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."
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.
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?
No, apples are a scarce resource. Digital files can be copied indefinitely with no quality loss, thus the scarcity must be created artificially. Apparently the way to do that is by suing fans.
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Let's not forget a jury of US citizens actually somehow thought this was appropriate.
We have a serious stupidity problem in the US that is bringing the nation to its knees... right at hip level to huge money interests... leaving the US begging for a huge money shot.
The problem is no one smart would be allowed to stay on the Jury... a hint of intelligence disqualifies you these days...
we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
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!
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...
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
The majority of the population don't care about people who are violating other people's copyright. That's just the way it is.
Things may very well change in twenty years, when the kids who file shared have grown up and compose a majority of the electorate, but I doubt it.
Crimes get defined by the majority. Deal with it.
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.
Which majority made the DMCA possible?
Why not just immediately declare bankruptcy?
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
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.
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?
Similar to British law, in the United States jury nullification occurs when a jury reaches a verdict contrary to the weight of evidence, sometimes due to a disagreement with the relevant law.[1] The American jury draws its power of nullification from its right to render a general verdict in criminal trials, the inability of criminal courts to direct a verdict no matter how strong the evidence, the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, which prohibits the appeal of an acquittal,[2] and the fact that jurors can never be punished for the verdict they return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification_in_the_United_States
In fact get the word out, perhaps someone you tell will be on a jury that matters in these types of cases.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
To ensure that he is a slave and that his children will be slaves. That's what debt is all about, whether it's brought on by that flashy new car, your overpriced suburban house, that prestigious college diploma, a few medical bills, or some asinine court costs. You can't be a proper citizen until you're at the financial mercy of the system. How else are corporations going to legally keep slaves nowadays?
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
An individual couldn't have uploaded a song 1 billion times. Even just 100 times is very, very unlikely. Consider something known as amortization.
In this case, anyone can download a song from anyone else that has it. The maximum number of downloads required is the number of people in the network. Therefore, the amortized number of uploads per person is 1. It's highly unlikely anyone will upload any song more than a few times. That's how file sharing really works. Besides which, no private individual's connection is fast enough to support hundreds of uploads every day.
But these guys are trying to argue that an average uploader is no different than a manufacturer of physical media with bootleg songs. In that scenario, very few people can manufacture the media. Those who do could sell thousands of copies. Unfortunately, the judges and juries have bought this ridiculous argument.
That's still not all. The whole issue shouldn't be in the courts at all! Sharing of information should never have been criminalized. This college student is being tortured by the Copyright Inquisition, in hopes that the rest of us will be scared away from reaping the immense value the Internet has brought us all. Doesn't matter how severly they torture their victim, they can't stop us from using the Internet. What's been done to the student is cruel, senseless, and ineffective.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
Bullshit. I used to believe that crap, then a few years ago I got an opportunity to serve on a jury for the first time. I'd say 2/3 of the jury were pretty smart in one way or another.
When picking a jury, you can't just disqualify as many people as you want. Each side has only a limited number of jurors they can dismiss without reason. They can dismiss an unlimited number of jurors for good reason, if the judge agree's it's a good reason, but I don't think "because he's too smart" is going to be a good reason to do so in the judges eyes. So sure, they could use their limited number of no-reason dismissals to try and get rid of smart people, but the problem is, you quickly run out those, and then you are stuck with whatever jurors get called as a replacement.
Furthermore, it's fairly difficult to figure out who's smart just based on the questions that get asked. The judge just asks for simple stuff like your occupation and a few questions to try to determine any bias...whether you know anyone involved with the case, whether someone you know or are related to has been involved in a similar case, whether you or someone you know has been a victim of the sort of crime about to be tried, etc.
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.
some kid who is going thru hard emotional times could very well decide to go terrorist based on being sued into oblivion.
every action has repurcussions and by suing someone so unfairly and so harshly, its only a matter of time before some unbalanced person gets sued and goes nuts-o.
and, even worse, I wonder how the media will bury that story if and when it ever happens?
a class war (which is sort of what this is, in a way) can end badly. if those in control really want this, I guess its a possible future. I think its a bad choice, but I'm not in any kind of power position (and likely, as a slash/reader, neither are you.)
I really hope those who *are* in control over such things re-think what they are creating. we don't need to isolate the classes even more than they are now. swatting a wasps nest is never really a smart thing to do, and especially not now.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Bankruptcy does not erase judgements against you.
"It's highly unlikely anyone will upload any song more than a few times. That's how file sharing really works."
Funny, I thought it worked by a person uploading portions of a song whenever asked. If asked by a thousand people for some part of a song, then by extension you helped to make the entire song available to a thousand people.
That's how file sharing really works.
(Just demonstrating the other side of your argument.)
Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
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.
"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."
Sounds reasonable to me.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
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."
"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..."
I showed up to jury duty twice, and they dismissed me even though I had every interest in serving. Keep in mind I didn't do anything to try to get dismissed. In fact, I was civil, tried to participate, and did nothing to appear biased or impartial. Fact is, lawyers don't want impartial people and will make up any excuse in the book to get rid of you if you are. I have a shaved head, and Im a large white man. In both cases the defendant was black and around my age. Coincidence? Possibly, but I see no reason why I shouldn't be considered an impartial peer of the defendants.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
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.
Indeed. I was asked "If the defendant was accused of kidnapping the victim with a firearm, would you need to see evidence that the defendant had possessed a firearm?"
My response was "If no firearm is entered into evidence, it would be much harder to convince me that the defendant had the means to commit the crime that he is accused of"
I was dismissed.
"His name was James Damore."
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
If I were an attorney during voire dire, I'd more than likely move for a dismissal of your husband for cause too. The presumption of prejudice is eminently reasonable when a religious fundamentalist is involved. There is all of human history to lend credence to a lack of ability to compromise when a fundamentalist's beliefs may come into play.
Each and every apples contains the materials to make multiple *trees* each full of apples. you've stolen a whole orchard from me when you took the $1 apple!!!!
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.
Ah, lawful neutral. As morally bankrupt as any evil alignment, but with the hypocritical pretense of serving a greater good.
Maybe your response was interpreted as an indication that you have a bias towards hard CSI-style evidence as a requirement for a guilty verdict.
My answer to that would be more along the lines of "Not if all other evidence presented is sufficient to eliminate reasonable doubt.", since reasonable doubt is threshold that has to be passed for conviction in US courts (or am I mistaken?).
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.
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
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.
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