Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages
Alberto G writes "As Jammie Thomas appeals the $222,000 copyright infringement verdict against her, the Department of Justice has weighed in on a central facet of her appeal: whether the $9,250-per-song damages were unconstitutionally excessive and violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The DoJ says that there's nothing wrong with the figure the jury arrived at: '[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."' The DoJ also appears to buy into the RIAA's argument that making a file available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement. 'It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement.'"
That's not the DOJ's decision to make.
the American legal system, the best justice money can buy... stays bought...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
Oh, right, because this is the same Department of Justice that doesn't see anything wrong with waterboarding, transporting people to secret overseas prisons, etc. It's the same DOJ that kowtowed to Microsoft pretty much the same day that President Bush swore his first oath of office.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
'It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement.'"
Given that the fair market value of a song has been established at $.99 it sure seems like the DoJ is making a directly contradictory statement. They are saying that even though it is impossible for one to know how many accesses there were it's okay to go ahead and assume that number was over nine thousand. Didn't know the DoJ should be out there supporting assumptions... oh well.
--- I do not moderate.
Since it's unkown how many other users accessed the files, the possibility that the number is zero is as possible as any other number.
If you cannot prove HOW many accessed the file, you cannot prove ANY accessed the file. Yet simply making available is a violation anyway.
The award is ludicrous.
If you RTFA, you'll find that the DOJ is siding with the RIAA because the defendant agreed to the terms put forth to the jury. She acknowledged and went along with the instructions, which included precisely how much she could be liable for if found guilty. In so doing she effectively waived her right to make this claim.
I'm one of the last people who would take something the DOJ says seriously these days, but their reasoning on this issue is sound.
More on this at Ars Technica.
From the article summary: "...because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement."
Sure, people can debate all day long about how much she should or shouldn't be held liable for given her infringing activities. But how the hell can you use other people's possible, but admittedly unverified activities which might have resulted from something you did to exact additional punishment on the "offender?"
Let's say I'm not paying attention and run over someone's cat. Am I now liable for the possible, but unverifiable, increase in the rodent population in my neighborhood, and consequently liable for potential damages in hospital bills for a contagious disease which might be spread by some lucky rat?
Someone's being prosecuted for stuff that may or may not have happened, and may or may not ever happen, but nonetheless is regarded as damaging in the eyes of the courts. Wow.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
It is impossible to have an exact figure, but an accurate estimate, at least an order of magnitude, is entirely feasible.
They say they lose billions a year due to piracy. Let's say they are right and are losing 10 billions, not an unrealistic figure, but still on the high side.
There are over 1 million people in America sharing music. We all know it's a lot more than that, but let's be conservative.
That would leave an average of $10 000 lost due to each file sharer, and that is an the upper limit. Sharing less than 30 songs is probably under the average if there are indeed only 1 million file sharers, so there is absolutely no way $220 000 can be a correct punishment in this case.
What was so tough about this?
Two things.
1) It seems to me that, given the fact that statutory damages in copyright infringement claims, are allowed in place of actual damages in instances in which actual damages cannot actually be calculated--the statutory damages are an attempt by Congress to estimate the likely actual damages caused to the plaintiff. In this case, that amount seems to be on the side of outragiously overestimating actual damages.
2) The DOJ argues that a damage of the high award is mitigated by the fact that no one knows how many other people accessed the songs made available by the defendant. This bothers me because it basically states that it is ok to collect damages that were not properly proven (which is obviously not ok).
The DMCA was written by (predominately) Democratic lobbyists, advanced by Fritz "Disney" Hollings (D), and signed into law by President Clinton.
The Republicans may have been the majority party at the time, but at least own up and take some of the responsibility. This is bipartisan hatred-of-consumers.
Within a P2P network, the total amount of uploading and downloading is the same. For every packet downloaded by someone, that packet was uploaded by someone. Therefore, the average user found to be sharing songs should be liable for two copies of that song: the copy they downloaded, and the copy they (probably) uploaded. Unless it can be shown that they did more than an average amount of uploading, this is the most reasonable assumption to be made.
The defendant was convicted for 24 songs. If we count each song as two infractions, this would be like stealing 4 CDs and giving 2 of those away. (Except that stealing the CDs would be worse, because it would be both retail theft AND copyright infringement.) What's the penalty for stealing 4 CDs? IANAL, but I'm pretty sure it's less than 1% of the penalty she received.
Any rational person would have to call this penalty absurd, unless they had ulterior motives to pretend otherwise.
(See also my post on why the RIAA thinks they are owed 83 trillion dollars.)
...says the anonymous coward...
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
That is technically incorrect. The lowest form of humor comes from the sounds and odors emitted from the typical human anus.
Come on man, everybody knows that. It's the one thing on this earth that you will find amusing on some level for your entire life.
When you were 2 you laughed when you farted. When you are 92 and sitting in a wheel chair in a nursing home you'll laugh at the old guy next to you who can't get away from your ancient mummy farts.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Maybe I'm way off base here, but why aren't any further acts of copyright infringement the sole responsibility of those who commit that infringement?
Otherwise, it would seem to me that an affirmative defense would be that the RIAA has already recovered damages for your infringement because they already prosecuted your source.
Why should the RIAA recieve compensation from me for infringement that may or may not have been perpetrated by someone who is not me?
And what I said was that the Eighth Amendment may constitute a right you cannot waive. While that right cannot be stripped, it may also be a right you cannot waive, as in you cannot agree to a public dissection (drawing) if the DA wants to pursue that option. You cannot waive your right to be shielded from cruel and unusual punishment.
However, the same court said in Lockyer v. Andrade that life in prison for shoplifting $150 worth of video tapes was not excessive, so I doubt they'll have a problem with the constitutionality of the judgment.
$9000+ per song is nonsense, the music industry would do far better if they took a more generous stance in these matters
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
If just making a file available constitutes infringement then just having the money available constitutes paying your taxes.
it's paying as a punishment for illegally redistributing it, and as a deterrent to future piracy.
Gotcha, so why exactly do we multiply the punishment times the number of songs that were simultaneously shared from a single computer as part of a single instance of a single crime?
$9250 total already seems a bit excessive as punishment for a first conviction of illegally sharing some songs via p2p for no personal gain.
$9250 per song... that's just stupid.
I know a 12 year old who shares some 10,000 songs via p2p; should he or his parents really be fined $92 million?
And for each instance, there should be a greater than 1 to 1 fine so that it's actually a punishment and deterrent.
Right, but its only one instance of the crime. They only got convicted once. It doesn't matter that they were sharing multiple songs.
If a guy steals a handful of bulk M&M's do you count the M's? If a cop pulls you over for speeding do you get charged for each yard you were observed speeding or for each mile over the limit you are? I can see it now...
"Sir, I followed you for the last mile and you consistently went 67. This stretch is a 55. So I'm fining you, and we really need this to be an actual punishment and deterrent so I'll set the base fine at $9250 per instance of the crime."
"Now lets see, there are 63360 inches in a mile, and you were speeding in each one of them... so 63360 x 9250... you owe just over 586 million dollars. I hope you've learned your lesson, son. Your just lucky I pulled you over when I did, I have a suspicion you would have kept up your pace at least another 20 miles if I hadn't. And you know,... this town has always wanted its own jet fighter squadron."
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
What's wrong with being stoned? ;)
but the equivalent of buying the right to distribute that song. When you purchase an album it does not give you the right to give it out to people, it just gives you the right to listen to itAs a legal argument I'd agree with that. However, don't we still have one problem?
Its also not unconceivable that the record companies lost that much money from her actions either, especially if she was one of the first to make it available for downloadAnd therein lies my problem with this. How can they prove how much they lost when they can't even prove how many people (if any) downloaded those songs from her? What if they lost nothing because nobody downloaded from her? Doesn't the plaintiff in a lawsuit usually have to prove how much damage, if any, they've suffered?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And it's not just his job as president I despise, oh no. I despise every single thing about the man. He has no positive qualities whatsoever. He's a lousy business man, a lousy husband, a lousy father, a coke snorting, frat-bastard, drunk driving, spoiled, over privileged, draft dodging coward. The man isn't fit to clean my toilets, let alone run the most powerful country on earth.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton