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

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: 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?

That would suck.

 

[newb111]

Bail != Fine

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: 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.

That's my point - this should be considered unconstitutional. There is no way the average citizen could come up with that kind of money.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: 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?

why wouldn't you just file bankruptcy then tell them to go fuck themselves

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: 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?

why wouldn't you just file bankruptcy then tell them to go fuck themselves

That doesn't protect you against gubment collections, only private.

 

[ChaoZ]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: 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?

why wouldn't you just file bankruptcy then tell them to go fuck themselves

That doesn't protect you against gubment collections, only private.

Heh, I guess the RIAA is government now.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: 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?

why wouldn't you just file bankruptcy then tell them to go fuck themselves

That doesn't protect you against gubment collections, only private.

I guess the only way around it would be create a corporation identical to your name and hold bank accounts and transactions in the corporate entity. That would really stick it to them!

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: 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.

WTF kind of magic did they use to show that they sustained two million dollars in damages from this? Songs cost a buck to download. This person shared out two million copies? That is, of course, supposing that each download represents a lost sale, which is in itself not realistic.

 

[Gothgar]

you'd think so

 

[Kirby]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

How would you prove that people would have bought the songs that were shared?

 

[SarcasticDwarf]

Also note that the American legal system allows for punishments that are given with the idea that they will deter future crime. That is why some people will end up with sentences that far outweigh their individual actions.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: 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.

If you haven't been paying attention to the Judicial Branch lately, then I guess it's easy to miss how so many fucking bills have passed right through with nary a hesitation in regards to the Constitutionality of said bills.

It's absolutely ridiculous and it pisses me off. The Supreme Court just doesn't give a shit anymore, because the entire government has the goal of moving toward larger and larger Federal Government - Constitutional rights of states be damned, let alone citizens.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

But no songs were destroyed or stolen; the copyrights were infringed upon.

 

[slayer202]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: 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.

WTF kind of magic did they use to show that they sustained two million dollars in damages from this? Songs cost a buck to download. This person shared out two million copies? That is, of course, supposing that each download represents a lost sale, which is in itself not realistic.

yeah seriously, its bullshit

 

[Juddog]

I also found this blog interesting:

DoJ asks court to not consider constitutionality of case.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

But no songs were destroyed or stolen; the copyrights were infringed upon.

for which statutory damages allot up to $250,000 per willful infringement.

Originally posted by: Juddog
I also found this blog interesting:

DoJ asks court to not consider constitutionality of case.

This is really just par, the DOJ defends current law as a matter of course.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

How would you prove that people would have bought the songs that were shared?

that much doesn't even matter.
How the RIAA is going about this is trying to recoup all imaginary lost sales, from everyone, by getting money from just a handful.
That way, they don't have to target everyone, and can still come out ahead. That's what they are thinking. 1.9million isn't the amount of damages a lone individual has caused, no fucking way. They haven't shared or downloaded nearly that much. That $1.9m is how much maybe hundreds or thousands of individuals have caused in damages - and the RIAA wants it out of 1 person, because apparently a lone law breaker is accountable for every other law breaker.

That's what needs to be addressed in a case against the RIAA. Destroy the old precedent because the jury and legislative body accepting the results were stoned on who knows what that day. It's not about defending lawbreakers. It's about protecting from insanity at the corporate level, which hits everyone.

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

But no songs were destroyed or stolen; the copyrights were infringed upon.

for which statutory damages allot up to $250,000 per willful infringement.

Yep. The 8th amendment doesn't cover this because these are not fines...they're damages. While the amount levied is, IMO, excessive, it COULD have been much worse.
It's not only the $1.00 per song that they're paying for, it's the damages for copyright infringement that drove the price so high.

It's simple...don't steal...don't infringe on copyrights or patents.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

How would you prove that people would have bought the songs that were shared?

The law doesn't require you to. Infringement is satisfied at the moment the illegal copy is created, it doesn't matter if the copy would have otherwise resulted in a sale. Are they using these people as examples to deter others from doing the same? Sure, but deterrance is one of several valid components of punitive law and criminal sentencing.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: nkgreen

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: newb111
Bail != Fine

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

8th Amendment.

If the plaintiff proves you destroyed his $1.9 million house, is a jury that finds you owe him $1.9 million ordering an excessive fine?

They had a trial including damage assessment. The jury arrived at that figure based on arguments plaintiff presented on lost revenues caused by file sharing.

How would you prove that people would have bought the songs that were shared?

The law doesn't require you to. Infringement is satisfied at the moment the illegal copy is created, it doesn't matter if the copy would have otherwise resulted in a sale. Are they using these people as examples to deter others from doing the same? Sure, but deterrance is one of several valid components of punitive law and criminal sentencing.

Shouldn't there be a limit to the ceiling of those damages / fines though?

 

[Safeway]

Even the most perverse legitimate damage calculation would calculate her damages based on CD sales. Assuming everyone that downloaded a song from her computer would have purchased the CD if that song were not available, damages would be no where close to the astronomical $1.92 million figure found by the Court. The RIAA is chock full of sorry fools, and the Judges and Juries that hear their pleas are equally moronic drones of the corporate system.

 

[her209]

Remind me again what Sony's "punishment" was for installing root kits on people who purchased their CDs.

 

[lxskllr]

Record companies don't care about my fair use rights, therefore I don't feel compelled to take their rights into account with my decisions. Deterrent? Hardly....