So is anyone willing to pay me a couple of grands in levies? Or ransoms, or taxes, or donations, or allowances? Since only "fines" shouldn't be excessive, the other ways of paying me are not excessive by any means... My bank account info, anyone?
Whatever you call an elephant, it will not magically become a sparrow.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It does not say "criminal". It does not say "civil". It's says "excessive". And if someone here does not think that copyright statutory fines are excessive, I bet it wouldn't be excessive for him to part with a couple grands: ask me for my bank info.
No one said that and it was my point - the case law is not mature in this area (I'm talking narrowly about mass p2p cases). That's why I think that this decision is more good than bad, because when precedent base is being built, every such decision is rather a win.
But of course no one can guarantee you anything, and at this moment in history knowingly allowing default to be brought on oneself is stupid.
...that's why despite Howell's ruling is still disgusting, I think it is rather good than bad in a long run. One of the pillars of trolls' "business model" is their weapon of fear charged with "up to $150K" rounds.
If judges start awarding minimally allowed judgements, in defaults, Does will realize that a boogieman is just a clown and incapable of inflicting any serious harm. The entire trolling "business" will collapse.
Looking back at this particular judgement, yes, you are right, but the case law about what the appropriate amount of a default judgement is still in the works, so I wouldn't advocate ignoring summons, it's still a lottery, a scary lottery: a couple of months ago a Canadian guy got hit with $60 K default in a similar case.
Lawyer costs here are actually $0. Attorney fees make sense when attorneys work for hire and don't have a vested interest in a lawsuit. For USCG it is a business enterprise (joint venture with other conspirators), not a work for hire. Therefore their time and a fortune spend to file a federal case ($350) is just a risky business investment, which paid off nicely by the way. Asking for "fees" on top of their dirty profit is impudent to say the least.
If Al Capone nicely asks a store owner to pay for "protection" in a letter, and the owner does not receive that letter for some reason, his associates turns out and get their ransom anyway, but do they also complain that because of that damn store owner they had to buy additional guns and should be reimbursed for that?
And as you've said, it's just the attorney's word. These scumbags save even on mailing - summons were sent via first-class. My troll, Sperlein, bothered to send certified mail with a proof of delivery (signature), which he had subsequently filed.
Unfortunately, in civil cases the bar of proof is very low: as far as I know sending something via first-class mail is enough.
Although I wholeheartedly agree on TAC's assessment of judge Beryl, and, given the fraudulent evidence, the amount should be zero (or even negative), I don't think that in this particular case it it such a big win for trolls: threatening anyone with 3.5K, and only in a case of default is ridiculous since the amount is basically the same as settlement.
If a default fine is that low, being a defendant, I would expect that if I file an answer to complaint to avoid default, I would expect a lesser fine or no fine at all.
As always, it all boils down to one’s main premise:
- either the majority people are naturally born criminals, and as such require increasingly stricter rules and enforcement of those rules in order to contain the evil inside them;
- or the majority is comprised of socially responsible citizens who can flexibly govern themselves on every level, down to an individual and his shame as an internal “correction institution”.
Most of the arguments seen on any discussion board can be traced to one of these two believes. And although I’m not a proponent of black-and-white approach, I see a pattern here.
A simple example: the approach to forum moderation. Open forums like this one naturally attract mostly those who believe that people are inherently good and will always keep occasional trolls contained (without banning them outright). On the contrary, MPAA’s forums don't allow comments at all, and although MPAA may argue that opening their forums to comments will result in all sorts of hooligans, "content thieves" and other "scum" polluting their impeccable truth and preventing it from reaching out, it is clear that those who treat their potential customers as criminals, can’t interact with the world based on anything but "Homo homini lupus est" credo.
So getting back to this particular question, I’ll quote the other side’s argument without elaborating further (I hope that my point is clear enough):
...left unchecked, most students would just breeze through essays without effort, copying from online sources and passing off the work as their own, coming out of the classes without the true understanding of the material.
A driver led us through a week of nineteen-eighties.
I was a passenger, I did not buckle up, hence I was flying.
I saw my shadow in the back, next to the aisle.
His face was pale and hair was silky, she was scared.
Forgot him? Not at all, we'll reunite when bridges fall.
A thunder, lightning's shadow, sealed this promise.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re: Re:
So is anyone willing to pay me a couple of grands in levies? Or ransoms, or taxes, or donations, or allowances? Since only "fines" shouldn't be excessive, the other ways of paying me are not excessive by any means... My bank account info, anyone?
Whatever you call an elephant, it will not magically become a sparrow.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re: Re:
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
Re:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
It does not say "criminal". It does not say "civil". It's says "excessive". And if someone here does not think that copyright statutory fines are excessive, I bet it wouldn't be excessive for him to part with a couple grands: ask me for my bank info.
On the post: Do The Statutory Damages Rates For Copyright Infringement Violate The Eighth Amendment?
I had a slightly different focus though - excessive fines is major reason for abusing the law.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re:
But of course no one can guarantee you anything, and at this moment in history knowingly allowing default to be brought on oneself is stupid.
Sorry for not being clear.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re:
If judges start awarding minimally allowed judgements, in defaults, Does will realize that a boogieman is just a clown and incapable of inflicting any serious harm. The entire trolling "business" will collapse.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re:
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re:
If Al Capone nicely asks a store owner to pay for "protection" in a letter, and the owner does not receive that letter for some reason, his associates turns out and get their ransom anyway, but do they also complain that because of that damn store owner they had to buy additional guns and should be reimbursed for that?
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/64684718/10-Cv-00455-BAH-Document-65-Proof
And as you've said, it's just the attorney's word. These scumbags save even on mailing - summons were sent via first-class. My troll, Sperlein, bothered to send certified mail with a proof of delivery (signature), which he had subsequently filed.
Unfortunately, in civil cases the bar of proof is very low: as far as I know sending something via first-class mail is enough.
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
If a default fine is that low, being a defendant, I would expect that if I file an answer to complaint to avoid default, I would expect a lesser fine or no fine at all.
An yes, not replying to court (not a troll!) is stupid: www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com/faq
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re:
On the post: Former RIAA Lobbyist, Now Judge, Says Lowest Possible Statutory Damages For Single Case Of Infringement Is $3,430
Re:
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
May I ask... what, in your perception, is the mentality of a particular age group you belong to?
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re: Re: Re:
- either the majority people are naturally born criminals, and as such require increasingly stricter rules and enforcement of those rules in order to contain the evil inside them;
- or the majority is comprised of socially responsible citizens who can flexibly govern themselves on every level, down to an individual and his shame as an internal “correction institution”.
Most of the arguments seen on any discussion board can be traced to one of these two believes. And although I’m not a proponent of black-and-white approach, I see a pattern here.
A simple example: the approach to forum moderation. Open forums like this one naturally attract mostly those who believe that people are inherently good and will always keep occasional trolls contained (without banning them outright). On the contrary, MPAA’s forums don't allow comments at all, and although MPAA may argue that opening their forums to comments will result in all sorts of hooligans, "content thieves" and other "scum" polluting their impeccable truth and preventing it from reaching out, it is clear that those who treat their potential customers as criminals, can’t interact with the world based on anything but "Homo homini lupus est" credo.
So getting back to this particular question, I’ll quote the other side’s argument without elaborating further (I hope that my point is clear enough):
...left unchecked, most students would just breeze through essays without effort, copying from online sources and passing off the work as their own, coming out of the classes without the true understanding of the material.
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re:
I did not buckle up in order to get to used to free falling: I'll pilot an airbus soon and take aboard as many as I love.
Stay tuned.
J
On the post: That Anonymous Coward's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
I was a passenger, I did not buckle up, hence I was flying.
I saw my shadow in the back, next to the aisle.
His face was pale and hair was silky, she was scared.
Forgot him? Not at all, we'll reunite when bridges fall.
A thunder, lightning's shadow, sealed this promise.
Next >>