Court Reinstates $675k File Sharing Verdict 388
FunPika writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a whopping $675,000 file sharing verdict that a jury levied against a Boston college student for making 30 tracks of music available on a peer-to-peer network. The decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a federal judge who slashed the award as 'unconstitutionally excessive.' U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner of Boston reduced the verdict to $67,500, or $2,250 for each of the 30 tracks defendant Joel Tenenbaum unlawfully downloaded and shared on Kazaa, a popular file sharing peer-to-peer service. The Recording Industry Association of America and Tenenbaum both appealed in what has been the nation's second RIAA file sharing case to ever reach a jury. The Obama administration argued in support of the original award, and said the judge went too far when addressing the constitutionality of the Copyright Act's damages provisions. The act allows damages of up to $150,000 a track."
Update: 09/17 21:32 GMT by S : As it turns out, the article's explanation of the decision is a bit lacking; read on for NewYorkCountryLawyer's more accurate explanation.
NYCL writes, "The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reach the Due Process issue in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. In a 65-page decision (PDF), which rejected all of Tenebaum's counsel's other arguments, and which otherwise praised Judge Gertner's handling of the trial, the First Circuit felt that under the doctrines of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, it was premature to decide the constitutional issue without first disposing of the defendant's motion on common law, remittitur grounds. The Court gave several examples of scenarios which might have occurred, had the lower court decided the remittitur question, which would have avoided embarking down the constitutional path."
Reminds me of this artwork (Score:5, Funny)
http://gizmodo.com/5833654/this-5-million-piece-of-art-is-a-1-terabyte-hard-drive-filled-with-pirated-software-songs-and-more [gizmodo.com]
I guess that hard drive is now worth more than the US economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Geithner did fix him and his friends' problems back home. Until they drag him out in cuffs he will continue to fix his buddies up. Now, he'd like his counterparts on the other side of the pond to enjoy the benefits of big cash handouts, too.
Timmy's all heart, he's just like Robin Hood... except different.
I can't understand... (Score:3, Funny)
What goes into these people's heads.
"Hmm yeah he put some songs up for download, that's 22,500 dollars each."
Maybe he hit a pair of extra zeros when he was typing out the verdict.
Surely he didn't prevent 22,500 people from paying a dollar for the song.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely he didn't prevent 22,500 people from paying a dollar for the song.
No, that is the producer's job!
(considering the quality of music that has been coming out of the RIAA the past decade)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Is that figure so hard to believe? How many people use file sharing networks .... millions? It wouldn't have to be a very popular song to quickly rack up 22,500 downloads from people who might otherwise have just used iTunes.
It's always hard to hear about huge fines levied against individuals who have no way to pay but what does the guy expect? He knew what he was doing was illegal. If there's no punishment at all you mi
Re: (Score:2)
Right and all of them were going to buy the song if they couldn't get it online of course. And all of them are going to download it from this gentleman.
Also they seem to still be doing well for themselves, even with all this 'rampant piracy', I don't see them dying of hunger anywhere. Buskers and volunteers right.
Re: (Score:2)
I would. And I've made books and music, both on that list.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that figure so hard to believe?
It's hard for me to believe it if they don't have any evidence. Not only that, but I don't think they should be punishing one guy because other people downloaded the file (even if he helped them do it). And it's only a potential loss of potential profit.
He knew what he was doing was illegal.
Right. I'm sure that argument will be so convincing to people who think that this punishment is cruel and unusual.
Re:I can't understand... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know. Is that figure so hard to believe?
Yes.
Suppose I offer a copyrighted recording for download and people in fact do download it. The way this file sharing software works, the people that download it by default are then also offering for download.
Unless you are claiming that nobody else can also be held accountable for illegally distributing the same songs in question, then you must conclude that if the key number in question is valid then at least 22,500 other people can also be held responsible for the very same songs distribution on file sharing networks by the very same courts.
Under this scenario where 22,500 people can all be held accountable, each for 22,500 downloads.. we are now talking about 506 million downloads being claimed..
Are you suggesting that 506 million downloads isn't hard to believe?
It is obvious that either the 22,500 figure is bullshit, or the system is set up to punish one individual for the crimes of up to 22,500 other people....
Re: (Score:2)
"Hmm yeah he put some songs up for download, that's 22,500 dollars each."
It is an unlicensed, unlimited, wholesale redistribution. That is why statutory damages come into play.
If it had been possible to watermark his uploads and trace every download this geek would not have fared any better. There is a very good chance he would have been hit even harder, and I think everyone here knows that.
Kazaa made it very easy and very tempting for the uploader to boast about being the ultimate - the reliable - source for a particular product. You could browse the shared files folders of
Re: (Score:2)
A fancy name doesn't alter the math of the situation nor time honored notice like "cruel and unusual'.
If I stole and destroyed a $75k sports car (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's not forget a jury of US citizens actually somehow thought this was appropriate.
We have a serious stupidity problem in the US that is bringing the nation to its knees... right at hip level to huge money interests... leaving the US begging for a huge money shot.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem is no one smart would be allowed to stay on the Jury... a hint of intelligence disqualifies you these days...
Re:If I stole and destroyed a $75k sports car (Score:5, Interesting)
Bullshit. I used to believe that crap, then a few years ago I got an opportunity to serve on a jury for the first time. I'd say 2/3 of the jury were pretty smart in one way or another.
When picking a jury, you can't just disqualify as many people as you want. Each side has only a limited number of jurors they can dismiss without reason. They can dismiss an unlimited number of jurors for good reason, if the judge agree's it's a good reason, but I don't think "because he's too smart" is going to be a good reason to do so in the judges eyes. So sure, they could use their limited number of no-reason dismissals to try and get rid of smart people, but the problem is, you quickly run out those, and then you are stuck with whatever jurors get called as a replacement.
Furthermore, it's fairly difficult to figure out who's smart just based on the questions that get asked. The judge just asks for simple stuff like your occupation and a few questions to try to determine any bias...whether you know anyone involved with the case, whether someone you know or are related to has been involved in a similar case, whether you or someone you know has been a victim of the sort of crime about to be tried, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
If I were an attorney during voire dire, I'd more than likely move for a dismissal of your husband for cause too. The presumption of prejudice is eminently reasonable when a religious fundamentalist is involved. There is all of human history to lend credence to a lack of ability to compromise when a fundamentalist's beliefs may come into play.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh they never say "I don't want you because your to smart". That said... I've been drawn to court only to be turned down twice. They also asked us far more than 'Did you know anyone involved?' or 'What is your occupation?'. I was asked all sorts of things by both lawyers that they thought was vaguely relevant to the case at hand and the judge didn't seem to much care what they asked.
The people who go on always seem to be the stupidest, most ignorant of anything except their own petty lives people I've ever
Re: (Score:3)
My response was "If no firearm is entered into evidence, it would be much harder to convince me that the defendant had the means to commit the crime that he is accused of"
I was dismissed.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe your response was interpreted as an indication that you have a bias towards hard CSI-style evidence as a requirement for a guilty verdict.
My answer to that would be more along the lines of "Not if all other evidence presented is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt.", since reasonable doubt is threshold that has to be passed for conviction in US courts (or am I mistaken?).
Re: (Score:2)
if, during the pre-test phase, you show knowledge of jury nullification, you are automatically disqualified.
they ask a few times if you will follow the letter of the law or the judges 'instructions'; and if you say you will follow your heart (in any similar words) you are thrown out of the pool.
they don't want people judging the law; they want to withold that so that those who can directly monkey with the system can do so unfettered by your and my 'moral views' toward bought-and-paid-for laws.
and if you kno
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The majority of the population don't care about people who are violating other people's copyright. That's just the way it is.
Things may very well change in twenty years, when the kids who file shared have grown up and compose a majority of the electorate, but I doubt it.
Crimes get defined by the majority. Deal with it.
Re:If I stole and destroyed a $75k sports car (Score:5, Insightful)
Which majority made the DMCA possible?
Re: (Score:2)
A jury of people who had no good reason to get out of jury duty. Unemployed, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
It is not their place to determine whether or not the punishment as prescribed by the law is appropriate
That is absolutely their job. That is why we have juries. If it as just about the interaction of the law with the evidence it would be a lot more efficient and effective to hold bench trials.
Juries may be getting mis-instructed, but that they're listening is an indication of the vast array of ignorance amongst the general public as to what juries are for.
Re: (Score:2)
Yup. Why even have a jury if they don't have any political role in the proceedings?
The whole reason juries were required in the constitution was as a check and balance against the power of government. If the government passed a horribly unjust law, then they would have trouble convincing 12 ordinary people to go along with it.
The real problem is that the nature of the economy is such that most people can't afford to spend a lengthy time on a jury. Serious trials take weeks to complete. I can't miss work
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not absolutely their job. They can't make up the laws. They have to follow what is written.
Juries don't *have* to do anything. They're *told* to follow the law as written, but they are perfectly free to return any verdict they choose for whatever reason they want.
Re:If I stole and destroyed a $75k sports car (Score:4, Informative)
Similar to British law, in the United States jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes due to a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
In fact get the word out, perhaps someone you tell will be on a jury that matters in these types of cases.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Were that the case, we wouldn't really need juries at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well lets see.
You have to pay for the sports car (of course)
You also have to pay for the potential fuel that the driver was going to use - because you destroyed the sports car, the petrol companies lost 'potential income' which the driver would have used according to their calculations based on a random number generator with a bias towards greed.
I'm applying the same logic as this case has. Seems to work.
Re: (Score:2)
A brief web search turns up that Ferrari is extremely vigilant about defending their work and sues practically everybody. I even found an article about Rolls Royce suing a golf cart manufacturer for making fake Rolls Royce front ends for their golf carts.
Seems like everybody is trying to defend their work, not j
Re: (Score:2)
[quote]I even found an article about Rolls Royce suing a golf cart manufacturer for making fake Rolls Royce front ends for their golf carts.[/quote]
LMAO!
I have a set of fiberglass fenders, hood, and deck lid for my VW Beetle to make it look like an old Rolls Royce. I always thought it was kind of an ugly kit, but now I'm tempted to put it on just to piss off Rolls Royce. :P
How dumb is this? (Score:2)
So you take a merely onerous award that the defendant might possibly pay off and raise it back up to something that there's no way in heck he'll ever pay. What's the point, again?
Re:How dumb is this? (Score:5, Insightful)
To ensure that he is a slave and that his children will be slaves. That's what debt is all about, whether it's brought on by that flashy new car, your overpriced suburban house, that prestigious college diploma, a few medical bills, or some asinine court costs. You can't be a proper citizen until you're at the financial mercy of the system. How else are corporations going to legally keep slaves nowadays?
Re: (Score:3)
Why not just immediately declare bankruptcy?
Re: (Score:3)
some kid who is going thru hard emotional times could very well decide to go terrorist based on being sued into oblivion.
every action has repurcussions and by suing someone so unfairly and so harshly, its only a matter of time before some unbalanced person gets sued and goes nuts-o.
and, even worse, I wonder how the media will bury that story if and when it ever happens?
a class war (which is sort of what this is, in a way) can end badly. if those in control really want this, I guess its a possible future.
Re: (Score:3)
Bankruptcy does not erase judgements against you.
Newyorkcountrylawyer (Score:3)
Re:Newyorkcountrylawyer (Score:4, Insightful)
His input was superb and most welcome... until he started accusing people of trollery for simply disagreeing with some of his points.
I was shocked & dismayed to see that. I don't value his contributions nearly as much, but you're right, his input probably would be insightful right about now...
Re: (Score:3)
http://slashdot.org/~newyorkcountrylawyer [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
So it's basically months upon months of everything related to RIAA, especially legal proceedings.. ..then a 10 month hiatus.. ..and then submissions / comments on everything from paleontology to astronomy to general tech company musings.
Yeahhh.. what happened?
I mean, I guess Mr. Beckerman might just be trying to keep things to his blog ( http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com] ) rather than on /., but even that has seen more frequent posts in the past.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry... (Score:2, Informative)
But Obama is a f***kwad....
All you bleeding heart liberals are too stupid to realize there is nothing to differentiate this man from George W. Bush. And as for copyrights & patents....he is showing himself to be a pimp for corporation.
Against the people at every turn. We're not talking about legality. We're talking about the Constitution that says a fine cannot outweigh the crime. Right now, in our courts. Copyright violation is a greater crime than rape. Think about that before you reply...
Re: (Score:2)
But Obama is a f***kwad....
All you bleeding heart liberals are too stupid to realize there is nothing to differentiate this man from George W. Bush. And as for copyrights & patents....he is showing himself to be a pimp for corporation.
Against the people at every turn. We're not talking about legality. We're talking about the Constitution that says a fine cannot outweigh the crime. Right now, in our courts. Copyright violation is a greater crime than rape. Think about that before you reply...
Clearly thinking is a stretch for you, but consider this:
You don't pay a fine for rape, you go to jail.
Obama is not a lawyer working for the executive branch.
You, however, are a moron, if the difference between what you posted, and the reality of the two points above, aren't understood by you.
Re:Sorry... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sorry... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I would eat a couple of years in jail at a low security prison than a $600,000+ fine. Low security prison, frankly, isn't that bad. You piss away a couple of a years reading books, and then you are done. Whenever you go into a job interview, when you get to the point where you need to disclose a prison record, you just explain that you were in because you shared 30 music files on your computer. As an employer, I wouldn't balk for a second. If anything, I would be more inclined to hire in a tie as a small attempt to outweigh a brutal injustice. Being two years behind in your job growth/promotion path is annoying, but trivial.
A $600,000 fine is brutal. It means that you will never be able to save enough to retire. You will absolutely end up becoming a dependent on the state and have to rely entirely on social security when you retire. You are have been fucked for the rest of your life. You will never have enough money to do anything more than scrape by. You will never be able to take out a loan for basically anything. Unlike being stuck with a mortgage of that amount, you can never declare bankruptcy. You are in financial servitude to the state for the rest of your entire life.
Better for the State to outright steal a few years of your life than to be enslaved for the next 60+ years that this poor kid is going to be alive for.
Re: (Score:3)
America (Score:4)
The Obama administration argued in support of the original award,
The executive branch, which receives funds from corporations in the form of campaign contributions, should keep its nose out of the judicial branch, which is tasked with enforcing the letter of the law without the influence of corporations (or any other third party).
Re: (Score:2)
In all likelihood it was just a lawyer from the Justice department. But it's cooler to say, "Obama administration", as if he personally stood there arguing the case.
Music is BAD hm'kay (Score:5, Interesting)
So children, what has this taught us today? That's right, music is DANGEROUS.
What was once part of the human condition, bringing people together, binding their society, and begging at an instinctual level to be shared for the propagation of all human kind, is now owned by a few companies who will sue you to an early grave.
Destroy all of your radios, CD, and MP3 players. This stuff is more dangerous than radioactive waste.
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually not too far from the truth. Copyright infringement is a strict liability crime. That means even if you didn't realize you were infringing and/or took reasonable steps to ensure you weren't infringing, you are still on the hook if you end up doing it anyway. In that case, the minimum penalties are lowered to $200 per work infringed.
There's an idea, send someone a trojan that shares their music folder. I've got about 5,000 songs, give or take. That'd be about $1,000,000 -- minimum. There
Re: (Score:2)
It would be great for artists to have those principles.
The question is, will they keep them when a label starts waving a million-dollar contract under their nose.
"It's not the principle, it's the money of the thing..."
Re: (Score:3)
Well (Score:2)
Well if he was the only one to post the tracks online then that is actually not a unreasonable figure for the losses the company might suffer.
Of course he would not be, basically all music is available online from a variety of sources, but it seems less unreasonable if you take the stance "he is being punished for all lost revenue from the pirating of those tracks", because he is the only one caught.
But then I am sure nothing is stopping them from suing person after person for the same songs.
So basically ... (Score:2)
if you violate copyright law you have to declare bankruptcy and forever be unable to get a loan, meaning you can never own a house, a car, etc.
In some ways it is better to be a murderer, a sex offender, or any plethora of other "lesser" crimes.
That was a flawed judgment (Score:5, Interesting)
What happens in filesharing is quite different. Say you share a song with 10,000 people. For a judgement approaching the $150,000 per song max to make sense, punishing you with that fine has to indemnify all those people you shared with. Otherwise you can fine Tenenbaum $22,500 for making 10,000 copies of a song, but you can also fine each of the 10,000 people he shared with $22,500 each for making the same song available to each other. Thus netting the record company a potential $225 million for 10,000 copies whereas in the bootleg CD case they could only net $150,000 for the 10,000 copies.
This country really needs to pass a copyright law which distinguishes between these two cases. The current copyright statutes make sense for commercial copyright infringement when there's a single perpetrator behind it all. A new copyright statute needs to be made to cover cases of peer-to-peer filesharing, which recognizes that 10,000 people sharing a sing with each other means each person on average only made 1 copy. Punishment needs to reflect that average, meaning something on the order of $100 should be adequate. Either that or limit copyright holders to suing one and only one filesharer per song, ever. Right now, we're allowing record companies to sue 10,000 people on the basis of making 100 million copies, even though only 10,000 copies were ever made.
Re:That was a flawed judgment (Score:4, Insightful)
Some good has come of this (Score:2)
This guy's life is over... (Score:2)
Unless this dude's family is composed of millionaires, this is pretty much game over. At this point you may as well spend your time trying to assign blame so you can exact some form of revenge, what are they going to do to you, pay for your room, board, food, and medical care forever?
Kill one, frighten thousands! (Score:4, Insightful)
"This guy downloaded 30 songs. See what happened to him? It could have been you."
This post is misleading... court merely remanded (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This was back in the Kazaa days. Who knew back then?
Even I had downloaded files back then. Of course, now all my computer software is FOSS and all my media is legal. These idiots don't realize that a downloader today is a customer tomorrow, so long as you don't sue them.
Re: (Score:2)
Worse than that. He chose to fight rather than settle. Which means he either received some extremely poor legal advice or was prepared to accept some insane risk/reward ratios.
Re: (Score:2)
Or he assumed that a jury made up of his "peers" would have be smart enough to see just how asinine the entire situation really was. Of course, that's a bad assumption when given the reality of the system, but it's not an unfair expectation when confronted with the spirit of the law. The problem, I suppose, steams more from jurors being idiots. Generally speaking, only the dumbest of folk don't go out of there way to get dismissed from jury duty.
Re: (Score:2)
"Or he assumed that a jury made up of his "peers" would have be smart enough to see just how asinine the entire situation really was."
Not many file-sharing college students sit on juries. And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it."
And thus the BIGGEST problem with the "PEOPLE" in this country, believing that when you're on a a jury your are simply there to follow a judges orders. Serving on a jury is NOT simply deciding whether a person did or did not break the law but is the one time in your life that as an individual you are not only permitted but dutybound to sit in judgement of unjust laws. Jury duty is the one oppor
Re: (Score:3)
"You can't trust people, Jeremy. People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis".
-- Super Hans
Re:asses (Score:5, Informative)
how can a song be worth $150,000? if i leave $1 apples in my yard for someone to take, will 150,000 show up?
No, apples are a scarce resource. Digital files can be copied indefinitely with no quality loss, thus the scarcity must be created artificially. Apparently the way to do that is by suing fans.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, a song may very well be worth $150,000 when first introduced to a studio. However, in this case, it is simply playing sleight-of-hand with the information. The song was put up on kazaa and could have been downloaded any number of times, including 0 and 1 billion, so the actual cost per song was somewhere between infinity and fractions of a penny. It is probably safe to say that it was downloaded lots of times, and the resulting cost per song is fairly low.
Re: (Score:3)
An individual couldn't have uploaded a song 1 billion times. Even just 100 times is very, very unlikely. Consider something known as amortization [wikipedia.org].
In this case, anyone can download a song from anyone else that has it. The maximum number of downloads required is the number of people in the network. Therefore, the amortized number of uploads per person is 1. It's highly unlikely anyone will upload any song more than a few times. That's how file sharing really works. Besides which, no private individu
Re: (Score:3)
"It's highly unlikely anyone will upload any song more than a few times. That's how file sharing really works."
Funny, I thought it worked by a person uploading portions of a song whenever asked. If asked by a thousand people for some part of a song, then by extension you helped to make the entire song available to a thousand people.
That's how file sharing really works.
(Just demonstrating the other side of your argument.)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the potential damage the whole swarm did. But it's like saying that you should not only pay your own speeding fine, you should pay the ones of the drivers behind you and indeed you contribute to a culture of speeding so you should pay part of the fine for everyone. How much did each peer contribute? Well one download equals one upload and each peer is only interested in downloading once, so the average is one upload. Even if we presume that each download is a lost sale and that the retail price is pu
Re: (Score:2)
Well, unless they can show exactly how many times it was downloaded, I wouldn't believe anything they say. Not only that, but I don't think they should be going after one person just because other people downloaded the files.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder WHICH JUDGE was paid off by the RIAA. NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL.
The laws are the problem, not the judge.
Re:Gee, I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
The Constitution is the law of the land. A judge who cannot apply it properly is a big problem. This government is just completely off the rails. There is not an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution is the law of the land.
The Constitution was the law of the land. Surely you're not new here? There are no constitutional protections for those living within 100 miles of a US border or oceanic coast. That just happens to work out to 70% of the population, including the individuals mentioned in this article.
Re: (Score:2)
What exactly does The Constitution have to say about file sharing?
Section 8 ...
1: The Congress shall have Power
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I agree the "government is just completely off the rails", but I don't see any constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go.
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
Nobody in their right mind would think this upload cost the RIAA anywhere near a half million dollars.
Anything the RIAA wants over market value per download should be deducted from RIAA-sponsored legislators' cam
Re: (Score:2)
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
Good luck trying to get them to do anything, though. I guess you could still try.
Re:Gee, I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go
See 8th Amendment, specifically nor excessive fines imposed.
Any reasonable person, which was and should be the test for the above, should consider $675,000 to be an excessive fine for the alleged crime.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Gee, I wonder (Score:5, Insightful)
The law in this case ought to be irrelevant:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
- 8th Amendment
I hope they take this to the Supreme Court.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You dumbass. What's the price of a speeding ticket? Are you saying that uploading a few tracks is as dangerous to others as speeding? You know, the act of driving a machine that weighs a ton or more faster than a limit imposed for other's safety???
You, my friend, are a shill or a rich man profiting from other's misery. Otherwise, you'd see how evil your post is. Well, either that or you're trolling.
Re: (Score:2)
No, he's not saying that and you know it. It's not just danger. Where I live there's a $1,000 fine for dumping trash. The fine is outsized to the "crime" since it's hard to catch them in the act or determine guilt after the fact. But if you're caught doing it. Boom.
As such, the fine has to be considered in the risk/reward equation. "I could just toss the bag out the window and... ah, naw. I'll throw it away at the next gas station."
Same concept applies here. "Sharing" is hard to catch and hard prosecute. He
Re: (Score:3)
well, crimes is something different. If it's supposed to be a penalty, rather than restitution, he should be prosecuted with a criminal standard of proof required.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet the constitution still forbids excessive fines. If you got caught going 20 miles over the speed limit and were levied a $10,000 speeding ticket, you would call that a reasonable fine? Wouldn't you, as a citizen of the United States of America, a country where the constitutional protections trump any law Congress may choose to pass, think maybe "This is an excessive fine, I have a constitutional protection against that fine"?
Re: (Score:2)
My coworkers and I attempt to counter balance this by treating jury duty as a civic obligation.
All of the "smart people" that get out of jury duty because they're "smart" can go screw themselves. They're the reason that stupid decisions like this are made and become precedent for other stupid decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter; if you're not willing to behave as an automaton and judge just the facts rather than the law, you won't get on a jury.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Thanks Obama! (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a shame, but realistically, Tennebaum will probably just file for bankruptcy. The RIAA will get virtually nothing, Tennebaum's credit will be hosed for a few years, and that'll be the end of it.
But knowing that bankruptcy is available to the defendant illustrates just how vindictive the RIAA and MPAA really are. They have to KNOW that people can get away from the fines with a chapter 7, so that makes me believe that they seek these ridiculous awards thinking that they'll discourage others.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
IANAL - But when I declared bankruptcy in 2003, 2 of the things I remember you could not write off were student loans and court judgements.
Yeah.. You're right.
If you commit a felony, the court record disappears after X number of years, depending on the county (in the U.S.) If you get a judgment for compensation and you can't pay it off, it will stay on your record indefinitely until you do.
So, from a logical standpoint in terms of information retention, sharing music is a worse crime 'on your record' than repeatedly beating your significant other to a bloody pulp.
Something seems a bit... odd... about... this....... yeah.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So much for the Corporate Lawn Jockey in the White House.
Not that all the OTHER politicians aren't welded at the lips to the collective corporate sphincter, but it's well worth reminding anyone who thinks ANY candidate from either Party will be different how they roll after they get you vote.
Re: (Score:3)
It's change that any billionaire can believe in. Seriously, who comes up with such ludicrous damage awards? The purpose of punitive damages is to punish. Punishing a college student is making them owe $675, not $675,000. Making them owe $675,000 is effectively sentencing them to a lifetime of indentured servitude even if they had 100% of their wages garnished.
If memory serves, our country overthrew its previous British government for exactly the same sort of oppressive behavior—debtors' prisons an
Re: (Score:3)
Welcome back NYCL. It's about time some sense is added to the discourse here.
Thank you. I don't know if I have any "sense", but I do know something about the law. If I truly had "sense" I think I would have studied programming.