Slashdot Mirror
Court Reinstates $675k File Sharing Verdict
FunPika writes with this excerpt from Wired:
"A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a whopping $675,000 file sharing verdict that a jury levied against a Boston college student for making 30 tracks of music available on a peer-to-peer network. The decision by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reverses a federal judge who slashed the award as 'unconstitutionally excessive.' U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner of Boston reduced the verdict to $67,500, or $2,250 for each of the 30 tracks defendant Joel Tenenbaum unlawfully downloaded and shared on Kazaa, a popular file sharing peer-to-peer service. The Recording Industry Association of America and Tenenbaum both appealed in what has been the nation's second RIAA file sharing case to ever reach a jury. The Obama administration argued in support of the original award, and said the judge went too far when addressing the constitutionality of the Copyright Act's damages provisions. The act allows damages of up to $150,000 a track."
Update: 09/17 21:32 GMT by S : As it turns out, the article's explanation of the decision is a bit lacking; read on for NewYorkCountryLawyer's more accurate explanation.
NYCL writes, "The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals has declined to reach the Due Process issue in SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. In a 65-page decision (PDF), which rejected all of Tenebaum's counsel's other arguments, and which otherwise praised Judge Gertner's handling of the trial, the First Circuit felt that under the doctrines of judicial restraint and constitutional avoidance, it was premature to decide the constitutional issue without first disposing of the defendant's motion on common law, remittitur grounds. The Court gave several examples of scenarios which might have occurred, had the lower court decided the remittitur question, which would have avoided embarking down the constitutional path."
how can a song be worth $150,000? if i leave $1 apples in my yard for someone to take, will 150,000 show up?
http://gizmodo.com/5833654/this-5-million-piece-of-art-is-a-1-terabyte-hard-drive-filled-with-pirated-software-songs-and-more
I guess that hard drive is now worth more than the US economy.
Sparks:Gadget:Beer Maker
What goes into these people's heads.
"Hmm yeah he put some songs up for download, that's 22,500 dollars each."
Maybe he hit a pair of extra zeros when he was typing out the verdict.
Surely he didn't prevent 22,500 people from paying a dollar for the song.
This was back in the Kazaa days. Who knew back then?
Even I had downloaded files back then. Of course, now all my computer software is FOSS and all my media is legal. These idiots don't realize that a downloader today is a customer tomorrow, so long as you don't sue them.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I wonder WHICH JUDGE was paid off by the RIAA. NOT OBVIOUS AT ALL.
The laws are the problem, not the judge.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Would I be on the hook for $168 million?
One day history data will look back on things like this with great disdain and disappointment. As we feel about many of the ignorant backward beliefs of previous generations. Probably not until our society fixes it's economy, and gets producers of IP payed for producing the IP and not monopolizing distribution of it. --Which, granted won't be for quite some time, but still...
So you take a merely onerous award that the defendant might possibly pay off and raise it back up to something that there's no way in heck he'll ever pay. What's the point, again?
What happened to him? Long time no submissions or other news with him mentioned. This is his field.
The Constitution is the law of the land. A judge who cannot apply it properly is a big problem. This government is just completely off the rails. There is not an ounce of legitimacy left in it.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
And the music industry can't figure out why sales are down? Music sucks, no one wants to pay 10-20 dollars for an album that might have 1 half way good song.
But Obama is a f***kwad....
All you bleeding heart liberals are too stupid to realize there is nothing to differentiate this man from George W. Bush. And as for copyrights & patents....he is showing himself to be a pimp for corporation.
Against the people at every turn. We're not talking about legality. We're talking about the Constitution that says a fine cannot outweigh the crime. Right now, in our courts. Copyright violation is a greater crime than rape. Think about that before you reply...
CEO's rip of the community and shareholders of billions of dollars - they get a multi-million bonus. Some kid shares 2 cd's worth of songs and gets hit for 675k. When does the class war begin?
The Constitution is the law of the land.
The Constitution was the law of the land. Surely you're not new here? There are no constitutional protections for those living within 100 miles of a US border or oceanic coast. That just happens to work out to 70% of the population, including the individuals mentioned in this article.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
You dumbass. What's the price of a speeding ticket? Are you saying that uploading a few tracks is as dangerous to others as speeding? You know, the act of driving a machine that weighs a ton or more faster than a limit imposed for other's safety???
You, my friend, are a shill or a rich man profiting from other's misery. Otherwise, you'd see how evil your post is. Well, either that or you're trolling.
This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
The Obama administration argued in support of the original award,
The executive branch, which receives funds from corporations in the form of campaign contributions, should keep its nose out of the judicial branch, which is tasked with enforcing the letter of the law without the influence of corporations (or any other third party).
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
So children, what has this taught us today? That's right, music is DANGEROUS.
What was once part of the human condition, bringing people together, binding their society, and begging at an instinctual level to be shared for the propagation of all human kind, is now owned by a few companies who will sue you to an early grave.
Destroy all of your radios, CD, and MP3 players. This stuff is more dangerous than radioactive waste.
well, crimes is something different. If it's supposed to be a penalty, rather than restitution, he should be prosecuted with a criminal standard of proof required.
FGD 135
Worse than that. He chose to fight rather than settle. Which means he either received some extremely poor legal advice or was prepared to accept some insane risk/reward ratios.
The usage is 100% correct. The Justice Department is part of the Executive branch and under the control of the President.The President and his cabinet are responsible for selecting the Attorney General who runs the Justice Department. Whether or not Obama had a hand in this decision, the term is used properly.
Paid off? The judge who reduced charges, obviously. Why else would he used the wrong way to go about it, especially when its been done before? The judge who reversed that judgement is the fair one. At least, he explained how it should have been done.
Well if he was the only one to post the tracks online then that is actually not a unreasonable figure for the losses the company might suffer.
Of course he would not be, basically all music is available online from a variety of sources, but it seems less unreasonable if you take the stance "he is being punished for all lost revenue from the pirating of those tracks", because he is the only one caught.
But then I am sure nothing is stopping them from suing person after person for the same songs.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
if you violate copyright law you have to declare bankruptcy and forever be unable to get a loan, meaning you can never own a house, a car, etc.
In some ways it is better to be a murderer, a sex offender, or any plethora of other "lesser" crimes.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
Copyright law allows up to $150,000 per violation to discourage commercial copyright infringement. That's when someone makes a bootleg CD and sells a tens of thousands of copies for few bucks each. What happens in this case is that the bootlegger is liable for (say) 15 tracks x $150,000 each. But in the process, this indemnifies all his customers. The CDs they bought aren't real, they're contraband. But because the ringleader behind the whole thing was caught and punished, and restitution made to the IP owners, they get to keep their CDs and are not liable to be sued for owning contraband.
What happens in filesharing is quite different. Say you share a song with 10,000 people. For a judgement approaching the $150,000 per song max to make sense, punishing you with that fine has to indemnify all those people you shared with. Otherwise you can fine Tenenbaum $22,500 for making 10,000 copies of a song, but you can also fine each of the 10,000 people he shared with $22,500 each for making the same song available to each other. Thus netting the record company a potential $225 million for 10,000 copies whereas in the bootleg CD case they could only net $150,000 for the 10,000 copies.
This country really needs to pass a copyright law which distinguishes between these two cases. The current copyright statutes make sense for commercial copyright infringement when there's a single perpetrator behind it all. A new copyright statute needs to be made to cover cases of peer-to-peer filesharing, which recognizes that 10,000 people sharing a sing with each other means each person on average only made 1 copy. Punishment needs to reflect that average, meaning something on the order of $100 should be adequate. Either that or limit copyright holders to suing one and only one filesharer per song, ever. Right now, we're allowing record companies to sue 10,000 people on the basis of making 100 million copies, even though only 10,000 copies were ever made.
a jury is composed of 12 people too stupid to get out of jury duty.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Geithner did fix him and his friends' problems back home. Until they drag him out in cuffs he will continue to fix his buddies up. Now, he'd like his counterparts on the other side of the pond to enjoy the benefits of big cash handouts, too.
Timmy's all heart, he's just like Robin Hood... except different.
Imagination drew in bold strokes, instantly serving hopes and fears, while knowledge advanced by slow increments...
For example, right now on my computer I have absolutely no media, but can listen to anything I want on Spotify or YouTube. What I find interesting is that the recording industry is allowing Spotify's business model after over a decade of shunning online delivery of content. Perhaps this is the beginning of ad driven, affordable, and legal/legitimate access to media. Thoughts?
Or he assumed that a jury made up of his "peers" would have be smart enough to see just how asinine the entire situation really was. Of course, that's a bad assumption when given the reality of the system, but it's not an unfair expectation when confronted with the spirit of the law. The problem, I suppose, steams more from jurors being idiots. Generally speaking, only the dumbest of folk don't go out of there way to get dismissed from jury duty.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
Unless this dude's family is composed of millionaires, this is pretty much game over. At this point you may as well spend your time trying to assign blame so you can exact some form of revenge, what are they going to do to you, pay for your room, board, food, and medical care forever?
It's a shame, but realistically, Tennebaum will probably just file for bankruptcy. The RIAA will get virtually nothing, Tennebaum's credit will be hosed for a few years, and that'll be the end of it.
But knowing that bankruptcy is available to the defendant illustrates just how vindictive the RIAA and MPAA really are. They have to KNOW that people can get away from the fines with a chapter 7, so that makes me believe that they seek these ridiculous awards thinking that they'll discourage others.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
The law in this case ought to be irrelevant:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
- 8th Amendment
I hope they take this to the Supreme Court.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Well that's one way to make everyone hate you and not want to give you any more money. Talk about a crazy business practice. Maybe if the RIAA and their cronies stopped living in 1960 and got with the times..
Refuse to buy music and movies that end up filling their coffers! Support independents!
"Or he assumed that a jury made up of his "peers" would have be smart enough to see just how asinine the entire situation really was."
Not many file-sharing college students sit on juries. And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
What exactly does The Constitution have to say about file sharing?
Section 8 ...
1: The Congress shall have Power
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I agree the "government is just completely off the rails", but I don't see any constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go.
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
Nobody in their right mind would think this upload cost the RIAA anywhere near a half million dollars.
Anything the RIAA wants over market value per download should be deducted from RIAA-sponsored legislators' campaign accounts.
Can the defendant discharge the judgement in a bankruptcy? Why couldn't the argument be made that the judgement violates the constitution for excessive punishment if he can't? (i.e. if he makes the average salary for a white male at 45K, that would be like confiscating his wages for 22 years as he uses after tax money to pay the judgement).
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
And yet the constitution still forbids excessive fines. If you got caught going 20 miles over the speed limit and were levied a $10,000 speeding ticket, you would call that a reasonable fine? Wouldn't you, as a citizen of the United States of America, a country where the constitutional protections trump any law Congress may choose to pass, think maybe "This is an excessive fine, I have a constitutional protection against that fine"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
"And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it."
And thus the BIGGEST problem with the "PEOPLE" in this country, believing that when you're on a a jury your are simply there to follow a judges orders. Serving on a jury is NOT simply deciding whether a person did or did not break the law but is the one time in your life that as an individual you are not only permitted but dutybound to sit in judgement of unjust laws. Jury duty is the one opportunity that the average joe can actually be "we the people". Why do you think lawyers get to screen jury members? They're looking for those people who actually have an ounce of deductive reasoning ability and who MIGHT apply it.
http://www.caught.net/juror.htm
The music industry needs to make people afraid to download songs, and afraid to NOT SETTLE when they send them nastygrams asking for several thounsand. The point here is to make an example.
"This guy downloaded 30 songs. See what happened to him? It could have been you."
No, he's not saying that and you know it. It's not just danger. Where I live there's a $1,000 fine for dumping trash. The fine is outsized to the "crime" since it's hard to catch them in the act or determine guilt after the fact. But if you're caught doing it. Boom.
As such, the fine has to be considered in the risk/reward equation. "I could just toss the bag out the window and... ah, naw. I'll throw it away at the next gas station."
Same concept applies here. "Sharing" is hard to catch and hard prosecute. Hence the risk is low, and the reward (free music) is high. So the idea is to change the equation: Are a few free tracks worth the chance of being ruined?
Probably won't work, since the music is free NOW, and the chance of getting caught and prosecuted probably seems about the same as that of being struck by lightning...
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
Good luck trying to get them to do anything, though. I guess you could still try.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So much for the Corporate Lawn Jockey in the White House.
Not that all the OTHER politicians aren't welded at the lips to the collective corporate sphincter, but it's well worth reminding anyone who thinks ANY candidate from either Party will be different how they roll after they get you vote.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
I like the idea that people should be punished for wanting mass-market culture.
The sad thing is not that people are being sued for downloading Stupid Shit, but that they crave it in the first place.
You should HATE what Hollywood and the RIAA feed you, and if you don't understand why you need to pull your head out of your arse.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
He could use it as a slogan... perhaps he may even win with that one, after all Perry said it would be OK to let a person die and he got cheered. CRAP! What a country. The decadence of the empire, no question about it.
"Why do you think lawyers get to screen jury members?"
To keep fanatics from applying their personal prejudices and biases to a case? From following a logic tree like, "He's black. Black people commit crime. He's guilty"?
Basically, they screen juries in order to weed out people who are predisposed towards a certain outcome, regardless of the actual evidence.
If you and other people want to change the law, then write your Senators and Congressmen, and work to elect those that support your views. If you haven't done so, and your sole contribution is bitching about it on /., then you're one of those "people" equally at guilt.
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
"You can't trust people, Jeremy. People like Coldplay and voted for the Nazis".
-- Super Hans
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go
See 8th Amendment, specifically nor excessive fines imposed.
Any reasonable person, which was and should be the test for the above, should consider $675,000 to be an excessive fine for the alleged crime.
Finnish his degree. And ideally move to another country ...
I'm thinking, maybe Finland?
"What are you doing here, Elijah?"
The fine is outsized to the "crime" since it's hard to catch them in the act or determine guilt after the fact. But if you're caught doing it. Boom.
I'll have to disagree with that, then. Just because they have trouble catching people who commit certain crimes doesn't mean that they need to punish the ones they do catch in a way that can be seen as cruel and unusual. I'm not sure if you agree with the fine or not, but I'm just saying that I don't think them having trouble catching people justifies fining the people they do catch more than usual.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Hmmm... A speeder potentially endangers the lives of several people and gets, oh, maybe $1000 fine in severe cases.
A guy makes available 30 songs that could be legally taped off the air at a quality that isn't really all that bad, and he gets driven into bankrputcy.
Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. (sarcasm).
IMHO, a fair penalty would be the streaming media license fee for the period in question X2 for restitution.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
This is why I go out of my way to not avoid jury service. Unfortunately, chemotherapy made opting out unavoidable for me when called this year.
Intelligent people who avoid jury duty because it is an inconvenience are being extraordinarily selfish, though perhaps unintentionally so.
That said, juries are frequently instructed in a very narrow manner. Many cases end up with jurors stating that, if they had been allowed to hear mitigating circumstances they would not have found the way they did. This frequently happens in marijuana cases brought in Federal courts, as they do not allow the use of illness as a defense. Jurors only learn afterward that someone suffers debilitating nausea from cancer, which can't be controlled by conventional anti-emetics. An example of this is when the United States murdered Peter McWilliams.
IANAL - But when I declared bankruptcy in 2003, 2 of the things I remember you could not write off were student loans and court judgements.
mov ah, 4ch
int 21h
Get Real RIAA. Everything he downloaded is no where near 2250 a track, let alone 150,000 a track. This is just more money for those greedy companies.
No, it's not. There's very little chance they'll ever see that money. This's all about setting an example to deter others from trying the same thing.
I just don't see how people can't be satisfied with being multi-millionaires.
Ever heard about The Dog in a Manger?
Everybody has hobbies. Some people enjoy screwing others over whether there's any sense in doing so or not. Life.
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Does waterboarding count as cruel and unusual?
Constitutional reading fail. The 8th amendment is about as clear as you can make it.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
If $150,000 for copying a song is a 'reasonable fine' than the 8th amendment literally has no meaning. We might as well recycle it into toilet paper, because at least if someone was using it to be wiping their ass, it would doing at some good to someone, somewhere.
It's change that any billionaire can believe in. Seriously, who comes up with such ludicrous damage awards? The purpose of punitive damages is to punish. Punishing a college student is making them owe $675, not $675,000. Making them owe $675,000 is effectively sentencing them to a lifetime of indentured servitude even if they had 100% of their wages garnished.
If memory serves, our country overthrew its previous British government for exactly the same sort of oppressive behavior—debtors' prisons and the like. The rich aristocracy in power would be wise to take that lesson to heart. For them, $675,000 is a slap on the wrist. For an average person, it's a lifetime of slavery, which last I checked was forbidden by at least a couple of constitutional amendments, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and every law of basic human decency.
The people who made this decision, along with everyone in the Obama administration who supported it, should be arrested and jailed for crimes against humanity, then prohibited from taking part in any aspect of sentencing for the rest of their lives.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Wouldn't matter. In most places, the judge decides the damages, not the jury. And even in places where the jury decides the damages, the judge can generally override it and award more damages than the jury recommended.
Thus, the only way the jury could have helped this college student would have been to find him or her not guilty, which is clearly not the case, or to declare him or her not guilty by reason of jury nullification. And if you even mention jury nullification, the judge is liable to hold you in contempt.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Now *that's* what I call piracy!
The 8th ammendment:
Nobody in their right mind, yes. This judge just stated that $22500 per song shared is not, in his opinion, an excessive fine. Can we have him placed in a mental institution for evaluation since he is obviously a danger to himself and others around him?
A judge who cannot apply it properly is a big problem.
...and said judge didn't apply it properly because..........
Follow the dollar. Follow.
Does waterboarding count as cruel and unusual?
Waterboarding was used as a method of interrogation, not punishment.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Problem is, there's only so much a parent can do before the 'culture' of our society takes over and enslaves the fresh meat
In Canada, there is a 8 year limit for student loans. After 8 years of having to pay back your loans, you can write them off if you declare bankruptcy.
Wasn't the reason for doing it in Guantánamo rather than the contiguous 48 a dubious legal theory that the US Constitution doesn't bind the US Army, CIA, etc. outside the 50 states and that in Gitmo neither US nor Cuban nor any other country's law applies?
It may still be cruel but it's no longer unusual.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
IANAL - But when I declared bankruptcy in 2003, 2 of the things I remember you could not write off were student loans and court judgements.
Yeah.. You're right.
If you commit a felony, the court record disappears after X number of years, depending on the county (in the U.S.) If you get a judgment for compensation and you can't pay it off, it will stay on your record indefinitely until you do.
So, from a logical standpoint in terms of information retention, sharing music is a worse crime 'on your record' than repeatedly beating your significant other to a bloody pulp.
Something seems a bit... odd... about... this....... yeah.
constitutional guidance as far as monetary fines go
See 8th Amendment, specifically nor excessive fines imposed.
Any reasonable person, which was and should be the test for the above, should consider $675,000 to be an excessive fine for the alleged crime.
This isn't a fine, though. It's an award in a civil suit. A fine would be payable to the government and you could face jail time if you are unable to pay.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
And juries aren't there to debate the merits of the law, only to decide if the individual in question broke it.
Absolutely false. There's a reason why we have jury nullification.
This post is quite misleading. It gives the impression that the Court reinstated the verdict. The Court merely remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the Due Process issue had been decided prematurely. Otherwise praising Judge Gertner's handling of the case, the Court concluded that the District Judge's reasoning for bypassing the common law remittitur motion was incorrect, and that she must first decide the remittitur motion. I've submitted my own post on this decision, which accurately describes the import of the decision.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
More to the point, the Supreme Court has declared quite definitively that punitive damages in excess of ten times the actual damages are violations of the "No cruel and unusual punishment" clause.
Oddly enough, that concept only seems to be applicable when corporations are caught red-handed falsifying data for generations in order to maintain a market for an addictive and carcinogenic substance and punished by a jury. When when a student is found guilty of sharing a $20 CD and punished by financially destroying him with a punishment over 375 times the worth of the 100 copies that were shared, there's absolutely no problem.
Can I be a corporation please?
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
"Fine" was the wrong word, thanks for the correction.
The 8th amendment is clearly about criminal matters; the Constitution is intended to limit what the government can do, not what people/businesses can do.
If this were the government punishing the file sharer, the 8th amendment would apply.
But given this was a civil tort, it seems to me that the judge that called the award unconstitutional was correct about the insane excess, but wrong about the constitution.
That's easy. Just look on iTunes. Oh, it costs $1!
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States#Court_rulings
The judge can hold an attorney in contempt for informing them of this power - which is as it should be. Personally I understand the dislike of jury nullification - it was often used in the defense of lynching and assorted other viciousness in the south - and absolutely no case should depend upon a Jury being aware of the capacity. I also think it's the responsibility of the citizen to be aware they do have a constitutional right and responsibility to judge both the law and whether it is being misapplied. It is an unappealable prerogative of the Jury system and it's is on the jurors themselves to be aware of it in the same way they are aware of their right to vote.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Puntive damages that favor megacorporations can be called cruel and unusual punishment...
Except US bases are US Gov't property, so US laws do apply. Your argument is the basis for extraordinary rendition in foreign countries, but that's another bowl of wax. We keep prisoners in gitmo for NIMBY concerns (not in my backyard). After all, do you want a bunch of extremely dangerous potential terrorists near your family? No one else does either, that's why there was such a big outcry back in '09 and one of the big reasons gitmo still hasn't been closed, despite all of the campaign promises.
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis hebes
The phrase (US Government) should heretofore be referred to as the (Washington criminal cabal), for the sake of accuracy!
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
The DMCA was introduced by Howard Coble (R-NC), passed in 1998 by a majority Republican Congress, and signed by a Democratic president. If anything, hatred of freedom of information is bipartisan.
Hey, Obama's shilling for corporations is enough to condemn him. You don't need to bring your racism into this. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Lawn_jockey
Obama didn't just gorge on corporate cock, he also sold out the civil rights movement. Grover Norquist was correct years ago when he said that Obama couldn't govern as a Democrat, but no one expected it would be because of his indifference to his "old" base.
Even Black intellectuals like Cornel West get it. Obama sold out the civil rights movement thoroughly and well.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
These numbers are just completely meaningless - any fine over a few tens of thousands of dollars is never going to be paid by a regular human. Might as well fine him infinity Quatloos and be done with it.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
They've created a lot of overlap, much of which is propably an attempt to skirt protections afforded defendants in criminal matters. The judge shouldn't be deciding the award in the case of a civil judgement. Since it is the state imposing the quantity, it should be considered a fine regardless of who it is payable to.
The big corporation that major fucks the environment gets remittitur. The college kid who small-scale copyright cheats does not.
AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL.
I hate filesharing thieves, but I hate laws that blatantly favor the rich more.
I think they "get around" (ignore) that because the torture isn't a punishment, it's just part of "enhanced interrogation". In other words, they'll apply it to the innocent just as readily as the guilty, so it's fair to all.
Where's the trillion-dollar verdict against the fucktard bankers and wall street yahoos that tanked the US economy, lost everybody their jobs and tossed 'em out of their houses?
Famously said the Editor of Private Eye (a satirical British magazine) from the courtroom steps after being sued successfully by some odious media bully whose dubious acitivities the magazine had unearthed.
If the law of the land encourages powerful corporate bullies to extort unimaginable sums of money from ordinary folk whose trivial, if technically illegal activities are simply a sign that a new, realistic business model needs to be produced to cope with our dramatically changing social and technological landscape, then, as Mr Bumble said in Oliver Twist: ".. the law is a ass, a idiot"
I believe I am right in saying that the original purpose of copyright was to force the rich IP owners (the artists' patrons) to release the rights to the public after a few years monopoly. Hard to disagree with Mr Bumble's assessment of the situation now.
If you and other people want to change the law, then write your Senators and Congressmen, and work to elect those that support your views.
That's the best joke I've heard all day.
You don't need to start letter writing campaigns, you need to start rioting.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
It's the same god damn thing and you know it. It's based on the laws of the US government. It's decided by the US government. It's enforced by the US government. It ought to be limited by the constitution of the US government.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
This Dilbert came to mind...... http://dilbert.com/fast/2011-09-16/
Please. There's more readily available, freely licensed media now than at any time in the history of man. Literature, film, music, visual art, drama. The rules have changed, our culture and our art are truly in our own hands, now more than ever, and all you can do is bitch about the mean corporations? Fuck that, move on. The choice is yours to make. Quit your bitching and find a better way. We're living at the beginning of a renaissance.
Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Just one of many more reasons to hate the Obama Administration.
Ron Paul 2012! Fuck this current government.
Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
RIAA stooges. nuff said.
I didn't mean it would apply in this case. It was more in response to the generalized statement about jurors being idiots.
A felony conviction is never removed from your record, unless you receive a pardon(either from a state governor, for state convictions, or the current US President, for federal convictions). This is the reason why felons are barred, for life, from owning and/or possessing firearms, voting, serving on a jury, obtaining student loans(if it was a felony conviction in regards to controlled substances, and it depends on the circumstances), and many other disabling results of such convictions. There are many professional licenses that will be lost with a felony convictions, as would a security clearance.
There is a process to have these disabilities removed, but that depends on which state a person resides in and what the process is for receiving a pardon. More often than not, a pardon is not given. Still, this is far worse than a some civil judgement.
A domestic violence conviction is far worse than most felony convictions, as even misdemeanor domestic/family violence convictions will also remove your right to arms, and impose other disabilities, as if you had committed a felony. I am not sure where you are getting your information, or where you "heard it from", but I know what I am talking about. I have several years of law enforcement service under my belt and have extensive experience with matter of criminal law and the process at which one can removing criminal disabilities.
I am not sure if you are looking to spread false information, or if you really believe what you posted. Regardless, it is wrong information. If I had to choose between a criminal conviction and a civil judgement, I would take the civil judgement every time. Even if the civil judgement were in the billions or trillions of dollars range, I would still take the civil judgement. That is, at the very least, how much I value my freedom and liberty.
Of course, I do not agree with such high judgements. Judging against someone for three or four times the actual, end-user cost, per song(i.e. three to four US Dollars(USD); not $150,000 USD), is more appropriate. Also, there should be a maximum to which a single person can be found liable for, unless said person can actually afford to pay past the maximum. Of course, I am focusing on the extremely wealthy, and not simply a person that is middle to upper-middle class.
Even if a person is making $100,000 a year and has a $10 million USD judgement himself, it would take 100+ years(figuring cost of living and such) to pay such a judgement off. Also, there is the whole Eighth Amendment, but it seems that the judiciary doesn't believe in that Amendment anymore, either.
Except it's not.
Statutory DAMAGES. This is intended to compensate the rights holder for damages that they presumably suffered but can't prove.
If you want punitive damages, then these are applied on a case-by-case basis (and IMO should not occur without the standards of proof required in a criminal trial).
This is important information.
You are completely correct on the lack of removal. I am so dumb for posting it like I did.
I should clarify that the federal FCRA and each state FCRA, which pre-employment background screening is bound by, has a limit on the number of years that are reportable. Therefore, a person or entity that will affect your daily life can see only x years of your criminal history, if they follow the law. If they don't, they are breaking the law but that is a whole separate issue.
I should also have said "state" and not "county".
Thanks for pointing out my poor communication on that! :)
Last I checked Libertarians were real big on property rights. And I don't think abolishing copyright is in their platform.
That is how the people who use waterboarding justify it. I don't justify it at all.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I know this thread has already died by now, but just for the record:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110117211823AANKiB8
Court judgments CAN be included in a bankruptcy. Student loans and certain other government debts are excluded, but court judgments can be dismissed.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
Um, actually, he's wrong. See my link above, or do a web search, or better yet, go talk to a bankruptcy attorney.
*Government* debts -- taxes, student loans, etc -- can't be dismissed in a Chapter 7, and this would include *government* judgments (for example, the IRS sued you and won a judgment). But civil judgments most surely CAN be dismissed.
Cogito, igitur comedam pizza.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
We, the people, have the ability, and the duty, to make a change in courtrooms as well as with our legislators. Unfortunately, most of the people are unaware of their power as jurors.
Most people in the states on a cable internet connection do. I can pretty easily do 1 megabyte (that's byte, not bit) per second. I could upload a song in 5 seconds, maybe 6 with connection overhead. That's about 14,000 songs/day if I ran 24/7, and if the people I'm uploading to have similar connections they can do the same. Now, my ISP would probably have something to say if they saw me doing that, but I'm pretty sure I could get by on a few thousand downloads pre day.
Not saying I agree with the damages, just that it's technically possible to upload a song thousands of times per day on a consumer grade Internet connection.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Guilty judgment on music piracy is civil?
I just searched for a criminal hit on someone down the street that I know has one. Didn't come up. Nice thought, but it's not solid.
In this case it might be better to appeal to an authority higher than the constitution - we the people.
You mean the "we the people" who, as a jury awarded the RIAA $675,000 in this case, and $1.5 million in the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset?
No hope for sanity with them.
-a.d.-
I'm Erwin Schrodinger and I approve of this message, and I do not approve of this message!
Welcome back NYCL. It's about time some sense is added to the discourse here.
Having Leeched on
Welcome back NYCL. It's about time some sense is added to the discourse here.
Thank you. I don't know if I have any "sense", but I do know something about the law. If I truly had "sense" I think I would have studied programming.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful