Slashdot Mirror
US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."
Is it now the responsibility of the RIAA / US DOJ to show that the $750/song is constitutional? Or is it the defendant's responsibility to show it is unconstitutional? How would this work?
You know the REAL problem here? Is they DON'T work for you, and they don't really CARE what you say you want. And the kicker is, they will likely STILL get reelected.
"When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
It's not even about contributions. They have money, therefore they are afforded respect and deference at our own expense. They're "good for the economy". They don't have to give much of the money away at all, just show it off, much like a peacock's feathers, or my preferred analogy, a baboon's ass.
Anything that's Good For The Economy is what Must Be Done. All other pursuits, goals, and ideals of this country are secondary to The Economy.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.
"You work for us."
They only work for voters and supporters. The best way to get your opinion heard is to vote and contribute to campaigns. BTW, contributing to the opposing candidate works too. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. If you say "I will support your opponent in the next elections." they can check if you have ever supported any candidates before. If not they will treat it as an empty threat.
"We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off."
Have you actually told your congressman this? I email my congressman regularly on issues that are important to me. I hope you do as well.
Insert Generic Sig Here:
How funny that our tax dollars are being used to help a beligerant corporation make it's case, but why doesn't the common citizen get such help?
Maybe I'm missing something here...
You're not missing anything.
The government doesn't even pretend to be on the side of the 'little guy' anymore.
They used to at least give lip service to the idea, but now they don't even try to hide their kleptocracy.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
You obviously don't steal many Twinkies (or at least you don't often get bust for it).
Apparently neither do you.
If people just get fined retail value when they steal something, then there is no punitive/discouragement factor.
You are absolutely correct. A punishment component is both reasonable and required.
So for stealing a twinkie, $1.00 for the twinkie and $750 punitive fine is a perfectly reasonable judgement. However, if you stole a case of 100 twinkies instead of just one, what should your penalty be then? Would it be say, a single conviction, with a judgement of $100 for the twinkies plus $750 punitive fine or maybe even $800 or $900 in punitive damages? That seems fair to me.
Or would it be 100 convictions, each with a separate fine of $1 + $750 resulting in a $75,000 fine for stealing 100 twinkies.
THAT is how copyright infringement penalties works. There is a statutory $750 fine for each work that is infringed. The courts can't lower that amount, that minimum is right in the law.
There needs to be some sort of punitive damages to discourage further activity. $750 per song is probably a bit steep, but charging any reasonable flat rate per song is probably a crazy way to address the issue. Perhaps they should fine $1 per song plus some punitive damages ($500 for up to 10 songs, $1000 for more).
Yes. But their isn't, and the courts can't apply that scale even if they wanted to. The law requires that they be charged $750 per title infringed. Of course the RIAA is willing to 'settle' for far less... their 'good guys' after all.
But in the final analysis, a law that requires $375,000 in punitive damages for putting a few dozen cds on a web server, when the songs can be bought on itunes for $1 each is massively excessive, and that excessiveness can render it unconstitutional.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Damn, if that site isnt satire Im buying a gun.
Unlike the Soviets, the Republicrat Party has convinced the citizens of the USSA that their vote does indeed count (at least the 45% of the citizens of the USSA who actually go to the polls). And they have convinced the 45% who go to the polls that the 55% who don't are apathetic. Well actually they are, who cares which one wins when neither has our interests at heart?
The corporations, each and every one of them, finance the USSA's elections 100%. Each corporation "contributes" to both wings of The Party.
When that great American corporation Sony can "donate" to both major parties of an election, it doesn't care who loses, Sony wins.
Shortly after they start snowball fighting in hell there will be two laws passed.
-mcgrew (splitting my vote vetween the Libertarians and Greens. I won't waste my vote on someone who not only doesn't represent me, but represents those whose interests are diametrically opposed to mine).