Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Defends $1.92 Million RIAA Verdict
Death Metal points out a CNet report saying that the Justice Department has come out in favor of the $1.92 million verdict awarded to the RIAA in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Their support came in the form of a legal brief filed on Friday, which notes, "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed." It also says, "The Copyright Act's statutory damages provision serves both to compensate and deter. Congress established a scheme to allow copyright holders to elect to receive statutory damages for copyright infringement instead of actual damages and profits because of the difficulty of calculating and proving actual damages."
I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen ex-RIAA attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department. President Obama assured us that rules were put into place to prevent this sort of activity, but apparently that doesn't matter. Not that I'm the least bit surprised by that. Frankly, I think the Justice Department should have better things to occupy their time than civil lawsuits. That kind of bias ought to be considered malfeasance in office, or something else worthy of immediate dismissal.
1.92 million dollars for copyright violations by an individual? Now that's Justice for you. Personally, I've never believed that the law should be used to make examples out of people, no matter how distasteful their crimes. That simply breeds more disrespect for the law, which is something the RIAA is apparently unable to understand. They will continue to reap the rewards of that lack of understanding, regardless of what ultimately happens to Jammie Thomas.
Punishment should fit the crime: otherwise it is just government-sanctioned brutality.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
This doesn't deter anybody, because the fine is only $5000 and you have the same odds of being sued whether you own a computer or not. What this does is deter people from FIGHTING the unjust $5000 fine, lest you have to pay .
But it'll make a great deterrent won't it? That's all the excuse we need right?
morons.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
I am deterred. Not because of the threat of lawsuit, but because they don't make anything worth downloading.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
(c) 1791 - The People of the United States. All Rights Reserved.
ed duval the very last person
The 8th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
To the extent that this verdict was punative, it is an UNCONSTITUTIONAL fine in violation of the Bill of Fucking Rights. The Congress and the Judiciary both lack the authority to impose excessive fines. This can only be changed by amending the Constitution which requires ratification from 3/4ths of the States. /Suck it Department of Justice!
Interestingly, the DOJ brief asks the Court not to decide the constitutional question, requesting the Court to instead decide the issue on "common law" grounds, i.e. whether the award "shocks the conscience".
Also interesting in the DOJ's brief is that it totally ignores the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court's "due process" jurisprudence concerning "punitive awards", which we have pointed out in the past. Presumably Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyers will bring this to the Court's attention.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Their reasoning is correct in that the only way to make any kind of difference is probably to make an example of a few people, but they are also basically admitting that this is not justice. Have they thought for a second of what would happen to the economy if these kinds of damages actually were to be forced from everyone who has downloaded?
It is sad to see the Departement of Justice agreeing with something like this.
So in other words, the system is working as designed. If you have a problem with the laws, talk to Congress or the SCOTUS. It never fails to amaze me how our Congress escapes blame for the mess the US has become. Perhaps it's because the only check they have is for our nations one Chief of the Armed Forces (not busy at all . . .) has to proofread all the fine print that 535 corporate-influenced blowhards can vomit out, and decide if these expansive and pork-laden bills will do more good than harm.
Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
In fact, the same stupid rationale for all draconian anti-drug laws: if you make the punishment really harsh, people won't do drugs. And just look how well it works! Everyone knows there aren't any junkies in New York!
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
As I understand it, isn't the justice department required to act in defense of any law that is being constitutionally challenged? This is just the bizarre ethics of the legal profession... truth be damned, give the best defense (of the unconscionable) that you can.
"He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. " -- John Calvin, commenting on Genesis 1
Damages to WHAT, again? Cry me a fucking river, assholes. They make it sound like someone is actually stealing from someone else... and like copyright is actually a right. Well, no. Go check the US constitution: Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, aka "Copyright Clause". It says copyright exists to promote the progress of science and useful arts.
See? Copyright is not a right. It is not a property. It is not life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is a GOVERNMENT-GRANTED TEMPORARY MONOPOLY. It has a very specific purpose: an incentive to the creation of works of art and science, for the good of society as a whole; the welfare of copyright holders is not - AND SHOULD NOT BE - a concern at all.
Copyright was never "good" per se, more like a "necessary evil" - it is a temporary hindrance to everyone's access to a work of art or science, in exchange to the very existence of that given work. It is ludicrous to think a century-long copyright is an incentive to the creation of more works, therefore one must assume it must be reformed, reversed to a more sensible; but, frankly, I doubt it fulfills its supposed purpose at any length. Therefore it is simply "evil", and ought to be ABOLISHED.
Circumcision is child abuse.
Piracy should be dealt with in the same way ICAAN dealt with domain tasting. For individuals running a P2P program in which they gain no money from the distribution, $30 per song is plenty for compensation. $100 per song is perfectly fine for punitive damages. If that's not enough money to make up for legal fees, get together with law enforcement and legislators and create a system similar to parking or speeding tickets. That'll keep costs down.
If I got caught illegally distributing 10 songs and got slapped with a $1300 fine (enough to purchase 100x the number of songs I got for free), I'd think twice about piracy. And that's an amount I can pay off. I keep that much in reserve at all times for car repairs, emergencies, etc.
1.92 million dollars is some fucking criminal, life-ruining BULLSHIT. Bankruptcy and garnished wages for life is not an acceptable outcome for a truly petty crime.
Someone needs to get into the next town hall meeting Obama attends and ask this question. Someone needs to get the words in roughly the form I have written here to the president of the United States on a televised, public event.
If copyright law is so easily and repeatedly broken by tens to hundreds of millions of users, then that should be taken as a strong signal that this law is counter to the values of society and inherently anti-democratic.
Make the law fit reality, not the other way around.
see a Text Widget
you should really change your name to the Department of Injustice, because what you do has nothing to do with justice and all to do with propping up corporate greed, maybe the Department of Greedy CockSuckers would be a name that would suit you even better...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
There is a bill of fucking rights? Man that is going to get heavily used on slashdot. I didn't know I had the right to fuck, I just assumed it was a priviledge of the wealthy (men) and beautiful (women).
The story seems to suggest that the DOJ said that a $1.92 million was perfectly constitutional. My interpretation of the brief seems that the DOJ did not specifically say that. What the brief said was that DOJ considers statutory damages as envisioned by the Copyright Act as legal and that imposing statutory damages does not violate due process. The amount of the damage, however, is up to the trial court to decide and the DOJ was not going to second-guess the court on the amount. The DOJ only responded to Ms. Thomas' constitutional challenges not the actual award:
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's not the voice of reason any more than some Taliban Mullah is.
We don't cut people's hands off for stealing anymore.
In their zeal to help prop up corporations to the detriment of
real people, the armchair moralists like to gloss over this fact.
Apparently ideas embodied by "tort reform" are not for real people
but only for insurance companies and the lie.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
A posting from today on NYCL's site indicates that the lead DOJ lawyer in this opinion has a media industry background. Evidently, he was a partner at a law firm that represented a music publisher's association.
If you want your life to be different, live it differently.
Just another reason to throw the whole establishment out -- Democrats and Republicans -- and elect an entirely new government that actually has a clue about how unreasonable this all is. And until that can happen, stop them from committing any more damage on the rest of us. All that never-actually-defined Hope and Change isn't working out at all well from my vantage point.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was referring to coldwetdog's comment, not the verdict. It is possible to think that you should pay for music and still think that the RIAA is out of control.
The story seems to suggest that the DOJ said that a $1.92 million was perfectly constitutional. My interpretation of the brief seems that the DOJ did not specifically say that.
While you are correct that it did not specifically say that, it did say that the verdict passes constitutional muster. When it said this:
This discussion is not to suggest an answer of whether an award should be remitted in this particular case, but rather to suggest an answer to such a question should precede any resolution of Ms. Thomas' constitutional arguments.
it was referring to a non-constitutional, "common law", ground for setting aside the verdict. It did specifically say that if the Court does not find a "common law" ground for setting the verdict aside, it should let the verdict stand, which is tantamount to saying that the verdict passes constitutional muster, which any honest lawyer knows it does not.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
Deter? What makes them think it would deter anyone?
It's like a lottery, in reverse.
Download & benefit. Download & benefit. Download & benefit.
Multiply this my thousands... or millions.
And one poor, unlucky sod gets smacked with a fine for the same kind of money we see in lotteries.
Do the math. Do you feel lucky?
Hell, yeah.
-Eldurbarn
That's not stealing. THIS is stealing. In that example hundreds of millions of people are actually deprived their intellectual property - not just a few songs either, but millions of audible and visual records of history and culture spanning the 75 years. And by stealing all history and culture for what is the lifespan of an average person they deprive us of the very continuity of culture we as humans require to remain oriented and purposeful. This is a very real harm.
Let's not lose our perspective on which is the greater wrong. It's actually comparing one person sharing a few songs to the literal Farenheit 451 theft of an entire culture.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
You are absolutely right that the fine is some life-ruining bullshit. If I was hit with a fine like that for an act that impacted society less than something that's actually dangerous, like reckless driving, then I think I'd be inclined to do everything in my power to deliver an equal amount of disruption to those who imposed the fine on me.
I have no doubts that individuals have chosen to disappear for far less than $2 million. Once someone is out of sight, there's a lot of nasty things they could attempt to do with little risk of being caught. That means that this decision not only damages the guilty individual, but could also potentially create a whole new set of problems for the RIAA, the government, and the general public.
"Don't hate the media, become the media." -Jello Biafra
Does anybody know if this woman is accepting contributions? Maybe the proper way to fight this BS could be to put our money where our mouth is. I would certainly send some money to support her.
I'm sure you could send the contribution to her attorneys.
In my personal opinion, the best place to which to make contributions to fight the RIAA scourge is to make a tax deductible contribution to the Expert Witness Defense Fund managed by the Free Software Foundation. All the proceeds of the contributions will go to helping RIAA defendants retain the help of tech experts and tech consultants. They made a $3000 grant to Ms. Thomas to enable her to hire an expert witness.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you like a particular artist, you have to buy that artist's work from their label. It's not like Walmart and Target where if you don't like the price of Coca-Cola at Walmart then you can just buy it at Target. If your favorite artist's work is locked up with DRM, which you want to avoid, your only choice is to violate the DMCA. Or you can violate copyright and download it for free. What other choice do you have? Download YouTube videos of someone doing a bad cover version of the songs you like? There is no other choice.
How about not buying anything at all? Will your life come to a sudden end if you cannot listen to a handful of tunes? Not buying that music, not listening to that music, is a choice as well. And it has the major advantages that (1) it is legal, and (2) it stops putting money in the pocket of the record companies, giving them less power to corrupt laws on a worldwide scale.