http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...itol-v-thomas-trial-not-unconstitutional.html The jury's decision was unreal, but I am not surprised that the DOJ has kissed the RIAA's ass. Too much money there. But this is really just crazy. Totally ridiculous on a number of levels.
They are trying to set examples so other people don't break the law and download copyright materials. But they are missing the boat, they are pissing off their customer base, they should find another way around it...and embrace the downloadable digital future. DD
A great way to garner votes would be to introduce legislation capping damages for these kinds of suits. Also - if the RIAA is going to seek damages from downloaders for every subsequent act of copying from their copy- this should in theory bar them from brining suits based on ALL future acts of copying of that same song to prevent the possibility of double recovery.
Gee I dunno. The part where the RIAA admits they make about 70 cents per song seems to indicate that 9250 seems pretty outrageous. Or the part where sharing the file = copyright infringement. Moreover, the RIAA cannot prove that any damages actually occurred, only the possibility thereof. You don't see a problem with that?
Except the penalty was based on the law - not the value of the song. If you could only sue for the actual value of the song, there'd be no punishment for stealing and it would be absurd to sue. If I could steal music, and at worst, owe the $0.70 per song that I would have otherwise paid, I should always steal music. Worst case, I'm at the same place I was if I had bought it. Best case, I get free music. Similarly, if the RIAA could only sue for the actual value of the song, then anything that is relatively cheap should always be copied because it would be more expensive to sue than what you'd recover.
BMW v. Gore: SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 517 U.S. 559; 116 S. Ct. 1589; 134 L. Ed. 2d 809; Punitive damages may properly be imposed to further a state's legitimate interests in punishing unlawful conduct and deterring its repetition. In the federal system, states necessarily have considerable flexibility in determining the level of punitive damages that they will allow in different classes of cases and in any particular case. Most states that authorize exemplary damages afford the jury similar latitude, requiring only that the damages awarded be reasonably necessary to vindicate the state's legitimate interests in punishment and deterrence. Only when an award can fairly be categorized as "grossly excessive" in relation to these interests does it enter the zone of arbitrariness that violates the Due Process Clause, U.S. Const. amend. XIV. For that reason, the federal excessiveness inquiry appropriately begins with an identification of the state interests that a punitive award is designed to serve. Three guideposts are used to determine whether a punitive damages award is grossly excessive: (1) the degree of reprehensibility of the nondisclosure; (2) the disparity between the harm or potential harm suffered and the punitive damages award; and (3) the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases. Perhaps the most commonly cited indicium of an unreasonable or excessive punitive damages award is its ratio to the actual harm inflicted on the plaintiff. The principle that exemplary damages must bear a "reasonable relationship" to compensatory damages has a long pedigree. The proper inquiry in determining if a punitive damage award is excessive is whether there is a reasonable relationship between the punitive damages award and the harm likely to result from the defendant's conduct as well as the harm that actually has occurred.
Fair enough. I just think the punishment does not near fit the crime, considering they have NO PROOF of any actual tangible losses, or even of confirmed copyright infringement.
exactly, why not steal anything if there was no punishment? it could be worse, she could be going to jail over stealing.
couldn't the same be said on stealing anything. there should be a criminal punishment that fits the crime and a monetary one that fits the loss of value. If you steal, you should go to jail, and the person you stole from should get their **** back. Arguing that the person you stole from was damaged on an even greater basis monetarily sounds like a pretty grey area to me. Definitely it happens. I open a store, instead of selling anything, people come in and steal...now i go out of business. I have lost start-up costs, late fees, bankruptcy fees, ruined reputation, etc., etc. On the other hand, I also have insurance that should cover theft, and if I don't, I'm an idiot. you can see it both ways. the law is what the law is...but its really impossible to argue the "verdict" in this case was fair. Missed forms, bad filings, etc., etc., blah, blah. $220,000 is excessive.
Offtopic: It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement. How much would you be fined for stealing 10 CDs from walmart? I bet its a lot less than 220k? Sounds excessive, and the copyright "clause" is the only thing that makes it possible - but no infringement was quantified.
well as rhadamanthus just pointed out, its copyright infringement, and b) we don't know how much money these artists loose once their music gets out there.
Jack ****. The labels lose money... well the labels lose phantom money they could never prove they would have actually made anyhow.
The problem was that Jammie Thomas was file sharing those songs versus downloading them, right? Both are against the law, but the RIAA is mainly going after those that share. Using 99¢ (retail cost per song) or 70¢ (wholesale price) only make senses as a punishment for downloaders.
The problem is that the RIAA cannot quantify how much sharing is taking place, if at all. Sam pointed it out earlier, but if you just willy nilly assume that making it available consititutes infringement, you can make up any number for the "damages". It's nuts. If the argument is that it's a "punishment" than 9000 bucks a song seems freekin crazy given that you get fined like 250 dollars for stealing the whole damn CD from a store. So it must be based on percieved damage - but that's hardly sufficient grounds for a 220,000 dollar fine! Oh well. Back to work.
There are two different problems that you're trying to conflate into one single issue. The first is the problem with statutory aggregated damages in copyright cases. The second is the problem of proving the actual occurrence of infringement. I'm currently writing a student note on this issue which will hopefully be published sometime next year regarding the "making available" arguments of the RIAA. Two separate problems, however. The fact that you haven't proven infringement doesn't have anything to do with the amount of damages awarded. It only deals with whether or not damages should be assessed in the first place.
You're not counting the transaction costs associated with defending a lawsuit - which probably outweigh the $0.70 that the song costs. Anyway - the real problem here is with how the RIAA is trying to prove its damages. I don't know much about the underlying case but it seems almost entirely speculative and that they have causation issues.
Sorry - I used the term stealing inappropriately. I should have used copyright infringement or whatever. You can't go to jail because it's not the government bringing the case - it's a private lawsuit. The only penalty can be monetary. If the monetary damage to me for copying a $0.70 song was $0.70, there would, in essence, be no penalty to me. The penalty has to be greater in order to serve as a deterrent. If I'm going to lose $1 for copying a song on the 0.01% chance (made up number, obviously) I'm caught, it's likely not a deterrent. If I'm could lose $100 for copying a $0.70 song, I'm more likely to buy the thing legally. If it's $1000, even more so. If its $10,000, that's a much stronger deterrent.
Certainly - but you might be arrested, spend time in jail (realistically, probably not - but it's an option) and have it on your record. That's the deterrent there. In a private lawsuit, the penalty is all financial. To be effective, the deterrent level has to be such that it offsets the risk of copying music. Since the risk of getting caught is low, the penalty has to be high.
