Slashdot Mirror
Verdict Reached In RIAA Trial
jemtallon writes "The jury in the previously mentioned Captiol v Thomas story has reached a verdict. They have found in favor of the plaintiffs, Capitol, and ordered that she pay a $222,000 fine for 24 cases of copyright infringement."
Frankly, as much as I loathe the RIAA, Thomas' story simply didn't hold up. The prosecution was able to prove that in an attempt to evade prosecution, she had replaced her hard drive shortly after receiving a warning notice from the RIAA, not before as she claimed.
It's a shame that the defendant of this first RIAA jury trial turned out to be a liar with a bogus defense. But apparently, that's who she was. Given the facts brought out in the case, I don't see how the jury could have found for the defense.
Punitive damages is a term with a special meaning. No punitive damages were awarded in this case. Statutory damages could have been as high as $150,000 per song. While that level may well be punitive in a colloquial sense, we are talking a special usage -- not a conversational usage.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
It's a civil case.
It's a civil case.
How many more times?
How we know is more important than what we know.
One thing you point out is paramount. Since this was a civil case, the fine should be only enough to promote equity rather than be punitive in nature.
Another interesting thing is that, averaged out, this adds up to $9250 per infringement. At that price the defendant could have physically stolen about 600 copies of each work (assuming around $15 per work). So it pays to remember that the fines for physically stealing copyrighted works are much less than infringing on them.
This was actually addressed in the Ars Technica writeup of the case. Normally the damages for copyright infringement are a few hundred dollars ($300 max rings a bell). In the case of willful infringement, however, damages can increase up to $150,000 per incident. The jury found that the defendant had engaged in such willful infringement, and could have awarded up to $3.6 million ($150,000 for each of 24 songs being distributed).
> "Don't do the CRIME if you can't pay the FINE !!"
Kevin Smith on Prince
Perhaps a copyright lawyer will come by and put me in my place.
Okay.
In the 1976 Act the amounts were $250 - $10,000, and could be lowered to $100 or raised to $50,000. Congress amended this in 1988, making the new amounts $500 - $20,000, $250, and $100,000. Congress amended it again in 1999, making the new amounts $750 - $30,000, left the minimum possible floor at $250, and $150,000.
I'm thinking that the forces that got Congress to raise the statutory damages in 1999 were well aware of how cheaply copying could be done for. Likewise, the idea that not all copying was commercial and that individuals acting noncommercially could run afoul of copyright laws was well known at that time.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
It is called jury nullification and Jury veto.
I am a big proponent of it. unfortunately, talking about it gets my excluded form jury duty.
Actually, it will be automatically discharged, unless RIAA contests it in adversarial proceeding. If they wanted to be real pricks they could probably drag it out for some time. This is nothing new, Scientology has done it to a bunch of their critics.
That said, bankruptcy judges typically take a rather dim view of creditors that try to do this -- the whole point to bankruptcy is to give the honest person a fresh start (there aren't supposed to be debtor's prisons in the US). Besides which, the whole point of the RIAA suits isn't to collect money. It's to get the headline of "Jury awards $220,000 to RIAA for file sharing". There is exactly zero chance that they will ever collect any sizable sum of this money, bankruptcy or not. Take a look at OJ Simpson. How long has he dodged that judgment?
Filing for bankruptcy has become more difficultThat's a myth. It's become more expensive for those filers that retain an attorney, because of the new requirements imposed under BAPCPA. There's also the added cost of the required credit courses and consoling, but this is typically not a huge expense.
and the consequences more far-reachingAnother myth. The consequences of filing BK didn't change at all under the new laws. The only 'consequence' that changed is that you have to wait 8 years before you can file again, vs 6 years under the old laws. The biggest consequence of filing bankruptcy is that it goes on your credit report for 10 years. It's a myth that you won't be able to obtain credit after a BK. I'm two years from my Ch 7 and I have a car loan at 5.5% and $5,900 worth of credit limits. I could probably obtain more if I wanted to (why bother?)
It is not an easy way out.It is what it always has been -- a last ditch safety net for those with no hope of ever repaying their debts. Unless this woman makes a huge amount of income and can realistically pay this debt back in the next five years, this sounds like the perfect reason to file bankruptcy to me. With few exceptions (student loans, taxes, child support) we don't allow debtors prisons/debt slavery in the United States.
And yes, I've been through all of this. I filed Chapter 7 under the old laws. I still maintain a relationship with the attorney that did my case. I wound up becoming his computer consultant. He would be the first to tell you that not too much changed under the new laws. 95% of his clients are so deeply in debt that they qualify for a Ch 7 even after the "means test" imposed by BAPCPA. The image of scores of deadbeat debtors with the money to repay their debts abusing the bankruptcy system was nothing more then propaganda put out by the credit industry.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.