Slashdot Mirror
Sotomayor's Position On Copyright Damages
Too Lazy to Login writes "Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions, Sonia Sotomayor will likely affirm high damages (read: RIAA excessive) in cases where copyright claims are at issue. Good thing I'm not a betting man, because I'd have guessed the exact opposite." We discussed the nominee's cyberlaw record in general last week.
Yup, seeing as he already put some top RIAA lawyers into top DOJ spots, who's surprised? Really, raise your hand if you're surprised at Obama's copyright preferences. Come on, we won't laugh... Hard
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
Yeah because no Republicans have ever supported DRM, the RIAA/MPAA and the DMCA. Oh wait, only 1 Republican obstained from the DMCA vote and the rest all voted for it in the Senate. Oh and I won't even bring up that the DMCA was introduced in the House by a Republican and considering how the House at the time had a Republican majority that they would have had to have backed it in a significant amount for it to pass. And I also won't mention how in 2003, Republican Mitch Bainwol become the CEO of the RIAA in 2003. Yep those Republicans sure are anti-DMCA, DRM and RIAA/MPAA. *rolls eyes* Or maybe we can stop with the stupid rhetoric and recognize that both parties are in bed with the copyright interests.
Rantings, indeed.
To wit:
Are you aware of Sotomayor's dissent in which she defended the 1st amendment rights of a white NYPD employee when he was fired for having sent blatantly racist and anti-Semitic replies in response to charity requests he received in the mail?
That she ruled against the plaintiff in 80% of race discrimination cases?
That in her famous speech she also said stuff like:
The horror!
I am so sick of people taking one fragment of a speech or one ruling and rushing to judgment based on their own biases and agendas. Take a deep breath. Read Ricci. Read the Pappas dissent. Then let us know what you think.
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Wired reports that, based on her previous decisions ...
Huh, that's odd, I only found the article to list one case -- the TopRank suing the host of a tavern in 1996. And the statement she added as:
"A willful infringement, which the magistrate judge found, combined with a willful default, however, warrant an award greater and more significant than one which corresponds so closely to an estimated loss to the plaintiff,"
Are there more decisions I missed? Are we basing our image of this woman off of one action and one statement? It's not a good indication but it's hardly conclusive. Things have changed with the advent of the internet since then. Here's to hoping, I guess, but I think we're being a bit unfair and too hasty.
eldavojohn, you are quite right to be skeptical of the Wired article. In fact, there is no basis for the author to have drawn the conclusion he did. The Top Rank case is a garden variety, 'bar and tavern' case, in which the statutory damages awarded are usually 2 to 4 times the actual damages. The Magistrate's decision was below the normal range, despite his finding of wilfulness. Judge Sotomayor merely raised the award to within the typical range. It appears that she awarded between 2 and 3 times the actual damages.
In RIAA-land that would translate to from 70 cents to $1.00, as opposed to from $750 to $150,000.
No reason in the world to think Judge Sotomayor would disregard a hundred years of Supreme Court precedent and dance to the RIAA's tune.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The folks at TechnicallyLegal (disclaimer, I'm a writer and podcaster there) wrote up a post as to why her decision in the copyright case will have little bearing on the outcome of the RIAA cases. And why her reasoning there isn't really indicitive of what her reasoning may be in those cases.
http://www.technicallylegal.org/de-fud-sotomayors-stance-on-copyright-infringement/
Modular Redundancy--Because 4 out of 5 Nodes agree
A politician is a politician because he has two skills, one is his ability to use convincing rhetoric and the other is putting that rhetoric to the defence of the powerful, no matter they be the military, industry or some other interest group.
No, they don't defend the powerful with words. At least, Saddam didn't die of their words after he offered to sell oil for EUR too, instead of USD only.
It is not "legislating from the bench" to declare a damages award, authorized by a statute, to be unconstitutional. The fundamental law of the United States is its constitution. When a statute violates the constitution, the judge has to say so. That is not legislating, that is applying the law. The US Supreme Court has said that "punitive awards" which are unreasonably disproportionate to the actual damages are unconstitutional.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
1. The Supreme Court, in its Gore decision, did not distinguish between statutory damages or punitive damages. It referred to "punitive awards", it cited a Supreme Court precedent involving statutory damages, and it based its conclusion as to an acceptable multiple on an analysis of statutory damages.
2. The 8th amendment argument has to do with the argument that it is really a criminal statute in sheeps' clothing. The body of law to which I refer is under the 5th amendment, due process, concept.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
http://healthcare-economist.com/2006/07/27/medicares-true-administrative-costs/
I'll summarize: Medicare "administrative costs" are within about 3-4% absolute points of private insurance administrative costs.
Additionally, fraud is rampant in Medicare, which ultimately costs more than a little bit of administrative overhead.
Finally, benefits for Medicare have been growing at an unsustainable rate since it's inception. I do not think you want a program that grows 3x faster than the rate of inflation as your benchmark program for long term medical costs reduction.