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.

Comments

Re:No surprise

[harryandthehenderson]

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.

Re:I feel like everything that can be wrong . . .

[syphax]

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:

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering.

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.

Re:Based On One Case from 1996?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

That decision tells us little

[snitty]

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/

Re:That decision tells us little

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

The article in "Technically Legal" is absolutely correct.

Re:Legislating from the bench?

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.