Slashdot Mirror
Obama DOJ Sides With RIAA Again In Tenenbaum
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Despite having had some time to get their act together, Obama's Department of Justice has filed yet another brief defending the RIAA's outlandish statutory damages theory — that someone who downloaded an mp3 with a 99-cent retail value, causing a maximum possible damages of 35 cents, is liable for from $750 to $150,000 for each such file downloaded, in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. The 25- page brief (PDF) continues the DOJ's practice of (a) ignoring the case law which holds that the Supreme Court's due process jurisprudence is applicable to statutory damages, (b) ignoring the law review articles to like effect, (c) ignoring the actual holding of the 1919 case they rely upon, (d) ignoring the fact that the RIAA failed to prove 'distribution' as defined by the Copyright Act, and (e) ignoring the actual wording and reasoning of the Supreme Court in its leading Gore and Campbell decisions. Jon Newton of p2pnet.net attributes the Justice Department's 'oversights' to the 'eye-popping number of people [in its employ] who worked for, and/or are directly connected with, Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music's RIAA.'"
I thought that we were all pretty much aware prior to the election that Obama and his crew were against personal freedom and all for corporate freedom.
Just wait until the courts finish granting natural person status benefits to corporations without imposing natural person responsibilities and liabilities.
Welcome to hell!
No incumbents, not no where, not no how.
Vote them out every term.
Just like his birth certificate....
"Didn't Obama publically state that he wouldn't be spending Federal Funds to go after state licensed medical marijuana growers?"
You can hang that up with government run health care. Once that passes your body is property of the US Government. I expect you will see the government using that fact to pass and enforce many more laws concerning health related "sins". With the full support of the legal drug industry.
Republicans ALWAYS support big business over the consumer. They may not get as much big $ from Hollywood, but there are loads of other big industries with IP and patent interests who certainly *do* pay them. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for them to come out batting for the little guy. Good luck finding someone from either party who won't side with the RIAA/MPAA thugs at every opportunity.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
The issue has never been decided in any of the RIAA cases. The only RIAA case in which it has been litigated to any extent was UMG v. Lindor, where -the RIAA argued that it was a frivolous defense, -I argued that it was not a frivolous defense, and -the Judge agreed with me and rejected the RIAA's argument.
I would agree too - the defendant has the right to raise constitutionality as an issue. But that doesn't mean constitutionality has been litigated yet, nor did the judge agree with you [that the statutory damages are unconstitutional]. Rather, the judge [wisely] said, "let them have their day in court."
To be compensatory implies somehow equal to the damage caused
... or an approximation, which is the point of statutory damages in copyright law. The plaintiff can EITHER prove actual damages, OR take the statutorily-set levels.
, which is not the situation in the Tenenbaum case (over 32,000 times the wholesale price per song).
Sigh. I don't know why NYCL and everyone else fails to understand that there were TWO separate and independent infringements, and Tenenbaum was found liable for both:
(1) Tenenbaum downloaded the song, which he could have purchased for $.99-$1.40.
(2) Tenenbaum UPLOADED the song, and a distribution license costs tens of thousands of dollars. Do you people really think that Apple pays the music companies a dollar, once, for the right to distribute a particular song on iTunes thousands of times?