Obama Administration: $1.5 Million For Sharing 24 Songs Is Perfectly Reasonable
from the out-of-touch dept
In the latest round of the fight over how much Jammie Thomas-Rasset should pay for sharing 24 songs online, we have the federal government weighing in to say that $1.5 million for those 24 songs is perfectly reasonable and Constitutional. Must help that the White House Solicitor General was previously a litigator for the RIAA in the case, huh (though, he did not write the filing)?If you don't recall, there are statutory rates for copyright infringement, which are ridiculously high, and it seems reasonable to question if those awards, which seem totally disproportionate to any "damages," could be seen as excessive under the Constitution.
The district court judge, Michael Davis, clearly felt so. Ditto Judge Nancy Gertner in the Joel Tenenbaum case. However, the government apparently is going to argue that the statutory rate is the statutory rate and we must respect that. The argument is basically the same behind the implementation for statutory rates in the first place. To paraphrase: "man, it's freaking hard to have to show actual damages (since there might not be any) and thus we shouldn't have to do that -- but should just be able to use these crazy high numbers." This argument seems silly frankly. It's basically saying that even if you could look at damages, you should never have to. That's a big part of the problem. It leads to cases like this where people are heavily pressured to settle just to avoid the risk of crazy high statutory damages.
But where the government's argument goes off the rails, is the idea that when it comes to statutory damages, there's never a due process question over whether the rates are excessive. That makes no sense, but it's the argument being made:
Contrary to defendant’s contentions, the Due Process Clause does not require that the statutory damage award be proportional to the actual harm defendant has caused the plaintiff. Defendant attempts to derive this rule from BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996). But as the district court held, Williams, not Gore, establishes the applicable framework for determining whether an award of statutory damages under the Copyright Act comports with due process.To summarize this argument, it's that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates, and no one can ever question if those rates are "excessive." Effectively, it's saying that Congress doesn't have to obey the Constitution. That makes no sense. And yes, it relies on this Supreme Court ruling from 1919, which is a pretty narrow ruling, concerning conditions under which you could measure such regulatory fines against the due process clause. However, this argument really tries to make that case do a hell of a lot more than it was designed to do -- while also trying to pretend that a whole series of other cases involving excessive fines as they relate to due process don't matter.
Gore is inapposite. It imposes limitations on a jury’s authority to award punitive damages in circumstances where the legislature has not constrained the jury’s discretion. It thus requires that the jury award not be grossly disproportionate to the plaintiff’s injury or defendant’s misconduct. Absent such limitations, the Gore Court reasoned, defendants could not have fair, constitutionally sufficient notice of the magnitude of potential sanctions.
The Gore framework, however, does not apply to a statutory regime in which Congress has specified in advance the range of appropriate damages. In that circumstance, the statute itself supplies the constitutionally required notice deemed missing in Gore. Moreover, unlike jury awards of punitive damages, an award of statutory damages is based on legislative judgments that must be accorded deference by the reviewing court. Williams, not Gore, sets forth the appropriate standards for conducting such review.
Either way, the end result is that the administration is effectively saying that a $1.5 million award for sharing 24 songs isn't just perfectly legal and reasonable, but that it's what Congress intended. All it really does is reiterate just how out of touch the White House is to reality.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jammie thomas-rasset, joel tenenbaum, michael davis, nancy gertner, statutory damages
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Not surprising...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising...
Just for shits and giggles I went on my facebook and posted tons of the Words NSA will use to search our Internet Usage.
I am so sick of the Government and their Constitution Breaking Corrupted Ways.
MAFIAA you would screw yourself if it were humanely possible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not surprising...
http://thetrichordist.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/artist-exploitation-calculator-internet-edition/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lies and other Clemens quotables.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I need sleep. 0_o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I really wonder if there were some people sitting around being bored at some point, and one said "You know what? Let's see if we can go and kill culture!".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are You Playing Stupid, Naive, or Just Dumb?
What the hell else did you expect from the fascist so-called government of the United Corporate Police States of America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are You Playing Stupid, Naive, or Just Dumb?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Are You Playing Stupid, Naive, or Just Dumb?
Also, there never has been and never will be any form of government that isn't at least largely bought and paid for, except where power is concentrated in one individual. The more people who hold power, the more likely you are to have corruption and the odds are pretty high with just one person.
Further, it's not corporations that own the politicians. The *AA, Big Oil, Big Pharma, and most every other lobby group with any significant power aren't corporations; they're cartels. Not that the politicians care. Even an individual with enough money can buy one.
Last bit, your calling the US a police state is either poorly chosen hyperbole or you've no idea what an actual police state is like.
While I pretty well agree with the sentiment behind the statement, pretty much every descriptive word choice you made was entirely wrong. Please use more of your own brain and less anti-establishment rhetoric if you're going to argue a point I agree with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Are You Playing Stupid, Naive, or Just Dumb?
That qualifies as fascist in my book, textbook fascist in fact. If you do not like the fact the US has a fascist government I suggest you do something about it instead of just denying it ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My head's going to be hurting all day from the amounts of smacks its going to receive...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not gonna sue them, you do it.
I know, lets get Mikey, he'll sue anyone.
Hey, Mikey!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, when people (not intellectual constructs, like government, but actual people) undertake government action that is deemed unconstitutional, it must be held as taking up arms against said constitution. Until unconstitutional acts are (properly) prosecuted as treason, and punished accordingly, the claim of the existence of a constitution, or the crime of treason, is a lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CopyLeft Trap
Tit for tat, as it were.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CopyLeft Trap
I'm starting to wonder if we can't just sue the RIAA for having caused untold amounts of cultural and financial damage, for fraud, for collusion, and for undermining the democratic process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CopyLeft Trap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: CopyLeft Trap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well then
That should work. I mean since statutory rates can't be argued against, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well then
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Its gotta be more then one single mp3, right? Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems a bit one sided, NO?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is a not at all what they are saying. It's pretty dishonest to even go there.
What they are saying is that the law is specific, and the risks involved are clearly defined. Because congress has set minimum and maximum levels in the law itself, everyone is aware that (a) it is infringement, and (b) these are the amounts you risk facing.
They can still argue that the amounts of excessive, but they will have to do that on merit alone, and not using some standard that does not apply here - specifically because congress set the rates. Basically, they have to argue that the amounts are injust on their face, not injust compared to the "actual harm" as established in Gore.
The congress is within it's rights to establish these rates as part of the law, because they are published WITH the law. Everyone knows the risk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Everyone knows that this was the original intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Everyone knows that this was the original intent."
This, times one million. Unless you can address this question in a way that justifies these rulings, you have no argument and can stick your "rah rah copyright rules all" cheerleading up your copyrighted hole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The law doesn't specifically say "corporate only". They laws are general in nature as they apply to both individuals and companies. Where the laws apply specifically to companies, it is so indicated. There is no such indication here.
Inventing or trying to apply "intent" of the lawmakers to a written law is a legal dead end. You work with the laws as written.
Can you show me where specifically in the laws regarding these statutory minimums that it says "this applies to companies only"?
Rah rah rah, answer that and you are a magician!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Can you really, honestly say that they set the statutory rates with college kids in mind? Hint: if you say yes, you're a damn liar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The law doesn't specifically say "corporate only" because when the statutory damages were created, infringement itself was "corporate only." As a rule, individuals simply were not sued for copyright infringement.
When that changed, the statutory damages were "grandfathered in," as it were.
Also, the fact that the damages are "clearly defined" by statute had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it. The punitive damages were also "clearly defined" in BMW.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just a couple of points.
First, statutory damages have been a part of our copyright laws since at least as early as the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1790.
Second, punitive damages are only rarely circumscribed by law. They tend to be open-ended and left to the discretion of the jury. Statutory damages, in contrast, are limited to a specific range.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And in all that time, individuals who committed non-commercial infringement were not sued for infringement.
Second, punitive damages are only rarely circumscribed by law.
But in the BMW case, they were. It was in Alabama code 6-11-20, which specified the punitive damages that could be awarded for "gross, oppressive or malicious" fraud.
It was rewritten in 1999 as a result of the ruling. The upper limit is currently "three times the compensatory damages of the party claiming punitive damages or five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), whichever is greater." So even now, they're circumscribed by law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point concerning statutory damages was merely to point out that they have been an integral part of federal law ever since the first copyright act was enacted.
Since I do not know what you mean by "non-commercial" infringement, I am unable to comment on your assertion.
Re the Gore case, and I readily admit I am not a student of the Alabama Code, the section you quote sets forth a legal test, but unlike federal statutory damages does not set lower and upper monetary limits. The amendment you recite does now circumscribe punitive damages within monetary limits, but unlike federal copyright law is tied in part to actual damages as determined during trial proceedings. IOW, pre-Gore they were not circumscribed, and post-Gore they are circumscribed. I hope this better explains my use of the term "circumscribed".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"To summarize this argument, it's that Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates, and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive' until they get sued for $1.5M dollars for sharing 24 songs"?
You seem to agree with the first half of the quote ("Congress can do whatever the hell it wants in setting statutory rates"), and your quibble is with the second half ("and no one can ever question if those rates are 'excessive'") since you can argue that the rates are excessive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
b) Correct, the question is if congress has that power or not, statutory damages are supposed to be a deterrent not to put anybody in eternal debt, making it in matter of fact anybody from the public a indenture serf.
Congress is batshit crazy if it things anybody agrees with that, more so because I don't think people understand the "risks" either, lets go ask in the streets what people think that drawing Disney cartoons in kindergarten without paying for it should be a crime punishable by those kind of statutory penalties, because you know technically anybody who ever printed, draw, photographed, displayed to anybody else a depiction of a copyrighted work is in fact infringing on the rights given to copyright holders, people just didn't grasp how powerful that right is and they don't know the depth of it, so you are full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
b) Wrong. The amounts set (which vary from a very low number to higher limit number) are there in the law. Anyone who wants to can know the risks involved in their activities. There is no reason to be an indentured serf, unless you are stupid enough to break the law, knowing the risks. That makes you an idiot, not a serf.
You don't like the law, change the law - but any argument that says statutory minimums (and maximums) are somehow illegal are missing the boat. It's not an appeal that will go very far.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Tell to that to a ten year old kid who's literally grown up with the internet and free file sharing. To him/her, sharing mp3 files through P2P or through cyberlockers is as natural as loaning CDs/cassette tapes was for us in the 80's/90's. To them, the notion of copyright is a completely alien notion.
And no, there ARE grey areas? Heard of fair use? Plus, you can't just call people guilty of infringement WITHOUT A TRIAL...which sadly is happening less and less lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hopefully the taught him about murder, otherwise this kid is going to be real fun at school.
As for your "grey areas", let's be clear here: I cannot imagine a fair use claim on file sharing with a million strangers on P2P. Can you honestly claim that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Cast your mind back to your youth though, is the difference between making a copy of tape for your friend any different to sharing a file, other than the number of copies made?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The most important is that the P2P copy can itself be copied an endless number of times. We are passing perfect digital copies here, and a copy of a copy is EXACTLY as good as the original. If you have even gotten a copy of a copy of a tape, you know exactly how good it was - good enough to make you want to buy the record so you didn't have to listen to the hiss fest. The third generation was worthless.
The "number of copies" issue is important too. A single person seeding a single song could be the source for a million perfect copies. The damage of a single person's actions are magnified so much under the current system. Basically, a single person can feed the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
While it may be infringement the damage is minimal and therefore the amounts being awarded are 'insane' since they effectively punish the individual for life. The amount is more than they could earn in a lifetime. That in itself is the real crime when compared to the minimal impact the infringement has had.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
My point was simply that sharing always happened, the mechanism has changed, but me wanting to share some stuff with my mates hasn't changed, it's just got easier and better.
As to "damage", unless you are suggesting that one shared file = one lost sale then the damage is impossible to articulate. If you're suggesting that the damage actually equals tens of thousands of dollars per shared file then the entertainment industries have surely been deprived of more money than has ever existed. Which is plainly nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It just seems like this battle must not really be about the money. Whatever this has to do with, they are foolish to think a courtroom is their best forum for vindication.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
a) There are plenty of people who do not understand copyright and who would never believe something as natural as sharing music with your friends could possibly be illegal and punishable by fines in the millions of dollars. There is nothing intuitive about knowing that, and it is perfectly reasonable to believe that the practice is not only acceptable but should also be encouraged. The concept that sharing is wrong is something that was to be taught, and it has to be taught against the principles that most everyone was raised on.
b) While the numbers are "there in the law", you know as well as I know that non-commercial filesharing done by an individual for personal use was never intended to be punished by anything even resembling the level of damages awarded against her. If any damages should have been awarded in this case, it should have been the statutory minimum of 750.00 per instance of infringement. $18000.00 in penalties for downloading less than $24.00 of music is still excessive, but from your standpoint of "there in the law" it would have to be acceptable.
I would still be interested in hearing your response to the issue of intent of the damages and how they would be awarded against commercial entities versus private individuals that was raised earlier...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that I'm agreeing with the copyright middlemen, but they're not actually arguing that paying $1.5 million is reasonable, perfectly or otherwise.
They're arguing that it's perfectly legal because a due process analysis is not applicable. Being reasonable and legal are not always the same thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Their child was called "no legal reason"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
An argument like the Administration has made here doesn't even serve the labels' best interests, and is obviously a kick in the balls for the defendant. The labels' lawyers win though -- more billables.
This type of litigation hasn't had the deterrent effect that labels hoped it would, so what's the effing point of arguing that this nonsense damage award should remain intact -- a $1.5 million judgment against your average file-sharer will never be satisfied. One message these awards does convey, however, is probably not what the RIAA had in mind, i.e., that the labels are frivolously out-of-touch vindictive twats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Voting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have your cake and eat it too
If someone stole 24 CDs from a store which could then be shared digitally, there isn't a court in the nation that would fine the thief $1.5 million dollars.
Why does the internet make courts so stupid? At least one judge tried to grasp reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Open letter to the signers
Dear Sirs,
I read your brief advocating reinstating insane fines against Jammie Thomas-Russet for sharing a handful of songs. I want to share an idea that you may have overlooked: you can contribute greatly to the society submitting yourself to medical experiments. If scientists figure out how to pump blood through a body without a heart (which you apparently lack), it will help millions and millions people with heart problems.
Thank you,
SJD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
radio recording!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excessive fines argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
it's not enough
It's not like she can pay it either way, and the bigger the number, the bigger the headlines it will get, and the sooner more people will realize what a joke of a law it is. And they should always publish the list of songs too so we can see what kind of crap this woman's life was ruined for.
Nothing will change until enough people get seriously angry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: it's not enough
For every Jamie Thomas Russet and Joe Tanenbaum we should crate a new pirate bay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: it's not enough
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What do you expect...?
Until we stop allowing the people calling themselves "government" to steal from us (taxation - which claims that they own a percentage of the combination of our time & labor, therefore owning us, AKA serfdom) they will continue to believe they own us.
True freedom comes from owning one's self (self-ownership) and all that extends from said axiom.
Want freedom? Then start acting like a free man/woman!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What do you expect...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really, they're simply telling you that in the cases you are relying on there never was simply a question of "excessiveness" by itself. It was "excessiveness WHEN you have not been put on SUFFICIENT NOTICE that a jury might award ridiculously high PUNITIVE damages" because you were not put on notice. However, they note that the statute provides the notice in this case.
And furthermore, they go on to, as you suggest, note that congress has the authority to do whatever it pleases in terms of statutory rates. That is, the due process clause is not triggered by them deciding x amount of dollars is the fine.
Indeed, this is the root of your issue that you take with these kinds of cases Mike, you believe congress is less powerful than it is. Or you belive they should be less powerful than it is. It really is about you resenting the power of the congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem here that troubles many is that they have a visceral and negative reaction to the statutory damages provision of Title 17. Of course, the proper course of action under our system of laws is to petition Congress to amend the statutory damages provision. Interestingly, statutory damages have been a mainstay of US copyright law ever since the enactment of the Copyright Act of 1790.
In anticipation that some may believe I am an ardent supporter of the T and JRT awards, my response is that I express no opinion on the amounts. Mine is solely to try and articulate what the law is and why.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a brand of federal claptrap that, while not really surprising anymore, makes your average American citizen justifiably nonplussed about those running our government. By this Administration's standards, if Congress passed a law allowing for $100 trillion in damages against a defendant for spitting on a property owner's lawn, Due Process is not implicated.
Symbolically, it shows that those in key government positions don't have our back. Individual interests take the backseat -- nay, trunk -- to corporate interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I want a different candidate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want a different candidate
thats not waiting for someone more palatable from the other side, thats waiting until the offerings from your side are so repulsive you have no other choice to make than to switch sides.
and that is exactly why we have the mess we have today....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want a different candidate
In the battle that pits Giant Douche vs. Turd Sandwich, when the most conspicuous difference between the two are their competing brands of dumbfuckery, I suppose I prefer the challenger. I'm fully confident that he can be just as awful, but it'd be nice to have a new guy's decisions to ridicule.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I want a different candidate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I want a different candidate
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they have we'd better slap them with a $150 000 / offense damages fee. Those poor newspapers are going out of business and it's all these old pirates fault. If they'd just pay for a paper rather than sharing it with some random stranger that just happened to be sitting at the table next to them they'd still be in business!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For perspective...
So that's from Connecticut as of Oct, 2010... and obviously sharing 24 songs MUST be quite more severe than killing someone unintentionally... since it has a $1.5 million fine.
Just saying...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For perspective...
Just saying... 10 years in jail is way more than $150,000 would be. The statute provides for damages of $750 to $30,000 per work infringed (and upon proof of willfulness, up to $150,000).
Mike is taking the "maximum number" and trying to play from there. It is clear that the Obama Administration has no problem with $7500 as the penalty for sharing 10 songs as well.
Don't be fooled by Mike's bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For perspective...
Do you want to show where they've made this clear? Or do we have to take your word for it again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For perspective...
Yeah, because I'm sure they feel physically violated everytime someone shares. Sickening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: For perspective...
Damn laws. There is absolutely no sense in them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Way Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Way Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Way Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Way Out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hang on...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TUBE OF LUBE
youtube2mp3.com and you have any track you want thanks to the biggest file sharing site in the universe!!
Obama what a fucking joke.... i knew from the start they used a black man as a smoke screen..... hello!! foreign hatred reversed over night YES WE CAN LMFAO!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funding the Fight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Or to put it another way, and assuming she earns $50k/year, she's been sentenced to 30 years of indentured servitude for her crimes.
that's assuming she doesn't need to eat, wear clothing, have a roof over her head, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]