Timmy, oh and games.
People only fight when they have nothing left to loose. Whos going to join the revolution if they have stuff they don't want to lose?
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the sounds of it, the client was unable to pay their initial settlement offer of a few thousand.
If thats the case then is there much different between being bankrupt and unable to pay say $50,000 or $5,000,000?
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
we got fat and lazy. Literally and figuratively.
Cruel and Unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF is wrong with you people!!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Trillions in bailouts to banks that wasted the untold fortunes of the average person's retirement funds in vain attempts they knew should have failed to make the rich beyond need bankers even more fucking rich, and the courts have a audacity to award the perveyors of packaged pop poop almost $100k per song shared? You people are totally fucked in the head. If it gets like this in Canada I am leaving - but where can I go that's not that inasane? Jeebus jumpin jehosiphat!
Re:The system in France (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine. Make it comparable to a shoplifting first offense.
That said. The RIAA should not be able to use the threat of megabuck jury
awards in order to extort easy settlements.
Re:What I think should happen (Score:4, Insightful)
I believe I read somewhere that they claimed it was a "per-upload" infraction. So it's something like she uploaded 24 songs something like 27,000 at $70 per violation.
There were 24 songs available -- no proof of any of them ever being uploaded.
Texas civil damages capped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Jabari, a 300-pound gorilla, escaped from his enclosure and went on an angry rampage through the zoo. Police shot and killed him on the zoo grounds, but not before he seriously injured Reichert, Heard and 3-year-old Rivers Heard.
The Dallas City Council, which oversees the zoo, is scheduled to approve a $500,000 financial settlement with Heard and Reichert during a special meeting Friday at City Hall. The money is meant to compensate the women and their children for their physical injuries and emotional trauma.
State law caps civil damage awards against a city government at $500,000.
So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25% of that.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Speaking as a Brit, I have to ask...
What the hell happened to that former colony ours that fought for freedom and began a war of independence over unfair taxation?
FDR. Not that he was responsible for modern copyright law, etc. but the era of big socialistic government programs taking precedence over individual liberty started when he stacked the courts to push his New Deal through despite it being opposed to everything the Constitution stands for.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a Brit, I have to ask...
What the hell happened to that former colony ours that fought for freedom and began a war of independence over unfair taxation?
It's easier to rally against the outside oppressor, than the enemy within.
Re:Make it a 1.9 trillion...same payout (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Enough, Give it up. (Score:3, Insightful)
RIAA != music. Spend your music money on your local artists, they NEED it. Does Snoop Dawg really need a new yacht that badly? Chances are, the drummer in your local band has more talent in his little finger than Lars Ulrich has in his whole body.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't mean to play down the significance of what she did, I'm just saying that court was the farthest thing from her mind at the time.
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:3, Insightful)
When you realise that the minimum statutory penalty for copying a CD is higher than the maximum penalty for stealing the CD, you see quite how messed up copyright law has become.
As a knee-jerk reaction, sure. And if you steal the CD, there is an obvious loss on one or more parties.
But if you steal a CD, you aren't necessarily taking an action that may have others not purchase other copies of said CD. If you buy a CD and upload it, there are many others who may download it instead of purchasing it, resulting in potentially far more than a single lost sale.
The key word is potential. Obviously, every download is not a lost sale, but if the cheep/easy solution of downloading wasn't available, more sales would likely occur.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
The award is not a penalty. (Score:5, Insightful)
The case is not a criminal case. The award is not a punishment. The case does not a class action suit with hundreds of injured participants. The award is recovery. The highest price of the 24 items on sites offering them for download should be considered as the "loss". Court and legal costs should be added. The total should then be the amount of the reward.
I find it interesting how folks in the government complain how class action lawsuits have unjust awards that are destroying corporations but seem fine with individuals getting raped by a corporation.
Re:Cruel and Unusual (Score:3, Insightful)
people are being burnt as witches
Funny you should say that. The last time people were being burned as witches, religious extremists were running the government. What a coincidence.
Re:I know I'll be labeled as flamebait for this bu (Score:4, Insightful)
No, that's propaganda spread by the lady's law firm to convince the jury (and it worked, not only on them but on a lot of people on the Internet).
Bunn is the largest manufacturer of commercial coffee makers in the U.S. They supplied the coffee makers when I helped manage a restaurant. They probably supply the coffee makers for McDonalds. They are the industry standard. If you go to their web store [bunn-store.net] and scroll down, you will clearly see:
Ideal coffee holding temperature: 175F to 185F (80C to 85C)
Most all the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points well below that of water and continue to evaporate from the surface until pressure in the serving container reaches equilibrium. A closed container can slow the process of evaporation.
Ideal coffee serving temperature: 155F to 175F (70C to 80C)
Many of the volatile aromatics in coffee have boiling points above 150F (65C). They simply are not perceived when coffee is served at lower temperatures.
Another Strategy (Score:3, Insightful)
That being said, I also have plenty of friends who are successful musicians -- real record contracts and a smattering of Grammies. Funnily enough, their attitude to their record companies is about the same as mine to publishers -- they stink, but are a necessary evil.
This parallel though suggest that their may be an alternative strategy available in the current context. Musicians and professors only deal with record companies/publishers, because there is no alternative. The question is why not? The answer is simple, these corporations are really diverse monopolies. "Ah ha!", someone will claim, "this is not so, as there are multiple record companies/publishers, thus there is 'choice', so it is not really a monopoly." However, when the record companies/publishers start to work together (e.g. in the RIAA), then they ARE working like a monopoly. Not only that, their business model is predicated on a form of extortion -- 'Give us the copyright, or your record does not get released/your paper does not get published'. Couldn't the RIAA and their like be put out of business on these kinds of grounds? Isn't this just the kind of thing that even the most foaming and rabid right winger would support? More to the point, why isn't somebody actually doing this?
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
I get tired of saying this, but the penalty for distributing a CD should have nothing to do with the cost of buying a CD or MP3. This would be appropriate if she was accused of downloading one copy, but she is accused of uploading. The issue is she assuming the right to distribute a CD or MP3, so the penalty should be based upon what the RIAA would charge to gain the rights to distribute the songs. I have no idea what songs were distributed, so I can't say whether the award is excessive (my gut feeling is yes, but if it was 24 of the most popular songs at the time, maybe not).
The penalty should be based on what it would cost me to gain the rights to distribute those 24 songs to anyone I wanted from my web site. So if I called the RIAA (at the time it happened) and said "I'm interested in putting these 24 songs on my web site for anyone who visits to download, what would that cost me?", whatever the answer would be would be a fair basis for the judgment. Obviously, the price they quote for the trial would have to backed up by facts (what have they actually charged for these or similar songs for instance) so they aren't able to just make up ridiculous amounts. Will it be a lot? Yes, it most likely will if they were popular songs (I;m sure 24 covers of Achy Breaky Heart wouldn't cost that much though), but it would be a fair way to estimate what the actual damage was.
Staged civil disobedience (Score:2, Insightful)
Rosa Parks was a case of theatre. It was carefully staged civil disobedience. When she got on the bus she was hoping she would be asked to move for the purpose of creating a case, if not in court, then in the court of public opinion.
She wasn't the first to try. One or two others tried but either the bus driver wouldn't bite and let them keep their seat or the case never got the traction it needed to change the world.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:2, Insightful)
LOL someone's been listening to conservative talk radio and watching Fox News.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's even worse than that - we're in a situation where you get a slap on the wrist for stealing a loaf of bread, but if you made a copy of the bread from the recipe, without affecting the original loaf, then you get your hand chopped off.
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:3, Insightful)
Example one: You steal a CD from a shop, and sell it for $1.
Example two: You burn a copy of a CD you own and sell it for $1.
By the current law, the maximum fine for example one is close to the minimum statutory fine for example two. The maximum penalty for example two is orders of magnitude higher than for example one. The moral here is, if you're going to give someone a copy of a song, steal the CD from a shop, don't make the copy yourself.