Slashdot Mirror
Jammie Thomas Moves To Strike RIAA $1.92M Verdict
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Jammie Thomas-Rasset has made a motion for a new trial, seeking to vacate the $1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained. It further argues that, since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages, either as an alternative to statutory damages, or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award, the verdict, if it is to be reduced, must be reduced to zero."
Resistance is futile in some cases ;-))
Disclaimer: The above sentence was intentionally left ambiguous if we relate to TFA context. As a hint, by "resistance",
"A force that tends to oppose or retard motion." was meant.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Would you have been able to estimate the fine before this trial?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
are used when actual damages cannot be determined. Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages. They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making. The law is crystal clear on this. In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined. I'm in no way defending the law, but it is clear. If this judge were to throw this out, it would be a case of exceptional judicial activism. I applaud his plea after the first trial to Congress to fix this problem. The courts have no authority to change something like this. I've been saying this since before her second trial, she should have settled, and she still should. The RIAA has gone out of its way to try to reach a settlement. In fact, according to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/jammie-thomas-challenges-monstrous-192m-p2p-verdict.ars) they are still willing to settle for less than the Copyright Act allows (24 *750 = 18,000). You got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. She could get out of this surprisingly reasonably, but instead, she wants to hit a home run.
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Would you have been able to estimate the fine before this trial?
Yes... Why couldn't you?
The damages were statutory, and weren't even the maximum, as I understand it.
... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
Honest opinion NYCL, what are her chances of getting the damages reduced to zero? Are they greater than zero? It is probably true to say that statutory damages of 1+ million for 24 songs strikes most reasonable people as ridiculously unfair. However, are not statutory damages as a general principle a sometimes useful concept in the law? For example, in cases where it is difficult to prove exactly how much loss a prevailing party has experienced? Perhaps the court will come up with some sort of reasonableness test for statutory damage awards in these cases. Is there a reason why it couldn't be $0.99 per song (the iTunes price) plus perhaps some modest fine (say not more than $500)?
I would like to see this turned around: because the RIAA's case did not offer any information about the damages done by download these 24 songs in the trial, the court should enforce that the RIAA sell all its tracks at the value assigned to each song by the jury (~$81,000). The court might even take pity of the poor industry and lower that to $40,000 if it assumes some reasonable amount of the fine (50%) was awarded for statutory damages. That way, if the RIAA accepts the ruling, they would immediately go out of business as every CD they sell would be marked up to $500,000. Why isn't there a Draconian party running for government anywhere?
/*No comment*/ #No comment
SCOTUS ? Sounds like a bunch of TP.
Where is the good stuff? All the stories I've looked at are as boring as any other boring website. Where is the GOOD STUFF? Or is this all there is?
It's ironic as I mentioned this very case in the thread about "Don't Copy that Floppy" as the RIAA get $84,000 per song or whatever it works out too, and Air France is giving families of the victims of the Airbus crash $24,000.
Three dead travelers worth less than one song apparently.
Jammie, be careful on who you listen to on the internet and get advice from.
Also, be aware of anything free or too good to be true on the inernet. Buy an Ipod and get an account with Itunes babe.
From her attorneys brief asking for the appeal: The second Gore factor is the factor commonly expressed in ratios of punitive to actual damages: "the disparity between the actual or potential harm suffered by the plaintiff and the punitive damages award." Campbell, 538 U.S. at 418. Although the Supreme Court has declined to state a bright-line rule about the maximum permissible ratio, it has repeatedly held that "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process." Id. at 425. Even if, on occasion, awards with two-digit or even three-digit ratios are permissible, the damages award in this case, with its four-digit ratio looked at by album and five-digit ratio looked at by song is nowhere close to constitutionally permissible. "In sum, courts must ensure that the measure of punishment is both reasonable and proportionate to the amount of harm to the plaintiff and to the general damages recovered." Id. at 426.
Tech Support: "No, sir...clicking on 'Remember Password' will NOT help you remember your password."
For French people, that's still overpriced. ;)
As per one of my previous posts postulated, they are not fighting based on technical defense, but on a constitutional one, the first court case was indeed a sham to coax the jury to make the biggest most outrageous damages they could. As per NYCL they didn't even call their own witnesses or cross examine (if memory serves me correctly).
...
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
Ok...I did look at a recent high profile case, a case as media newsworthy as the $1.92 million RIAA case, about vehicular manslaughter, where an NFL player killed someone while he was driving drunk. Do you think this penalty fits the crime? Or is our justice system truly fucked at all ends?
NFL receiver Donte' Stallworth, a former University of Tennessee star, began serving a jail sentence Tuesday for hitting and killing Miami resident Mario Reyes on March 14th while driving drunk. He had apparently spent the night celebrating a $4.5 million dollar roster bonus he received the day before at a luxury hotel bar.
His blood alcohol level at the time of the incident was a reported .126, well above Florida's legal limit of .08.
Mr. Stallworth not only chose to not check into a room to sleep it off, he proceeded to drive his vehicle while seriously impaired, at an estimated 50 mph in a 40 mph zone when he struck the 59-year-old father of one as he rushed to catch a bus after his shift for a construction company ended that fateful day.
Was he sentenced to multiple years in prison? Were there throngs of protesters lining the streets and sidewalks at his trial? Will he be vilified and his livelihood taken away?
The answer to all of the above is no. Stallworth pled guilty to DUI manslaughter and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. 30 DAYS! He will serve only 24 because he gets credit for one day served and will get five days credit for each month served, according to Florida law.
http://www.t-g.com/story/1548024.html
If you drunk dive and kill someone with your car you should get 24 days in jail. But download 24 songs and expect nearly $2 million in fines. We need to start reexamining our courtrooms.
Don't do the rhyme
If you're retarded
You're simply wrong. The law does NOT say you should not download music. It says you should not upload music.
so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.
this woman stole some songs. by doing so, others may have been able to steal those songs too.
however, nobody died. the songs are undamaged. the artists are still fucking rich.
the fact that lawyers can get away with this allows me to look more softly upon murderers.
when you break justice anywhere, you break it everywhere. this madness must end soon.
I can't see this even being heard. The only way this flies is if there can be an accounting of actual damages, and that is not likely to happen. There is entirely too much information missing in this case to prove actual damages. The only thing you could potentially do is compare income on the songs prior to and after the incident, and do trending on similar songs. Since that evidence does not exist, how can it be introduced during an appeal?
The only effective appeal I see is based on the allowance of evidence from an unlicensed investigator, and frankly I think that was argued poorly enough that it would have a rough time on appeal anyways.
This is a terrible test case.
Three dead travelers worth less than one song apparently.
Jammie Thomas' Playlist:
You have to realize that figure was averaged per song. Three dead travelers don't even come close to the value of "Welcome to the Jungle". They might be worth a Goo Goo Dolls song however.
That's reasonable? 18,000 for sharing 24 files? You think she SHOULD have settled? REALLY??? Sure it's less INSANE than millions of dollars but it's still INSANE.
Hell, why don't we go back to sending kids who steal bread to Australia while we're at it.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Nice post. Of course, another slashbot modded you down because you overloaded his logic circuit.
Can't have that!
I think the verdict should be reduced to below zero - entitling Jamie Thomas to a refund from those bastards.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
1) He likely paid much more than $2 million in his settlement with the family.
2) The "victim" was attempting to cross a 6 lane divided highway with wall barriers and concrete center dividers in the dark and was nowhere near a crosswalk or streetlight.
3) Stallworth should have done more time for the DUI.
4) Manslaughter is a huge stretch in this case which is why the DA settled.
Maybe I could sue for Punitive Damages that your giving me. Well, Punitive Damages here.
THL phish sticks
5) Other drivers in the area noted that it would have been impossible for even a non-impaired driver to have avoided hitting the victim.
Was it stupid for the guy to drive while impaired? Yes. Would it have made a difference if he had been completely sober? Probably not.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I don't know about Jammie Thomas-Rasset but if she es employed and has some kind of "normal" income it doesn't actually matter if she has to pay 18k or 1.9 million! She simply cannot! Thats all...If she wants to feed her children and tries to pay for their education...hell even paying for your own food might be impossible then...where is the difference? do you have 18k laying around?
its not a simple matter of mathematics...its a life we're talking about..at least one...She is porbably fighting for her very survival
Looks like another hustle for the Hamburger Pimp.
This could not happen in Europe because the UN declaration on Human Rights is built into legislation. Not surprisingly, British Conservatives want to get big business (and the US) on their side by derogating from it. This case is evidence of why we in the UK need to worry, not only about our present Government but the probable next one.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
>If you drunk dive and kill someone with your car you should get 24 days in jail. But download 24 songs and expect nearly $2 million in fines. We need to start reexamining our courtrooms.
That's because 24 songs is worth more. What is a 59-year-old father worth? Not much compared to, say, 24 Beatles songs. That's treasure.
It's like the old Fight Club trope. "If the cost of a recall is more than the lawsuit, we don't do one."
You misunderstand the arguments made, you lump all slashdotters into one category, and you assume the same people are making the same arguments.
You're trolling the wrong thread. This is the 'damages are excessive' thread, you want the 'flagrantly violating the law is okay because who gives a shit?' thread.
We don't mind corporations making money. We'd like it if it wasn't extorting millions of dollars at a time from people, even ones as dumb as Jammie.
Incidentally, I downloaded some music today without paying for it. No, it wasn't some Creative Commons stuff. I listen to the Pandora music service quite often, violating no law as I do so.
There goes your black-and-white viewpoint, I suppose. Next time try actually making an argument, or perhaps find a different news site. Until then, enjoy your fail.
Well, the argument can be made that Air France disaster was due to an act of God, and that the money they gave the families is not an admission of liability, just helping them with funeral costs (or whatever). Whereas the RIAA verdict was for a willful violation of a law by the defendant.
Not saying I agree with this, just saying one *could* look at it like that...
They're lucky Air France didn't treat them like the RIAA members treat the artists. In that case the families would have been charged extra for the special effects used to promote the flight.
-- Will program for bandwidth
You'd be the first criminal to even consider being caught before committing it.
Ok, the first non-white-collar criminal, where criminal action is more a question of "possible profit vs. chance of being caught and possible fine", where it's generally not a matter of legal or illegal but rather one of profit vs. expense.
Do you think the average bank robber wastes a single second on pondering what's gonna happen if he's caught? Or murder. Hell, there's places where you're killed for murder, but did that eliminate people doing it? Hell no.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So when God fucks up it's less of a problem than when I do? Great, he's first of all much more powerful to avoid it than I am and he's also an effing lot richer.
I knew it all the time. If you have money and power, you won't get blamed for anything.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In the grand scheme of things, none of us is worth very much. Even at the prime of your life, the odds are against you ever doing anything of any import. Copying a silly song is worth even less, in terms of generations. In geological time, we all are completely expendable.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Straw man. Fallacious argument. Gee, that was easy.
Now, try actually arguing the position.
As an example:
Despite the ease of copying information on the Internet, it poses a moral and economic dilemma. Namely, it undermines the principles of copyright that have existed in one form or another for several centuries now. Copyright, despite possibly being flawed, is still a vital protection for creative works, and few creators/artists would willingly be without it. The various 'copyleft' licenses are in function identical to copyright, save that they encourage derivative works.
Business models based on the distribution of intellectual property may eventually go the way of the buggy whip, but for now they're here to stay, and in fact a vital part of today's economy. We should not be so quick---especially in these troubled times---to call for the eradication of such a vital market, nor to support anything that undermines it.
Then we have the moral argument. There are very few people who would be willing to say that artists and other content creators should be expected to work for free. Copyright laws are like democracy: the very worst system there is, except for all the others that have been tried. We should support copyright laws for the sake of artists, and take the good with the bad. It might even be considered unpatriotic to infringe upon the rights of local or national artists. ...and so on in that vein. Really this is more stream of thought; you should be able to prepare a lucid, well structured argument with a little more preparation, since you don't have to respond to the actual content of the article per se. But hey, it's pretty easy to copy and paste a troll post, and it feels pretty good, doesn't it? It's somewhat odd to see people here complaining about the quality of the trolls having declined, or that the discussions here aren't as good as they used to be. Perhaps we're just mourning the loss of anyone who could play the Devil's Advocate with any ability.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
This is one of the reasons that I think that people that get hit by drunk drivers should be held responsible for the accident. The driver is drunk, so he can't be held responsible for poor motor control and reaction times. The "victims" are most often completely sober and have no such excuse for getting into an accident.
If you drunk dive and kill someone with your car you should get 24 days in jail.
Unless you happen to be a cop.
Is there a fundamental difference between a EULA and the GPL? Yes there is. What is it? Namely that the EULA tries to remove rights that you have under the law while the GPL gives you more rights than the law does. Also when you get a patch to a GPL'd product the GPL stays the same for you as a end user, a product with a EULA may rewrite the EULA possibly making your use of it a EULA violation.
Why should a corporation be allowed to remove your rights under the law for their own convenience?
I go into a store and say "I'd like to buy a copy of [software product X]" and they sell me a copy. When I try to install it up pops a EULA claiming I didn't buy it. Yet when I try to return it to the store I can't since I opened it and the store is allowed not to refund the money for opened software. Why can the manufacturer change the terms of the PURCHASE after the purchase has been made?
That is why the EULA is bad and the GPL is good.
We should support copyright laws for the sake of artists, and take the good with the bad.
Hang on a minute. It's a serious issue how much bad you have to take to get any of the good. There's plenty of crocodile tears and pious bullshit put out by the **AA about "the poor artists", but they're screwing the artists far worse than any pirate could do by not paying for a song.
The Byzantine accounting the **AA uses is designed specifically to shaft the artist by giving them some kind of advance and then charging for outrageous bullshit to make sure the artist never gets another nickel beyond the advance. They'll do shit like getting a brother in law bonded as a messenger just so they can have the clown walk a piece of paper to an adjacent office and rack up (against the advance) a "bonded messenger" fee for walking ten steps. And that's just the petty stuff.
Some years back, a big-time C&W singer went after them for defrauding him of royalties. It took many years and damned near an act of congress to bleed the accounting details out of them because it was all "proprietary information of some possible use to competitors". Even after he'd won a judgment against them, they fucked around for a few more years "negotiating a fairer settlement". In the end, he got less than half what the court had awarded him.
Yup, if you have money, the law will be a lot softer on you.
Wilful drunk driving resulting in someone's death should be a 10 year sentence, minimum.
Otherwise the fucking law has no balls, and doesn't act as a deterrent.
I hope his football team threw him out and took back that bonus. Yet I expect he'll be playing next season, and cheered by all the team's fans.
I hope that all opposition fans have ONE CHANT this year. "STALLWORTH IS SCUM".
There is more if you are speeding, whatever usually you are aware that you are doing it, but when you are downloading a song how are you supposed to know, some songs are allowed to be downloaded, so instead of prosecuting the downloader which is just as much a victim, .. they should prosecute the one who is providing it instead, .. or at least they should provide a public list on songs that are not legal to download, .. by name that is, .. or at least some sort of system that allows one to check if the song they download is legal or not, .. and if they ever do provide such a list on the net they should at least promote it properly, ..
Penalty should only be for those who are aware they are doing something wrong, there is no point punishing people who are not aware, .. this would be the same as punishing some autistic boy because he crossed a red light, small child that touches a girls ass, .. if someone is not aware .. punishment is ridicules.
Actually, it does. Downloading is a violation of reproduction rights
# "Bills, Bills, Bills" By Destinyâ(TM)s Child
# "Possession" By Sara McLachlan
# "Run Baby Run" By Sheryl Crow
# "One Honest Heart" By Reba McEntire
Priceless :)
which is totally what she said
That's all I can get from a case like this. 24 songs, a few hundred MB at most, and you're screwed for life. There's no connection between violation and verdict. I download that much when I hear a song I like on the radio, figure out which album it's on, and download the entire album to check out the other songs too. I've easily got more than a thousand albums downloaded (and that's not bragging in any way, I know it's not much compared to others yet). Have I robbed the music industry of billions of dollars?
Cases like these are exactly why I don't care about most people in the music industry. There's no sanity involved. Just "You don't obey us, we fuck you up". By most, I mean that I still want my favorite artists to stay in business. But people like those in the RIAA, who apparently solely exist to sue people, can be run over by a series of busses for all I care.
We are all God's parents.
Nothing ironic about that. It's simply the way it always have been, no matter how obviously wrong and fucked up it is.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Someone should try suing "God" sometime for "an act of God". Or at least suing his agents (the churches?) and see how far they get. It would be interesting to see a judge tackle that one and try to save face. Its kinda like those movies where they sue Santa Claus.
So it should be execution for the killing of a single person. Or life (until death) in prison.
How you handle multiple murders, I can't tell. Maybe they get the dog too.
Whereas in this case it wasn't even one life paid. It was 24 days out of a life.
Assuming 80 years, that's about 28000 days or less than 0.1% of the damage done.
Assuming 99c per song, 24 songs, that would be... 2c.
That's more a reflection of the (in)sanity of monetary awards in the U.S. legal system. Airlines and aircraft manufacturers in the U.S. typically settle for around $1 million per death. When I was younger, at this point I would go on a rant about how lawyers have mutated our legal system into a monstrosity whose primary purpose is to enrich themselves. But I'm past mid-life now and have given up trying to change it. Maybe I'll encourage my kids to become lawyers...
I'm not surprised you were marked down as Troll, but you kinda have a point. Although that's a though point to follow. This is what is called defensive driving and more people need to understand it. You can't really blame the victim in all cases of course because sometimes you can't react quick enough and a drunk driver is unpredictable. But there are definitely times when a more alert driver could have saved their own life. I myself have saved my life a few times by being alert and predicting that for example someone would run a red light (which they did at 60mph). It basically comes down to the fact that you can't 100% rely on the mechanics of the road to do their job, you have to obey your own senses. There are a lot of good drivers out there believe it or not, but they are just the canvas on which we see the morons painted.
According to Wikipedia, Don Schlitz wrote The Gambler and reached #65 on the country charts with it. Later, Kenny Rogers recorded the song and took it to #1 on the country charts and #16 on the pop charts.
Wasn't Billy Connelly's movie "The man who sued God" based on a true story? And now insurance companies can no longer use that as a reason to avoid the claim as that's the whole reason to get insurance?
If I was witty I'd put something funny here but, as it stands, I am not and have just wasted seconds of your life
As a hint, by "resistance", "A force that tends to oppose or retard motion." was meant.
Anyone else read that as "A force that tends to oppose a retard motion"?
... 100% with you, bro!!
Common sense comes in through "Common Man" theory, I believe. The issue you state is a fundamental difference in what we would like the law to do, and what it does. On the SCOTUS is emblazoned the phrase "EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER THE LAW". Equal has nothing to with what's FAIR. When one cuts a piece of pie exactly in half, that does does not take into account that one person getting a "cut" may be more hungry than the other person? Considering "hunger" in the splitting process falls into the realm of deciding "FAIR", not "EQUAL", outcomes. The pie analogy can be used to show the difference between "fair" and "equal" - Two selfish, pre-teen siblings argue over who will get the bigger piece. The father intervenes and says to the brother "you cut the pie" and, turning to the sister, says, "you choose first". My, that puts FAIR and EQUAL in perspective, doesn't it? Laws are meant to provide EQUAL protection, but not FAIR protection. FAIR is a MORAL issue...and it is up to each of us to decide what's fair, not the courts. But, base that decision of fairness from the "other side" of the issue, not your side.
The artists are rich? You mean the labels are rich. The artists don't get crap from album sales nor will they from this settlement. Don't confuse the two.
First of all, the conduct being referred to regarding reprehensibility is supposed to be the action for which she is being sued, not her subsequent actions during the course of the trial. That's a separate matter. Not in the eyes of a jury, I'm sure, but still.
Second, you made the common mistake when you used the word "stolen", even in quotes. That's part of the RIAA rhetoric, not reality.
Third, what they're supposed to do is think about the consequences of her actions and their own.
Everything I've read and heard seems to indicate that the effect on the RIAA of her actions were basically positive, not negative. To say that what she did is "use without compensation" is misguidedly shortsighted. The term I like to use is "free advertising". That's how many bands feel about it, like Nine Inch Nails and Wilco, even including Metallica (until they got rich; it's a whole story but they really did at first like the free sharing of their music and it's part of how they got famous).
Then there are the consequences of the RIAA's own actions. Scattershot law suits and bizarrely aggressive legal manuevering in various cases has made any number of people vow never to buy another CD, ever. I know I've seen a number of such comments here on slashdot. I'm guessing quite a few other people feel much the same way.
From what I've seen, what they've done has damaged the music industry and what they should do is stop sueing customers who are actually helping the business. They should then sit back and enjoy the benefits of a business that grows and blossoms in ways that they didn't expect.
So when God fucks up it's less of a problem than when I do? (...) I knew it all the time. If you have money and power, you won't get blamed for anything.
No no, you've missed the point - you have to build a cult of personality, doesn't matter if you're a sect leader or catholic priest, that's what lets you get away with things. That's probably why they choose the weakest, oldest guy for Pope - he'd probably get away with mass murder. If you're not the religious type, you might go for pop star as well - seemed to work out fine for some.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If you drunk dive [...] you should get 24 days in jail.
Don't drink and swim!
A couple years ago, some punk kid crawled into my car through the open sun-roof and stole a case full of CDs. It had at least 24 CDs in it. Each containing approximately 12 songs? Does that mean I could have sued him for 23.28 million? Damn!
In all honesty, he did get caught and worked it off, and I did eventually receive a check for about $100.00. The RIAA needs to piss off with these ridiculous claims.
The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act.
I get tired of saying this, but the penalty for distributing a CD should have nothing to do with the cost of buying a CD or MP3. This would be appropriate if she was accused of downloading one copy, but she is accused of uploading. The issue is she assuming the right to distribute a CD or MP3, so the penalty should be based upon what the RIAA would charge to gain the rights to distribute the songs.
Whilst it's fair to say that the cost of damages may be more than a single downloading, it's not true that it should be based on what the RIAA would charge.
Consider, even if we compare to actual theft, the damages for stealing my car are not "the amount I would charge for hiring my car", it's "the value of my car". I.e., the amount should still be a fair measure of the value, and not dictated by the RIAA.
To demonstrate the flaw more obviously, what about cases where the copyright owner does not licence his work at all? Perhaps someone accidently copies Linux without providing the source, or a company includes your personal photos in an advertising campaign. According to your logic, the copyright holder could say "Well actually, the cost to licence this work is a million billion dollars"...
So the value should be based on damages, and hence should be an estimate of how many people have downloaded it. In this case - even if it were true that every download is a lost sale, are we seriously suggesting that she had 1.92 million people download from her? That amount of money is surely comparable to the amounts that an album might make in total! (Anyone have some figures?)
Obviously, the price they quote for the trial would have to backed up by facts (what have they actually charged for these or similar songs for instance) so they aren't able to just make up ridiculous amounts.
But what if someone does have "ridiculous" amounts? Perhaps they're just disproportionate, they have no business skills, they don't care, or as in my examples, they don't wish anyone to licence it under those terms anyway, so they can put the figure as high as they like?
Indeed, even for the RIAA, this would apply. Clearly, they have no intention of letting you put up files for free, no matter how much you pay! This would only be possible if they charge per number of downloads (in which case, it would be equivalent to what I suggest above). There would be no evidence for a figure, because they don't allow people such a licence anyway - of if they did, it would be ludicrously high simply because they don't want anyone to do it otherwise.
You are also forgetting that if such a law was implemented, people would be quick to provide evidence of "costs", just in case. The RIAA would have a blanket "it costs a million billion dollars to licence this with no limitations whatsoever" to catch filesharers - whatever costs for other licencing they do would always have extra limitations, so wouldn't apply.
but it would be a fair way to estimate what the actual damage was.
As my examples show, there is no reason to think that these are in any way comparable to the actual damage.
Having said that, I would agree that it would be an upper bound - if those figures are less than $1.92 million, then it's ludicrous to fine her that much. But you either won't find evidence for such a cost, or if you do, it'll be stupidly high anyway.
Maybe she should pay the price of one record per shared mp3? That'd be something like $240.
It's the unlicensed - unlimited - wholesale distribution and redistribution of copyrighted files that sinks the geek in court.
Launch a program like Limewire.
See the number of users on the net?
The animated bar graphs that track movement in and out of your "Shared Files" folder?
The tray icon that reminds you how many files are in transit when the program is minimized?
The option to allocate more or less upstream and downstream bandwidth to file sharing?
The option to open up the hood and take a look inside the shared files folders of any active user - and scarf up all you can eat?
The option to chat with other users?
The jury of your peers sure as hell does.
Does your P2P program or service enforce - or reward - a positive upload and download ratio?
How desirable is it to "make available" as many of the most popular files as you can?
The only one who goes to trial claiming not to know how P2P works is the geek - and it wounds him to be called a liar.
However, I just don't figure how the imaginary damages could rack up $18k, let alone $192M.
Whoever awarded those damages had no sense of proportion, or was bribed.
Statutory damages aren't imaginary.
Statutory damages come into play only when the jury as the trier of fact decides - unanimously - that the plaintiff is entitled to a recovery.
Statutory damages come into play only when the actual damages are are difficult to calculate or the state has set an arbitrary limit on recovery.
The jury awards statutory damages based on the judge's instructions on how to use the statutory formula.
That decision also has to be unanimous.
The jury never gets to hear your Robin Hood defense.
Your po'boy defense.
The bribery of a judge or jury in the American federal system is so rare as to be unworthy of discussion.
Regardless - if someone destroyed my life over some songs, I'd probably do the same to them.
But your life hasn't been destroyed.
The geek as drama queen. Not a pretty sight.
You have been given every opportunity to settle out of court. You can still do so now.
You have a right to appeal the decision.
The risk is that the appellate courts will simply scale back the damages without ever reaching the constitutional issues.
The pro bono attorney out to make new law exits your case because it has dead-ended.
You are now free to negotiate a reasonable schedule of payments.
The debt will constrain you somewhat - but that makes you no different from anyone else whose debts cannot be wholly extinguished in bankruptcy.
What's few hundred k more for battery and assault, if you already owe $190M more than you can reasonably ever earn. For that matter, no monetary fine would ever feel like anything - and jail time is expensive to the society. So.. maybe it's just not worth it?
Talk like this is pathological.
The assault takes you in to the criminal justice system. The state will prosecute for simple assault. The feds will act to protect the decisions of its courts, the safety of every participant in a trial, the right of the plaintiff to make his case for recovery without fear of physical retaliation.
It's ironic as I mentioned this very case in the thread about "Don't Copy that Floppy" as the RIAA get $84,000 per song or whatever it works out too, and Air France is giving families of the victims of the Airbus crash $24,000.
Three dead travelers worth less than one song apparently.
You should see what the MPAA get's per movie!
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
There is a point to be made for being more aware of one's surroundings, but your comment is the dumbest thing I have ever read in my entire life. Why not go the extra mile and argue that murder victims should be responsible for their own deaths? After all, the shooter can't be held responsible for the path of the bullet; no, the REAL murderer is physics! He should have gotten out of the way!
http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-collection-costs-man-huge-fine-suspended-sentence-090704/
Man in France was just sentenced for 12,591 MP3 files, 426 movies, 16 full TV-series and dozens of items of pirated software. The man was sentenced to 33,000 euros ($46,200) in damages and a 2 month suspended jail sentence.
They are not quite as big of jerks over there it seems. He had considerably more than 24 songs and was only fined about 50k.
so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.
However, you need to be very careful not to shoot yourself in the leg, as that is utterly unforgivable.
William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
1) The problem is not with the legal system, per se, in my opinion. It's with the jury part of the legal system. I've said this before, but it's still how I feel - the problem with this case is that the defendant has apparently engaged in willful behavior that makes her look dishonest to the jury. She has twice not fully informed her lawyers of everything she did. Basically I see the defendant as a delusional woman who thinks that by simply fighting she can beat the RIAA. I think the most recent trial proved that no jury is ever going to find in her favor. Yes, certainly the damages are absolutely insane, but that's the fault of the jury. Had she asked for a bench trial, I'm sure she still would have lost but the damages would have been a lot more reasonable. She and her attorneys have been taking jury trails because, as someone else said, she wants to hit a home run. That is, to get out without paying a dime. It seems to me based on what I read about the trial that she clearly did download songs using an ID that only belonged to her. There just really is no realistic chance she is ever going to get cleared no matter how many trials she gets.
2) The infamous Stallworth case (the DUI death) is a bad example to cite. Basically what happened was that yes, Stallworth was DUI for sure, but the death was caused because the pedestrian essentially jumped in front of the car. If he had been driving the speed limit and not been drunk the accident would still have happened. The accident was considered to be 100% the fault of the pedestrian and that's why Stallworth isn't going to jail for very long. I know people would like to believe that this crazy, drunk football player was weaving all over the road and just ran down an innocent pedestrian, but that's now how it happened.
Its amazing that she stole from musicians, and yet so many defend her here,
Its stealing, SIMPLE, there is no justification
I see your point, but want to develop it a little.
:)
I believe that automotive vehicles should have right of way on the roads. I believe that we should have cycle lanes and footpaths amalgamated into one wide (and segregated) pathway, wide enough for bi-directional movement of both. A second road for cyclists, narrower but parallel to the road network. They can use pedestrian crossings to cross the road. I believe that people who cross the road within a reasonable distance of a pedestrian crossing and are hit buy a motor vehicle obeying the law should be held entirely responsible, right down to repairs for damage to the vehicle and counseling costs for the driver out of insurance or estate (if deceased). Where no crossing is available, common sense dictates a safe place to cross (not on a bend, not near a high hedge blocking view, not between parked vehicles etc).
Very unpopular way of thinging, but ultimately sane.
Mod me Offtopic now
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Apparently one of those songs is actually "Never Gonna Give You Up" By Rick Astley. You never know which one though.
Anybody want a peanut?
Useless without links.
I refer you to this post and this post
I don't know about the movie, but in real life Force Majeure is still alive and well in most of the world's legal systems. It's really strange when you find them in contracts for Disaster Recovery services, though.
The reason why there is a court process is exactly to establish FACTS that are not obvious and try to find some truth among all the various points of view of disputing parties. Apparently the only wrongdoing of that NFL guy was driving drunk, but that was not the cause of the accident.
Reading a bit more, the 59 years old dad was just another stupid candidate for the Darwin Awards. Trying to cross a 6 lane highway is simply suicide. Not worth putting someone else in jail for life because of your own stupid actions, is it? That is my point of view, and it has nothing to do with million of dollars for 24 worthless songs from so-called "artists" of the 21 century. And that's all I know about this case so I just can't judge.
No. They want to plaster the news with the title "uploader ordered to pay $outrageous_amount"...that's all.
So, if the ruling stands, will she have to hand her house over, all of her possessions, and stop eating?
No...
It's all about show...they might get a few thousand dollars, but the big prize is being able to say they successfully sued someone.
Guess I'll have to stop playing the radio in my backyard.
That "may" be considered "making the songs available" and I can't even afford to pay the fine for a single hour.
I don't think I'd pay $84K for the copyright on any of those songs.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Do you honestly thing this is the only case pointing out the discrepancy in penalities? A few months ago there was an accident in downtown Manhattan where some guy hopped up on drugs ran over 2 motorcyclists who were stopped at a light. The guy was going so fast that he pinned one of the bikers between the car and a construction barrier as he went over it. He never even hit the breaks.
If I remember, he only got driving under the influence or some such, and barely a slap on the wrist. So this happens all the time, except that the victims don't have highly overpaid lawyers that will apply statutes in ways they were never meant to be applied.
The AF payment is being given with no waivers or settlements agreed to in order to help the families with their direct, immediate costs such as funerals and travel. The true settlements will take a while but will (based on precedent) be in excess of a million dollars per victim.
T-SQL uses a double dash "--" for comments.
-- This is a comment.
Drives me nuts. You can also mix the C-style /* */ comments.
Comment of the year
Of course, Air France is going to give some money to the victims, but I don't see them as being particularly at fault in the crash. The only thing they *may* have done wrong is hold-off on replacing speed sensors quickly enough, but even that isn't proven to be the cause of the crash.
I think it says a lot more about society that everything has to have somebody "at fault." Sometimes planes, despite everybody's best efforts, crash. Shit happens.
Comment of the year
ratio between punitive and compensatory damages,
Wrong tree. The issue here is statutory damages, not punitive. Punitive damages are there to help avoid compensatory damages being chalked up as the cost of doing business -- i.e., to make sure the penalty exceeds the benefit from continued bad behavior.
This case involves statutory damages -- very different. While the intent may be the same as punitive damages, you don't have to prove any more than simple violation and a price is set without regard to actual deterrent value in the given case.
Same as statutory rape. No coercion required. Just the fact of intercourse and the age of the putative (no pun intended on any Spanish words) victim.
Based on this, there is no rational justification for the concurrent existence of statutory rape laws and allowance of marriage where the legal age for marriage is below the age of consent. Even with the consent of both sets of parents.
Perhaps if this was a crime and in a criminal court, the fine wouldn't have been so high.
There is no crime here, there is a civil infringement being treated as a crime hence the lack of due process claim.
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
And you _could_ have crashed into a busload of pregnant nuns and killed all of them and their fetuses, plus the pregnant bus driver and her fetus. So how's all that stack up, you scofflaw?
If this, if that, if all the _possible_ outcomes that never happened, but _could_ have. As my sainted mother used to say, "Yeah, and if your aunt had balls, she'd be your uncle".