Jammie Thomas Asks Supreme Court: How Much Is Too Much For Copyright Infringement?
from the here-we-go dept
Back in September, we wrote about the latest in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset saga, in which an appeals court had ruled that the original (of three) district court rulings in her case, in which she was told to pay $9,250 per song was perfectly reasonable. As we noted, this was more or less a procedural thing, in an effort to get to the main event: a challenge on the Constitutionality of ridiculously high statutory damages for copyright. And... that's where we are now. Thomas-Rasset has petitioned the Supreme Court to hear her appeal on exactly that question:Is there any constitutional limit to the statutory damages that can be imposed for downloading music online?The argument, as when it has been brought up earlier, is that such huge fines represent a 5th Amendment due process problem, as the awards simply are so far out of line with any reason. The filing runs through a brief history of the recording industry's fight against file sharing (amusingly quoting from the movie The Social Network to make the point that the recording industry has seen better days).
Thomas-Rasset makes the case that the three different verdicts, with three different crazy amounts from three different juries highlights the problems with today's statutory damages, and how disconnected they are from reality:
Statutory damages imposed in this way are unpredictable, unconstrained, and equally as punitive as punitive damages; the jury’s role in imposing them is even more divorced from finding facts, from deciding what happened, than it is in imposing punitive damages. The order-of-magnitude difference between the verdicts in this case, $222,000 in the first trial, $1,920,000 in the second trial, and $1,500,000 in the third trial, demonstrates this. The verdicts are unpredictable and, in a deeper sense, arbitrary; they are not tied to any fact or rationale that justifies them, that explains why the law imposes this particular penalty on this particular defendant.And it's that arbitrary nature that becomes a Constitutional problem under the 5th Amendment:
Thomas–Rasset contends that the award of statutory damages against her violates the Due Process Clause because it is tied not to the actual injury that she caused or other features of her conduct, but to the injury caused by file sharing in general. Like punitive damages, statutory damages are imposed not only to compensate the plaintiff, but also to deter the defendant and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. While this general approach, punishing one offender to deter others, is constitutional within limits, even gross limits of fair retribution for an individual’s conduct, due process limits the extent of the punishment. This Court recognized as much in reviewing awards of statutory damages as early as a century ago.And, of course, they claim that this case clearly shows that statutory damages are completely disproportionate:
In Williams, decided in 1919, a railroad challenged statutory damages of “not less than fifty dollars nor more than three hundred dollars” imposed for overcharging two passengers by 66 cents in violation of Arkansas’s regulation of railroad rates. 251 U.S. at 63–64. The railroad argued that such statutory damages “contravene due process of law” because “the penalty is arbitrary and unreasonable, and not proportionate to the actual damages sustained.” ... This Court held that the Due Process Clause “places a limitation upon the power of the states to describe penalties for violations of their laws” and that due process is denied “where the penalty prescribed is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.”
Under Williams and the other early cases, the award of statutory damages in this case is unconstitutional because it is “grossly excessive” and “wholly disproportioned to the offense.”.... $222,000 for 24 songs that would have cost $24 on iTunes is absurd. Nor can $222,000 be justified by the kinds of other features of the offense identified in Williams.There's a lot more in the full filing, but it also takes on things, like the claims that the record labels should be able to get more from Thomas-Rasset, because they have to cover for other files sharers. That doesn't fly:
a defendant may be punished for his own similar acts only, Campbell, 538 U.S. at 422–23 (“A defendant’s dissimilar acts, independent from the acts upon which liability was premised, may not serve as the basis for punitive damages. A defendant should be punished for the conduct that harmed the plaintiff, not for being an unsavory individual or business.”), and only for the injury that he inflicted on the particular plaintiff in the case, not for any injuries that he inflicted on nonparties, Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. 346, 353 (2007) (“the Constitution’s Due Process Clause forbids a State to use a punitive damages award to punish a defendant for injury that it inflicts upon nonparties or those whom they directly represent, i.e., injury that it inflicts upon those who are, essentially, strangers to the litigation”). These cases preserve the civil nature of a case notwithstanding the imposition of a punishment: the case remains between two parties, and the civil punishment must be justified with reference to the acts between those parties, not acts in the world in general.There are a number of legal arguments... and one appeal to emotion, which comes off as a bit weak, though you never know how well some of those might play out:
But lawyers should care about these cases for an entirely different reason: This is not just. It is unfair, it is not due process, for an industry to sue 12,500 people and threaten to sue 5,000 more, wielding a statute for which they lobbied, under which they can threaten hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in statutory damages, where the only way to resist is through modern, complex, expensive federal process, so that the only reasonable choice is to pay the settlement and be done. That’s extortion, not law. We cannot govern that way.I am skeptical that this will result in a ruling in favor of Thomas-Rasset (even if the Supreme Court grants cert -- which I'd say is possible, but unlikely). However, perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised. This is an absolute long shot, especially given a Supreme Court that, while skeptical of patent expansion, has shown a bizarre willingness to let Congress continue to stretch and change and expand copyright law at every turn.
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: copyright, due process, jammie thomas rasset, statutory damages, supreme court
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Why not. They did as much in California for running a stoplight when they started putting in red light cameras. Fine for a ticket went from $143 to $490, and then there was the whole commercial enterprise determining guilt thing and the provisions written into the contract with the cities to prevent cities from changing yellow timings (or making them shorter than legal.) The only problem is, unlike this case, jacking up speeding ticket or red light fines isn't arbitrary (well, it is, but it is legally arbitrary.)
The government determines, usually through congress, what the fine will be and there is at least some due process there. Usually there is some expert that determines what the fine should be, and this should, at least theoretically, be based on the law.
In this case, a jury of your peers, based on shoddy instructions from the RIAA/MPAA, determines what the fine will be based on little more than "I feel this is what the fine should be." The punishment should fit the crime, and I think it is absolutely amazing that the value of a human life is far less than the value of a single song shared on Napster/Kazaa/Bittorrent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's the problem with a lot of traffic laws, and especially automated enforcement of such. There doesn't need to be any danger to anyone for them to be in effect. Why should I be charged with running a red light if I pull up to the intersection, find no one is coming and decide to go?
Disclaimer: I've never run a red light, and I haven't had a speeding ticket since I was a teenager well over a decade ago. This isn't just some rant of a guy who is constantly being fined for driving recklessly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big picture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I never meant it that way. I don't agree with the change in the fine for running a red light, for exactly the reason you state. Certainly I don't agree with it when the fine was raised solely to benefit the government and the contractor who provided the red-light cameras financially.
Red-light cameras are an abomination of justice...especially when the rule of law is the spirit of the law. If the police officer is not there to witness the totality of the event, and only relies on a camera (which can't see everything,) to determine that the spirit of the law has been broken, then it is wrong. Unfortunately, the judges haven't agreed with this.
What I meant by value of life vs. value of download was that we put people in jail for 5 years for murder, but we strap Thomas-Rasset with a fine she will never be able to pay off for making one song available (ok, she made more than one song available, but she didn't kill anyone.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
there shouldn't be trials for people who are accused of doing illegal things!
copyright infringement should get the death penalty for stealing all that music and leaving artists dead on the street. It's not different than murder!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
We need to for a mob, and find this Google and mete out the proper judgement!
*shakes head*
Ugh...sorry, been reading too many of bob's posts lately.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
North Korea already has the death penalty and it doesn't stop pirates!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean can they put a number to the people who downloaded the bits of information from her seeding?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cost per bit
Given that we know the per song extortion, if we can find how the precise file size, we could calculate a average "cost per byte" and "cost per bit" to determine how much she's being charged (on average) for every 1 or 0.
Then, compare/contrast to the cost of other things (Photoshop, or some such) provided we also calculate the cost per bit of those as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cost per bit
Now, I wonder why non-commercial filesharing should have the same fines and damages as commercial sharing. The severity of the crime is a different beast entirely from commercial operations. Where did the user-protection go in the laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is time to say no, but more importantly to find a way that prevents bad actors from having this power, we need to change the laws but first we must find a way to keep them in the right direction.
We need more social tools to make it harder so a minority impose their whims on everybody, we need a way to show laws and vet them before they become law, we need to punish severely those who for their own personal interests help corrupt that system so it may serve as a deterrent to others would be lobbyist/politicians/managers.
There must be a way to make a system that make it difficult for bad/crazy/misguided people to control everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not a fan, but...
It's not that we allowed immoral people to corrupt the system (ok we did, but that's not the point). The point of the matter is that the laws were designed to deter commercial infringement. There was no digital distribution system in place when the laws were written and so the industry was only looking to keep people from mass bootlegging. It worked and we didn't care because it didn't affect us. No one was looking for us sharing our mix tapes or making copies for friends. Technology has changed and the law hasn't and the content industry is at full on war with it's customers. How crazy is that?
We all could talk about this ad nauseam, but the fact remains that it is economic suicide to go to war with your source of revenue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
She got fined so much because she allowed 10,000 or more other people to download the music from her via file sharing software, not because she downloaded it once
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where's the actual harm?
That's the problem the "tort reform for the rich and crime and punishment for the poor approach". It's an obvious double standard that ignores it's own rules when the defendant is powerless.
If this were a doctor or a hospital or a trucking company, everyone would be whining about insurance rates and letting Mengele off the hook.
Since it's a poor working stiff, people want to throw the book at her and ignore any underlying moral or legal principles.
Perhaps if she incorporated then people would start to defend her rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you have a bright future in Empire, komrade: authoritarianism is all the rage ! ! !
...dick
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
art guerrilla at windstream dot net
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Or are you just talking out of your ass?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
There was no evidence for this 10000+ claim in the documents. (If there was evidence of THAT many uploads, they would be going for actual damages instead of statutory.) Actually, I think they cite that the nature of the networks is such that they do not know if ANY of her songs were accessed outside of when they were accessed by the plaintiffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There is a cap. Unfortunately, that cap is $150,000 per song, if they find willfulness.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You should only be able to claim damages if proven something actually happened.
Posting someone's phone number on your front door is making it available. But just because the cops drive by and see you posted the number does not mean anyone else noticed. So what damages can you actually claim?
There should be a cap on baseless-claims, such as the inferred by making available claim.
Too bad civil courts are all about singing and dancing and not about proof. But I have a funny suspicion, even if non-commercial infringement was deemed "criminal" and warranted jail-time, the burden of proof would be all on the defendant, proving their innocence, while the plaintiff's just dance and sing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and one appeal to emotion
But lawyers should care about these cases for an entirely different reason: This is not just. It is unfair, it is not due process, for an industry to sue 12,500 people and threaten to sue 5,000 more, wielding a statute for which they lobbied, under which they can threaten hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in statutory damages, where the only way to resist is through modern, complex, expensive federal process, so that the only reasonable choice is to pay the settlement and be done. That’s extortion, not law. We cannot govern that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Cost of actual song) / (odds of being caught) = $fine ?
24 / (1 / 100,000) = $2.4MM is not arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When the odds of being caught are low enough, then this equation becomes a lottery.
A lottery, handing out an excessive fine, is an arbitrary and unfair procedure for law enforcement. Fundamentally and irredeemably unfair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Basing it on external factors as a way to increase the penalty is wrong and arbitrary. Punishing one person harshly as a proxy for the masses is wrong.
I clearly think these damage awards are excessive and arbitrary, but it's unlikely the SCOTUS will take the case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Or is the fine deliberately structured to make dumping trash not worth the risk? In all likelihood, you're not going to get caught. But is littering worth the possibility of paying $1,000?
If you go into a store and shoplift a CD and get caught, you can go to jail. Severe? Yes. Disproportionate? Perhaps. But it makes getting caught at shoplifting not worth the risk for most people.
Now, the "harm" caused to the store is, what, $10? So should the fine for shoplifting a CD equate to the actual harm? In which case, why wouldn't everyone try to shoplift everything? Best case, you get the CD for free, and worst case is that you pay what you would have paid in the first place.
So what's the answer? 2X? 3X? 10X 100X? At what point does the deterrence factor kick in?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Reading it versus comprehending it.
Sure there is the whole "cruel and unusual" problem. But there's also the problem of a punishment or a number being so large as to be something that nearly no one can relate to.
Most people simply can't understand the numbers being thrown around here. That's why people are so eager to apply them to some working class schmuck.
Absurd fines don't serve the cause of justice or Law & Order in general.
This kind of thing happens with corporate tort verdicts too but corporations have plenty of champions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Reading it versus comprehending it.
If the penalty was more realistic, then people might actually find some deterrent in it and rethink a potential infringement. What should this rate be? I have no idea... $500.00 is an amount that would hit my wallet enough that I'd feel it and I could actually pay it, but even that is more money that many people could reasonably pay especially in the event of judgments for multiple infringements. Rasset was accused of sharing 24 songs, so that would be $12,000.00. I couldn't pay that any easier than $150,000.00...
The MAFIAA wants these sensational judgments that they can throw out there to pressure people into settling, but I really think they have the opposite effect. When I see a judgment of 1.5M against a housewife for maybe sharing 24 songs, I have even less respect for the rightsholders. Even beyond that, due to my nature, I feel the only way to "help make this right" is by making sure they get none of my money or the money of anyone I know.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're asking the wrong question. Instead, the question should be, “At what point does in terrorem propaganda cease to deter?”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Given that punishments for infringement have been ratcheted up as far as the death penalty without much effect, I'd have to say the answer to your question is 'never'.
The severity of the punishment is not a deterrent. Those who knowingly commit an offense always believe they won't get caught. The only way to deter people is to guarantee that they will be caught. The cost of doing that is way more than they value of the entire music industry, let alone the value of the major record labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
In this case, each infringement was for a single song, which you can get for about $1. The award was REDUCED to $2250 per song, and the appeals court rejected that reduction.
I think 2250x is already stretching the limit. At some point it becomes unconstitutional. $24 worth of songs should not produce a judgement of $222,000 (or $1.5 million, or $1.92 million, as other juries ruled on the same case when it was retried). I think it's pretty obvious that if someone got a fine of $222,000 (or $1.5 million, or $1.92 million) for stealing 2-3 CD's from a store, that would be thrown out as an unconstitutionally excessive fine in violation of the 8th amendment.
Half the problem here is with the juries, who should have seen the noncommercial nature and extremely low monetary value of the infringement, and issued a correspondingly low amount of damages. If the $750 minimum (or something close to it) isn't going to be used on a case of noncommercial infringement of $1 songs, when WILL it be used?
The other half of the problem is that the juries have almost no guidance. Pick a number between $750 and $30,000. But if it's provably willful, the range is $750 to $150,000 and if it's provably unintentional, the range is $200 to $30,000. That's all the guidance they get?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's almost too bad the one jury did return "only" $222,000, because if the $1,920,000 was going to the Supreme Court, they'd almost have to overturn it. $80,000 per song would have a much better chance of being thrown out than $9,250 per song, even though both are far too high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can actually answer this, thanks to numerous studies done over a lot of years. if the behavior is something that the person isn't highly motivated to engage in, then the penalty doesn't have to be very high to have a deterrent effect. $1000 fines for littering work pretty well, because people aren't really very motivated to litter in the first place.
If, however, the behavior is something that the person is actively motivated to do, high penalties have no deterrent effect at all, even if the penalty is death. High penalties do alter how a person engages in the prohibited activity, but not whether they do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For most people, I think a $1 000 000 fine is a deterrent.
So it looks like you have found the solution to all crime. We just make any offense a fine of a $1 000 000. No one will ever break a law again, not even in the heat of the moment when emotions are ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Death. Any infraction, no matter how small, results in being put to death. There, no more crime!! /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Where did that number come from? Like speeding, you're odds of being caught are quite high, if the police bother to enforce the law 100% of the time. Since they selectively enforce the law, you're odds appear to go up, but that's not because you're hiding it better, it's because they don't have the manpower to catch everyone.
They can attempt to download everything on a torrent site and harvest every IP address, and then the odds of being caught go up dramatically.
Put another way, if they hired one guy with a 20 year old computer on a dialup modem and told him he was the only guy trying to catch people infringing on copyright-- the odds of getting caught would be astronomical, and they could sue the one in a billion person for eleventy gazillion dollars for downloading one $1.29 song.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I am not sure how much “eleventy gazillion dollars” is. At some point the number has no real connection to wrong that the individual may have done, but rather is meant chiefly to “send a message” to society at large. A number chosen for in terrorem effect.
Terrorizing society by randomly picking one individual scapegoat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes... I made that number of as an example of the general formula.
The real question was if that strategy would be a possible argument the RIAA could pursue, which was answered well above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Actually, this is a good idea. Some might upload millions of torrent files with popular titles, and wait for the DMCA take downs.
If 1000000 torrents with popular titles are added to the public searches every day, there is too much to monitor. Let us swamp the mafiaa with millions of torrents. If they want to catch the initial seeders, they must attempt to fetch all the likely titles which is impossible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The corporate elite have no trace of compassion for their fellow man; they don't care how many lives they step on and ruin, only that they get their way. If there was any justice, these robber-barons would be the ones on trial for bribing elected officials, theft and tax evasion. It's very telling when the board of directors over at Hostess split a $30 million bonus amongst themselves, at the expense of thousands of workers' jobs and pensions. Of course they get off scott-free.
Absolutely insane what is going on in this country. For the first time in my life, I feel ASHAMED of my country! What have we devolved into!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The corporate elite would say the same thing about pirates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The people on the other side of the class divide crumble under the weight of excessive debt.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...The comparison is neither symmetrical nor ironic. It is merely self-serving.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There should be some additional fine associated with it. If you're caught the risk should be greater than just having to pay. With that said, it needs to be reasonable. Up to $150,000 per is not reasonable, especially for non-commercial use. The lower bound (~$2250 IIRC) is not even reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bizarre disconnect.
But there IS a low-level appearance of Constitutionality left that MIGHT be applied here (I think it's to pretend there IS still a rule of law). -- But that only goes until one notes that corporate privileges trumps rights of "natural" person. ... She's doomed.
A start toward fixing this and many wrongs is: a) anti-corporatism ALL the time b) anti-Rich c) advocate limits on income d) return to common law.
... But after glancing at the comments, you fanboy-trolls are more concerned with making ad hom strawmen than with any fundamental rights. Being ankle-biters, your sight never gets above that level, so your yapping is QUITE mis-directed from the true hazards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
Describes what I just read. Completely disconnected from reality and any attempt at a coherent argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
The ad homs at the end ruin it, but at least you're coherent.
Also, so-called piracy is a form of anti-corporatism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
Much better than your earller posts
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
Do you have a point? Maybe you should try the "honest contribution" rather than the "crazy person yelling" approach, it could sway more people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
He says before just making ad-hom attacks on a strawman... Even on the odd occasion where you stumble across something true, and perhaps even resembling a real point, you still make yourself look like a moron. Well done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bizarre disconnect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm 100% connected here
""A start toward fixing this and many wrongs is: a) anti-corporatism ALL the time b) anti-Rich c) advocate limits on income d) return to common law.""
Sound extreme. Too extreme to be palatable and too extreme to work.
A better solution is...Socialism for society ...... Capitalism for Individuals and business.
Where society is given preference over capitalism.
The complete opposite of the growing corporate society that we partially live in today.
Private prisons, private schools, private roads, private police etc.... are not good for society as a whole.
Like people profiting from more criminals isn't an incentive to make more people criminals ?
Like people profiting from better test results isn't an incentive to make other competing schools, "bad schools" ?
Have a look at the incarceration rate of America please, then decide how well the capitalistic system imposed on societal issues is working out for society
Or this case here.
■ Copying endlessly is at no cost, now, to society.
■ Capitalistic attempt to limit society.
■ Capitalistic urge to punish all who defy the limit imposed on society.
Private pizza shop and private tech companies etc.... good for society and extremely good for capitalistic gains by individuals.
We all know how capitalism benefits individuals, but they shouldn't dictate to society.
The point is that for societal issues, Capitalism does not work and is a plague on actual people.
Only a stupid would be blindly anti-capitalist.
Only a stupid would be blindly a capitalist.
As for your irrelevant rant about ankle biters....... well that just irrelevant.
Next time tell us how many bowel movements you have had in the previous week.
At least that irrelevant info would be somewhat amusing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Infringement is only an artifact of copyright, without copyright there is no infringement.
so in a way, having copyright "legalized" infrigement because it's non-existant otherwise!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As you're probably aware, they're preparing for creation of a so-called small claims court specifically designed to process copyright infringers through the system faster, syphoning money from citizens' pockets and redistributing it directly into corporate back accounts. It's disgusting that they're even considering such a thing.
The wealthy like to raise a ruckus about how stuff like Social Security, Medicare and other things are merely entitlements for society, despite the fact that hard-working Americans spent years paying into the system. Then, starting with Bush Jr., the government began grabbing money out of SS and slipping IOUs (unfunded liabilities) in its stead. Remind me: who was it that footed the $700 billion bailout for the banks, despite public dissent? That is the very definition of entitlement, as are state subsidies for Hollywood, video game companies, etc. Those people did absolutely NOTHING to earn that money and everything to violate the public trust. Heck the banks foreclosed upon millions of homes, due to fraudulent lending practices, and STILL got away with it! No midnight raid by the feds, no auditing, no keeping tabs on all the money being offshored, ...no nothing. Yet some random individual (Jammie Thomas-Rasset) happens to download music from the internet and then finds herself contesting the legality of a million+ in statutory damages.
Our country used to be great, a bastion of liberty and a beacon of freedom, human rights and democracy that shed its light upon the whole world. Yet no more. We've allowed ourselves to become a hostile corporate-fascist police state, exploiting every dirty scheme in the book to redistribute wealth from the bottom to the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
As you could have informed yourself, despite cheerleading by various photographer's lobbies for a copyright "small claims" court, the big music lobbyists all oppose the idea.
ASCAP, A2IM, BMI, NMPA, RIAA and SESAC all say:
(Emphasis added.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Accessing something to read or listen to it is legal and will probably stay that way, even though MAFIA lawyers call it infringement. But there's no way mass distribution of a copyrighted work you do not have the rights to will ever be perfectly legal.
That said, I would demand reform if I were an RIAA or MPAA member, because the current penalties are going to go the way of gay marriage bans and Prohibition even if SCOTUS upholds these awards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bah
That's the whole problem, they clearly had the money to spend on music instead of getting it for free. We all do! The industry has the data!
There's no competition from movies or video games or limited expenditures on entertainment due to hard economic times. There's no problem with a distribution model. There's no threat of competition from artists not willing to do exactly what the labels want.
It's all real math that says these infringers and infringement enablers would have spent that money on music! In fact, those awarded damages are actually cumulative to the money that would have been spent, which is $3.642 Million.
/satire
OOTB, beat that!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: bah
He only beats it when you reply directly to one of his posts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUCK YOU MAFIAA !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a grossly inaccurate statement of the lower court's ruling, bordering on intentionally attempting to mislead the court.
While JRT certainly downloaded some songs, her liability in major part was based upon her distribution of songs to others.
Given the denial in the Tenenbaum case, it would indeed be most unusual for cert. to be granted. In the prior cases where cert. was sought, the only one that came even close to striking a responsive court was the one dealing with a claim of "innocent infringement". Even then that case was able to muster only one justice (Alito) recommending it be heard, but this was because Alito was intrigued by the "labeling" argument. Of course, it takes four Justices to agree before cert. is granted, and the chances such an agreement will be reached is likely somewhere in the order of extremely thin and none.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, it seems that way to me too. JRT's liability was for sharing, not downloading.
The damages are grossly disproportionate because they're from a statute that was never intended to be applied to what she did. They address mass bootlegging for profit (and fairly), but are IMO a bad fit for one-to-one sharing of published work.
But the JRT team is not making that argument. *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
canada
A) social assistance and disability have limits to prevent undue harm and they spell it out directly as in 26/month for welfare and 50 for disability and once that is reached it cant be increased, only the length a time your required to pay can.
B) the maximum statutory in Canada is a mere 5000$ this also limits what others that can be garnished or have kids familly's etc have to pay...and its for all infringements NOT just one tune or 8....
C) the above applies to non commercial infringement , if you sell rent lease or otherwise profit from said material then you are liable for 20000$ PER INFRINGEMENT....you must however under the new law prove non commercial infringement.
If miss Thomas lived in canada ....its likely they'd not even have perused her cause the cost of lawyers being what is is might mean as little as 3 K just to show up at the court.MIGHT be more and if its too close to 5 grand it isn't worth it and judges under the law have been instructed to error on the low side to prevent undue harm so 100-5000 is the range.Run the risk of suing and not geting your legal costs covered...
NOW go after the profiteers not the disabled and poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Logic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
teksavvy ussies
IF i were said users i'd never tell anyone if your on disability or welfare and let them sue and then show up regardless and make the buggers pay....
i am with teksavvy have had many a chat with both the old owner rocky and the new one his brother marc....
I will say if the term lengths on copyright were sane there arguments to fight against it might fly....
150 year sin the usa and 80 ( was 50 ) in canada are just cruel and unusual punishment for those of us that like to create...i have tons of stuff ive made but cant legally share cause id have to pay some fee i cant afford to some smuck too lazy to do crap with things.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is, of course, yes. There is a constitutional limit. The question should be whether the damages in this case exceed that limit. I can't wait to read the whole thing. Thanks for posting, Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they ask if there's a limit at all, then it applies to everything, including this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I think they now know that JT was a bad case to be a champion, so they're trying to get whatever they can out of it, so when the next case goes to court maybe a little more sanity can be used when figuring these amounts.
I think that's why they're asking their question, and not yours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I think there needs to be an exception for personal use-- anywhere the infringing files aren't being sold directly. I know that idea makes a copyright maximalist's head explode, but it seems to be the only option that makes any sense. (Keeping in mind that you can legislate morality. See: US Prohibition)
If you want to make someone buy your non-scarce product instead of copying it from an unofficial source, you have to make them *want* to; you can't scare them into being a customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Edit function for Christmas, Mike? Oh! Make it something you have to pay for, like the Crystal Ball thingamajig.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Absolutely. She could hire you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skeptical? It's absolutely laughable. The Supreme Court has a few (thousand) more important issues to handle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I have a feeling that the Supreme Court will refuse to hear her case. Vice President Joe Biden is best friends with MPAA King Pin Chris Dodd. Even though the White House is supposed to answer to the Supreme Court, it usually doesn't work that way in America anymore. Lobbyist run the US Government now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]