Slashdot Mirror


Constitutionality of RIAA Damages Challenged

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, the defendant has filed a motion for new trial, attacking, among other things, the constitutionality of the jury's $675,000 award as being violative of due process. In his 32-page brief (PDF), Tenenbaum argues that the award exceeded constitutional due process standards, both under the Court's 1919 decision in St. Louis Railway v. Williams, as well as under its more recent authorities State Farm v. Campbell and BMW v. Gore. Defendant also argues that the Court's application of fair use doctrine was incorrect, that statutory damages should not be imposed against music consumers, and that the Court erred in a key evidentiary ruling."

9 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Good luck on that one by donaggie03 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I think GP was talking about they judges. They can't understand basic phrases like "shall not" so they allow grossly unconstitutional laws to remain in effect instead of striking them down. Of course, there's always some asinine reasoning of why such and such is an exception to constitutional limitations, but they are usually BS reasons.

    --
    Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
  2. Re:Thanks slashdot by conspirator57 · · Score: 4, Informative

    it takes two different cases to get two circuits finding the opposite of one another. When that happens, the Supreme Court *MUST* hear the case(s) to resolve the discrepancy. It is one of only a few things that can force the Supreme Court to hear a case. Other cases are heard at the court's discretion from among those appealed after decision at the circuit level. Thus do constitutional lawyers decide who makes a good test case. The goal is to find a client with circumstances that will get the circuit to rule differently than another circuit, even if it's on a tangential aspect of the case. It's like hacking a bit.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  3. Re:still flogging this old dead horse? by Delwin · · Score: 5, Informative

    Except that punitive damages is one of the select few things you cannot get rid of in bankruptcy. that means that unless this person is well above the median income they will never pay this off in their lifetime and no matter how good a job they get they will be living in poverty for the rest of their life.

  4. Re:What's the legal limit? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ray.....was it right to suggest those limits to the jury?

    No in my opinion it was error. There was no basis for allowing anything above the $750 per infringed work minimum, and only the judge rather than the jury could have awarded less, so there was nothing for the jury to decide.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  5. Re:still flogging this old dead horse? by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    Sure, he should pay a fine. One in the order of, say, $675, not $675000.

    Under Supreme Court guidelines, it should have been more along the line of $30 or $40.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  6. Re:Thanks slashdot by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    To the best of my recollection (NYCL, a little help?), the constitutionality of the damages has never been challenged.

    Only one such motion has been made, in Minnesota, in Capitol Records v. Thomas. That motion is pending. This motion also makes arguments the other one had not made, and makes the due process argument a bit more clearly than the other one had, IMHO.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  7. Re:Argument != Ruling by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 4, Informative

    The 'making available' argument was aired in the Thomas case (although her counsel didn't bother to bring the precedents to court) and the jury instructions were that making available was sufficient to found liability

    The judge in the Thomas case reversed himself on that, realizing that "making available" was NOT sufficient to find distribution. Slight detail you seem to have overlooked.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
  8. Re:Thanks slashdot by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

    When that happens, the Supreme Court *MUST* hear the case(s) to resolve the discrepancy. It is one of only a few things that can force the Supreme Court to hear a case.

    No, it isn't mandatory that they resolve the circuit split. It is often convenient when they do, but it is not mandatory.

    --
    -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  9. Re:still flogging this old dead horse? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 5, Informative

    Careful, NYCL.

    "Indie" is what "alternative" was in the '90's. Both originally meant homegrown music from independent "mom and pop" record labels until the major labels realize how "cool" it is to be different, then they hijack those phrases and apply them to their mass-produced crap.

    I guess the only honest way to say it is "Music of non-RIAA/ASCAP artists".