$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 $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."
Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Interesting)
I wonder myself whether the defense DELIBERATELY anticipated a huge defeat in not refuting evidence or calling expert witnesses,
all in an attempt to "shoot the moon" and get unreasonably high damages awarded which would, as it happened, stir controversy and
undermine the RIAA in future venues up the court chain. Thomas was certainly painted as a victim in media coverage, (rightly so, yes)
and the idea that ANY song is worth 80,000$ for being stolen in ANY form is pretty ludicrous and now widely acknowledged as such.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Seems like a pretty huge gamble to not only saddle your client with a huge unpayable debt but also set precedence for future cases just on the hope that it would stir public opinion enough to overcome the powerful RIAA lobby and get favorable legislative action on the issue, meanwhile hoping you can somehow get the ruling reversed on appeal (maybe due to ineffective counsel?) If my lawyer tried a tactic like that, they would be fired well before the trial.
You'd have to assume that if it was done, it was done with Thomas's knowledge and consent... perhaps even her idea.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the face of economic terrorism and a complete lack of juristic integrity I suggest a repayment schedule of $1.00 per month until the death of the defendant.
If I were compelled to pay (and had anything to take) I would destroy all cash, property, etc to deny the mafiosi their big score.
Better to destroy everything of value than yield to terroristic demands.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Informative)
Rosa Parks intentionally broke the law because she was tired and didn't want to walk to the back of the bus. 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.
"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." -- Rosa Parks
Please at least try to learn something about what you're talking about before you say something foolish.
Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uh, there's a problem with appeals and excessive amounts. In same cases (although not in civil courts I think, IANAL/correct me at will), you have to post a portion of the money to appeal directly. However in this case due to constitutionality might not be the case.
I'm wondering how good the replacement lawyer was and if that has a factor as well.
Basically the whole case is wide open to appeals though, all around.
The echo chamber (Score:3, Interesting)
Thomas was certainly painted as a victim in media coverage
That is how is she was painted here.
But that isn't how the jury saw her - not the first time around and not the second.
There is a world beyond the blog.
It has its own rules and its own values - and in that world the geek doesn't fare so well.
I wonder myself whether the defense DELIBERATELY anticipated a huge defeat in not refuting evidence or calling expert witnesses
That would be just plain stupid.
The trial court or the appellate court is free to
Re: (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
Re:I know I'll be labeled as flamebait for this bu (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, read the McDonald's case.
They consistantly brewed their coffee at 180F. Industry standard is 140F or so. There were multiple complains their coffee was too hot, dating back years. They were warned repeatedly about this. There was a paper trail. There were prior cases of 3rd degree burns.
Furthermore, the victim wasn't driving at the time. In the car, yes, but not driving. In fact, she was a passenger and the car was in park.
So when this case ended, McDonald's was slapped not only for this incident, but for their apathy for ignoring the problem for so long (which is what punitive damages are for: to finally get you to stop ignoring the complains and industry regulations.)
And sometimes lawsuits are the only ways to get companies to straighten up. Simple calls to Customer Service does nothing. If you want nutritional (heh) info on that chocolate shake, you'll likely have to sue them to actually get the attention of a corporation. Course, that's slightly different than suing them because apparently the fast food place tied you to a chair and force fed you burgers and fries a la the gluttony victim in Se7en... ...Not touching the cat one.
The courts are really the only route individuals have to get a company to pay attention about an issue. Furthermore, one of the GOOD things about our system is anyone CAN sue anyone else. It's just you've got the burden of actually having to prove your case when it goes to trial.
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What if she doesn't have a home? What if she spent the last 15 yrs saving up funds for a down payment and was looking to buy a home in the near future.
Now her dreams ruined.
A $1 million fine for a $10 album is unconstitutional. Frankly, I think it's time we tore down RIAA's offices brick by brick.
(RIAA has stolen more music than all downloader's combined.)
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:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:5, Insightful)
we got fat and lazy. Literally and figuratively.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least we don't have surveillance cameras at every corner...
Re: (Score:2)
What the hell happened to that former colony ours that fought for freedom and began a war of independence over unfair taxation?
It followed your example and became an Empire, with similar results.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you say that. Just open a history book and read it for yourself or you could look up the New York Times, March 3, 1930 issue and read the transcription of Roosevelt's speech concerning the Volstead act in which he states "As a matter of fact and law, the governing rights of the States are all of those which have not been
surrendered to the National Government by the Constitution or its amendments. Wisely or unwisely,
people know that under the Eighteenth Amendment Congress has been given the right to
Re: (Score:2)
We seem to be in competetion with you fellows on who can become the least free the first.
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:Failed once, will fail again. (Score:4, Funny)
People only fight when they have nothing left to loose.
If you have nothing left to loose, you are probably done fighting.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
While you lose your mind, I loose mine.
Re: (Score:2)
What I think should happen (Score:3, Interesting)
I think they should subpoena the jury and ask them exactly how they came up with $2M in damages. As I noted before. This sounds extremely fishy that they would award that type of money to the RIAA. I suspect there was jury tampering involved.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What is fishy about it? She has been clearly guilty of this crime since the beginning and she's only been assigned about half of the maximum statutory limit. I don't see why this leads to any notion that there was jury tampering. All it leads me to believe is that these statutory limits need to be seriously looked at and made to fit more correctly the crime.
Re:What I think should happen (Score:5, Interesting)
This verdict is a simple reflection of the fact that the jury has no
sense of perspective on this matter. They probably just pulled a number
out of their collective posteriors. You probably had some crying for
blood advocating the full amount and others advocating the minimum
amount. The foreman probably split down the middle and probably didn't
even bother to AVERAGE the proposed amounts.
Can you relate to 2 million dollars? Do you think the average jurist can?
Do you think the average American can?
So, Minnesotans think that running a P2P app with some music on it rates 50% the maximum penalty.
It makes you wonder what they think merits the minimum or the maximum.
Mebbe the 200x range of damages spelled out in the law just demonstrates how bogus it is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's no way to think she didn't do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed, but its that way for a reason.
The original intent of statutory damages was 2 fold:
1. To ensure that the infringer does not do it again, and to send a message to other potential infringers, that this behaviour will not be tolerated.
2. To punish commercial infringers for any infringements they may have done that could not be accounted for through actual losses.
It's obvious from the plain evidence in this case that she is not a commercial infringer, and never intended to re-sell the 24 songs, which leaves the other option: To send a message.
I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that $80,000 is insane damages for a single song. So then, in a range of $750 to $150,000, what *IS* fair?
The evidence seems to say that she is guilty, and thus should be held accountable. Actual damages would not send the message that the industry wants to send, but at the same time, ridiculously high damages seems to have the same effect.
Is $750 acceptible? For a total damage award of $18,000? The question is not "Could she reasonably pay the damages?", because the law doesn't care if you can pay it. The question is "How much would make a reasonable deterrent for future infringers?".
Unfortunately, these days, I believe the problem is already out of control, and no amount of damages, reasonable or not, would serve to deter future infringement. Indeed, the same person, after resolving all these issues, being left penniless and bankrupt, is likely to learn from these mistakes and use an encrypted client in the future, and simply download all their music in the future.
Punishing an avid music collector (it's reported that she actually *owns* 200+ cd's) over 24 downloaded songs seems to me to betray all of your future customers.
I don't honestly think theres any way the recording industry can drive this mess for a positive outcome for them. They'll never get the money from *any* damage award, and they're reputation is irreversibly and forever scarred by this lawsuit campaign.
Re: (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 ava
Re: (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.
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.
You have to wonder... (Score:2)
...if her lawyers planned or even steered this way since it may be a more fruitful avenue to pursue in the end. Either way it's absolutely absurd and obscene. It's pretty obvious this whole house of cards the recording industry has made will fall, the question is just which attack will make it finally crumble?
It is not over (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It is not over (Score:5, Interesting)
The RIAA has been making very telling statements after the verdict.
Yes, it's amusing. They're being quite defensive about it. They've been caught with with their greedy pants down.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Duh... (Score:5, Interesting)
When it's large damages against a company [yahoo.com] the Supremes know it's not good. But statutory damages to an individual that lines the pockets of business, that's great! (For 5 of 9 anyways). Summary: businesses good, people bad.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Punitive damages are meant to from doing things again. In this case I will increase my efforts to by local music, or independent, and minimize my interaction with such a dangerous organization as RIAA.
Our country is run by the right. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you knocking the court and judges? Their job is to apply the law no matter how stupid the law is. Courts are supposed to apply the law, not make it. It's Congress that needs to fix these messed up laws. But unfortunately we have elected a Congress that can be bought by Disney.
Apply the law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Same goes for the prosecution in criminal cases.
AFAIK nobody has ever been sentenced to life imprisonment for adultery in Michigan. Even though that is how the law is written. Go check it out
If 1.9 million for copying a song is not cruel and unusual punishment, then maybe life imprisonment for adultery is fine too.
Some may say adultery is not a serious offense, but a lot of spouses ma
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The definition of "conservative" has really changed a lot since I was young.
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:Protecting Artists? Artists to Blame. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly so! Green Day claims to be so socially progressive but here they are waiting to collect $80,000 for one song from a mother of four. What a bunch of hypocrites. Unless someone challenges them on this nothing is going to happen. Does anyone know of a way to directly impact these bands?
I suggest flooding their myspace pages with questions about why they are supporting this decision as well as the broader RIAA actions (who they have actively supported). (If they aren't vocally against it, they they
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone know of a way to directly impact these bands?
Stop buying music. As simple as that. If the artists don't bother being vocal about opposing tyrannical organizations such as the RIAA, then they tacitly approve of their actions. If the occasional band/artist does voice their objection to the RIAA, then by all means support them. But if they don't then we just have to consider them part of the RIAA gang.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They should have subpoenaed the bands to testify since it was their music that was being infringed. It would have been very interesting to hear each band's statements about where they stand on having the music copied on the Internet. Say the wrong thing and they'll destroy their fan base.
Since this is supposed to be about compensating the artists, it would be interesting to have the bands testify on what percentage of these settlements they receive. How can it make sense to award $2M when the artists proba
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Don't forget to rip it to MP3 first.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It doesn't matter that the artists get very little from the music industry - in the end, it was their choice and the artists mentioned in the OP are filthy rich, so I have a hard time feeling sorry for them. But the main point is that these artists (or "artists")
a) Create profits for the labels.
b) Give legitimacy to the labels.
As long as they stay quiet and collect their money, they are responsible. So, yeah, name and shame is definitely a good tactic to follow.
For your information, not ALL musicians decide
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 release
Re: (Score:2)
The RIAA purpose is to protect the artists.
Nope. That's what they say, but I doubt it's ever been true. That "I" in there stands for "industry". In this case, the acronym is completely accurate. The association serves the industry, not the artists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So, what's the constitution have to say about i (Score:2)
My opinion (Score:2)
Just as somebody who really did not have any interest in this, and am quite willing to pay for music.
This is complete nonsense and will not even serve the RIAA's interests. This penalty is so far out of line that it is completely fantasy, the risk of being sued for millions of dollars is so abstract and impossible to prepare for that the logical thing to do is ignore it. Also even copying ONE song has in effect bankrupted you, so there is no financial incentive not to copy more.
If they really wanted to make
Re: (Score:2)
Precedant recently set by the Supremes (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you get this business about the Sup.Ct.? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
One way Ms. Thomas-Rasset could pay for it (Score:2)
Paint her legal team and sell them as new.
Irrelevant to Due Process (Score:5, Interesting)
The EFF is going to run out of rope really fast. BMW v. Gore said it was about factors, but it was really about notice. Could BMW really expect such a dramatically large punitive-damages award? Maybe not, for the conduct alleged. Here, legally speaking, Jammie had notice: there was a statute putting her on notice of the fact that a jury could award these damages if it wanted.
Anyway, with the Court's current composition, arguing that BMW v. Gore should be expanded to statutory damages is a non-starter. That opinion barely made it through as it was. Just look at the dissents--Ginsberg, joined by Rehnquist? The Court's only gotten more government-friendly since then.
I don't know much adjudicatory criminal procedure; maybe the 8th Amendment is the way to go.
Cruel and Unusual (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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.
8th amendment and civil law (Score:4, Informative)
You would think so, but these are statutory damages. it's punitive (a punishment decided by Congress(!) to deter others), not compensatory (where the jury tried to figure out how much the record label was harmed, and chose an amount to set things right). Statutory damages are not merely civil court decisions; the legislative branch is neck-deep involved here.
It's a fine, and Congress did it.
That's the kind of thing the 8th Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights was specifically created to address.
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!
Appeal (Score:2)
My question is, "Was this case set up for an appeal?" It seems interesting that the defense made a very simple case at trial,did not oppose bad evidence with vigor and then didn't strenuously go after the jury instructions, which seemed to be missing quite a bit of important details. Almost was like the battle was forfeit to win the war at a later date.
Would be interesting to get a few attorneys to comment...
What The Fuck Country (Score:2)
1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions
Reprehensibility? That's sure to be objectively defined and fairly applied. Is it illegal to be reprehensible now?
2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award
Seems to me that this difference should always be $0.
3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations.
We have these things separated out for a reason.
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.
a history of copyright (Score:4, Funny)
1. once upon a time, there was a set of gentleman's agreements agreed upon between large publishers of vinyl and plastic cassettes
2. poof: teh intarwebs appears
3. new ability: every pock marked teenager in the world now has greater distribution powers than bertlesmann + time warner + every publisher that has ever existed: "hey my friend in novosibirsk, this is cape town: you want the entire creative output of that new zealand lounger singer bic runga? here ya go"
4. response of publishers to new ability: apply to every single pock marked teenager the set of rules agreed upon between rich executives in oak paneled golf clubs over mint juleps
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.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Simply boycotting them won't be good enough.
Re: (Score:2)
She's effectively attainted. All that debt is as good as a forfeiture to the crown.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
reprehensibility (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:2)
I wonder what the artists received per song?
They will get nothing from this, because the fine will not be paid. The labels, in contrast, will be able to negotiate a reasonable settlement and put $1.9m in the loss column on their next tax return. They will then pay tax on almost two million dollars less of their income. That, alone, is probably enough to fund a few cases like this...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Lets say:
24 songs
74 cents per song
100 leechers on P2P, per song
24 x $0.74 x 100 = $1776.
This is even more reasonable...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)