8th amendment - why is it not used in these RIAA cases?

[Juddog]

For those not familiar with the case: $1.92 MILLION

Ok - I am not a lawyer, standard disclaimer, but why doesn't the 8th amendment apply in cases like those listed above?

excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.?

Isn't $1.92 million dollars an excessive fine? Yeah I agree in fining people for downloading music, but $1.92 million is enough to completely ruin someone's life. I mean heck O.J.'s bail was $250,000 - for trying to kill someone. To me it doesn't make sense that 24 songs is somehow worse than armed robbery.

-- edit --

Looks like Dailytech has written up an article on the judgement.

 

[Juddog]

Goverment weighs in and says it's reasonable:
Followup article

 

[MotF Bane]

Corruption is alive and well?

 

[A5]

The Constitution only protects you from the federal government, not corporations. If they can make a legal case as to why those fines should be levied, then they can be considered "reasonable".

 

[Miramonti]

That will no doubt be brought up during appeal. $1.92m is bullsh!t.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: A5
The Constitution only protects you from the federal government, not corporations. If they can make a legal case as to why those fines should be levied, then they can be considered "reasonable".

In this case though it's the legislature which made the laws which imposed the ridiculous fees, thus the federal government right?

 

[jonks]

Because the courts ruled that it wasn't excessive. The copyright act states willful violations as punishable up to $250,000 PER VIOLATION. All file sharers found guilty so far have gotten off easy.

 

[Juddog]

If this got passed up to the Supreme Court, wouldn't the 8th amendment be a good defense?

 

[Jeff7]

They've got to do something to instill fear in the rest of the serfs.

 

[SearchMaster]

You don't seem to be understanding the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: jonks
Because the courts ruled that it wasn't excessive. The copyright act states willful violations as punishable up to $250,000 PER VIOLATION. All file sharers found guilty so far have gotten off easy.

No they haven't. $80,000 per song isn't "easy" just as $250,000 isn't.

 

[RedCOMET]

Originally posted by: Juddog
If this got passed up to the Supreme Court, wouldn't the 8th amendment be a good defense?

Thats assuming SCOTUS would want to hear arguments on the case.

 

[daniel1113]

I don't know the details of the case, but here's my guess: the $1.92 million isn't really a fine, it's damages. For example, let's say I'm Danny Ocean and my friends and I manage to steal $150 million from the vaults of the Bellagio, The Mirage and MGM Grand casinos. A little while later we are caught, jailed, put on trial, and found guilty. We are also ordered to pay $150 million back to the casinos. This would not be an excessive fine since we are merely paying back what we stole.

Don't get me wrong, $1.92 million is ridiculous, but that's probably how it was justified.

EDIT: Nevermind. Upon doing some research into the case, I don't think my example holds.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: SearchMaster
You don't seem to be understanding the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

So civil proceedings are not backed by law? Then there's no need to pay the fine then right?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: SearchMaster
You don't seem to be understanding the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

Please explain.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

What honestly would be the result if the plaintiff shows up to court and tells them to go fuck themselves?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: Juddog
Goverment weighs in and says it's reasonable:
Followup article

All this says is that the fines are reasonable because the act clearly states what the fines would be. But any act by Congress, is judged against the Constitution, that's the whole point of the Constitution. If the fines as laid out in the law are unreasonable, then the law is unconstitutional, end of story.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
What honestly would be the result if the plaintiff shows up to court and tells them to go fuck themselves?

Uhh I'm not sure how well that defense would hold up in a court of law.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jonks
Because the courts ruled that it wasn't excessive. The copyright act states willful violations as punishable up to $250,000 PER VIOLATION. All file sharers found guilty so far have gotten off easy.

No they haven't. $80,000 per song isn't "easy" just as $250,000 isn't.

These fines are for "willful" violations. That means not accidental. These are people that a jury found knowingly, intentionally and unapologetically distributed copyrighted materials. Inadvertent copyright infringement is a far lesser offense. That didn't occur here. If you have been breathing for the last decade you are aware p2p of copyrighted material is illegal. You know the fines are extreme. You proceed at your own risk.

I think the RIAA is a gestapo lobby with far too much power and legislative backing, but the way to fuck them over is to STOP BUYING CDS, and not to break the law and then complain you got caught.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jonks
Because the courts ruled that it wasn't excessive. The copyright act states willful violations as punishable up to $250,000 PER VIOLATION. All file sharers found guilty so far have gotten off easy.

No they haven't. $80,000 per song isn't "easy" just as $250,000 isn't.

These fines are for "willful" violations. That means not accidental. These are people that a jury found knowingly, intentionally and unapologetically distributed copyrighted materials. Inadvertent copyright infringement is a far lesser offense. That didn't occur here. If you have been breathing for the last decade you are aware p2p of copyrighted material is illegal. You know the fines are extreme. You proceed at your own risk.

I think the RIAA is a gestapo lobby with far too much power and legislative backing, but the way to fuck them over is to STOP BUYING CDS, and not to break the law and then complain you got caught.

I agree that there should be fines for distributing copyrighted material, but to get back to the original point, wouldn't the level of the fines fall under the context of the 8th amendment?

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
What honestly would be the result if the plaintiff shows up to court and tells them to go fuck themselves?

being jailed for contempt of court along with the fine?

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: SearchMaster
You don't seem to be understanding the difference between civil and criminal proceedings.

BINGO! This.

The Constitution allows the fines because RIAA has proven that's what their damages are. Right or wrong, they've made the case for their damage and have a price tag they can back up successfully in court.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
What honestly would be the result if the plaintiff shows up to court and tells them to go fuck themselves?

being jailed for contempt of court along with the fine?

how can they make someone with no money pay that fine?

 

[waffleironhead]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: waffleironhead

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim
What honestly would be the result if the plaintiff shows up to court and tells them to go fuck themselves?

being jailed for contempt of court along with the fine?

how can they make someone with no money pay that fine?

garnish wages forever?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: TallBill

Originally posted by: jonks
Because the courts ruled that it wasn't excessive. The copyright act states willful violations as punishable up to $250,000 PER VIOLATION. All file sharers found guilty so far have gotten off easy.

No they haven't. $80,000 per song isn't "easy" just as $250,000 isn't.

These fines are for "willful" violations. That means not accidental. These are people that a jury found knowingly, intentionally and unapologetically distributed copyrighted materials. Inadvertent copyright infringement is a far lesser offense. That didn't occur here. If you have been breathing for the last decade you are aware p2p of copyrighted material is illegal. You know the fines are extreme. You proceed at your own risk.

I think the RIAA is a gestapo lobby with far too much power and legislative backing, but the way to fuck them over is to STOP BUYING CDS, and not to break the law and then complain you got caught.

That's fucking awesome, but I don't give a flying fuck. $1.92 million fine for 24 songs isn't easy, unless you're living in the year 4572.