Slashdot Mirror
$1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions
Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas. While on the surface it may seem that this excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost. "Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."
Depressing as hell, but the system is bought, paid for, and bent beyond repair.
The RIAA always talks about how they are just protecting the interests of the artists. It stands to reason that this is a reflexive property.
If that is valid (and I certainly believe the first part of the supposition above is highly questionable), then here are the people you should hold accountable for this travesty of justice; the artists on her list:
I have a Green Day album and a couple Aerosmith albums. I figure to send it back with a suitably sardonic letter referencing the fact that I no longer want their music, and if they are in such financial hardship, they can re-sell it to help them put food on the table.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Yup. The Roberts court's infinite pity for poor beleaguered corporations such as Exxon and BMW will be replaced by complete concern for the victims of crimes committed by individuals.
Objectively, one would think that corporations would need more and clearer punishment, not leniency. The only thing preventing corporations from behaving amorally is the risk of financial punishment -- CEOs have almost no personal liability. Individual citizens risk criminal punishment, and have to answer to society's moral standards.
I wonder myself whether the defense DELIBERATELY anticipated a huge defeat in not refuting evidence or calling expert witnesses,
all in an attempt to "shoot the moon" and get unreasonably high damages awarded which would, as it happened, stir controversy and
undermine the RIAA in future venues up the court chain. Thomas was certainly painted as a victim in media coverage, (rightly so, yes)
and the idea that ANY song is worth 80,000$ for being stolen in ANY form is pretty ludicrous and now widely acknowledged as such.
Perhaps all those artists could do a benefit concert for Ms. Thomas and raise enough money to pay off the RIAA.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
I'm perplexed by the statement about the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's jurisprudence in the area of knocking down excessive "punitive awards" is well established, and would most assuredly lead to the RIAA's statutory damages theory being crushed. See amicus curiae brief, which summarizes and discusses the applicable authorities.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
From the sounds of it, the client was unable to pay their initial settlement offer of a few thousand.
If thats the case then is there much different between being bankrupt and unable to pay say $50,000 or $5,000,000?
I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
When you realise that the minimum statutory penalty for copying a CD is higher than the maximum penalty for stealing the CD, you see quite how messed up copyright law has become.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Jabari, a 300-pound gorilla, escaped from his enclosure and went on an angry rampage through the zoo. Police shot and killed him on the zoo grounds, but not before he seriously injured Reichert, Heard and 3-year-old Rivers Heard.
The Dallas City Council, which oversees the zoo, is scheduled to approve a $500,000 financial settlement with Heard and Reichert during a special meeting Friday at City Hall. The money is meant to compensate the women and their children for their physical injuries and emotional trauma.
State law caps civil damage awards against a city government at $500,000.
So the RIAA gets nearly $2 Million, while these people with real physical and emotional injuries get 25% of that.
Yeah, read the McDonald's case.
They consistantly brewed their coffee at 180F. Industry standard is 140F or so. There were multiple complains their coffee was too hot, dating back years. They were warned repeatedly about this. There was a paper trail. There were prior cases of 3rd degree burns.
Furthermore, the victim wasn't driving at the time. In the car, yes, but not driving. In fact, she was a passenger and the car was in park.
So when this case ended, McDonald's was slapped not only for this incident, but for their apathy for ignoring the problem for so long (which is what punitive damages are for: to finally get you to stop ignoring the complains and industry regulations.)
And sometimes lawsuits are the only ways to get companies to straighten up. Simple calls to Customer Service does nothing. If you want nutritional (heh) info on that chocolate shake, you'll likely have to sue them to actually get the attention of a corporation. Course, that's slightly different than suing them because apparently the fast food place tied you to a chair and force fed you burgers and fries a la the gluttony victim in Se7en... ...Not touching the cat one.
The courts are really the only route individuals have to get a company to pay attention about an issue. Furthermore, one of the GOOD things about our system is anyone CAN sue anyone else. It's just you've got the burden of actually having to prove your case when it goes to trial.
$1.00 a month seems reasonable to me. At that rate she might even finish paying before the copyrights expire.
Rosa Parks intentionally broke the law because she was tired and didn't want to walk to the back of the bus. I don't mean to play down the significance of what she did, I'm just saying that court was the farthest thing from her mind at the time.
"People always say that I didn't give up my seat because I was tired, but that isn't true. I was not tired physically, or no more tired than I usually was at the end of a working day. I was not old, although some people have an image of me as being old then. I was forty-two. No, the only tired I was, was tired of giving in." -- Rosa Parks
Please at least try to learn something about what you're talking about before you say something foolish.