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

[xanis]

The DOJ adds that Congress also wanted to "deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights" by setting the awards this high, and that there is nothing problematic about this unless the amounts are "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." $1.92 million for downloading and uploading 24 songs does not reach this threshold, says the government.

WTF are these people smoking? $1.92m isn't "obviously unreasonable"? 😕:disgust:

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Juddog
Shoplift 3 music CDs: $150 fine. P2P download of the same songs: $1.92M. Makes sense to me.

Sneak a gun into a library where it's not permitted and get caught, probably get fined. Sneak that exact same gun onto an airplane, probably serve some time in prison. Makes sense to me.

Your logic is flawed.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Xanis

The DOJ adds that Congress also wanted to "deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights" by setting the awards this high, and that there is nothing problematic about this unless the amounts are "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." $1.92 million for downloading and uploading 24 songs does not reach this threshold, says the government.

WTF are these people smoking? $1.92m isn't "obviously unreasonable"? 😕:disgust:

Surely meets the "shocks the conscious" standard some jurisdictions employ.

 

[xanis]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: Xanis

The DOJ adds that Congress also wanted to "deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights" by setting the awards this high, and that there is nothing problematic about this unless the amounts are "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable." $1.92 million for downloading and uploading 24 songs does not reach this threshold, says the government.

WTF are these people smoking? $1.92m isn't "obviously unreasonable"? 😕:disgust:

Surely meets the "shocks the conscious" standard some jurisdictions employ.

You're damn right it does. This is downright infuriating and just plain WRONG.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: mugs
It's interesting how many people think $2 million is an absurd amount of money to pay for sharing 24 songs, but hardly anyone agreed with me that it was absurd to sue for $2 million when an airline pilot made a passenger sit in the bathroom for a few hours.

I personally agree it's absurd to sue an airplane for $2 million over sitting in the bathroom for a few hours. That's just me though.

This is why sueing needs to be removed from public hands. The law need to be designed to take care of crime better, so people get charged for things, not sued. That way people would not sue just for the money. Being charged would result in the money going to some specific location like the government, or charity.

Sitting in the bathroom for 2 hours is not going to make anyone lose any money. I don't get why a pilot would do that or whether it's correct, but it certainly is not worth 2mil. If yes I'd gladly sit in an airplane washroom for as long as they let me if it's 1mil per hour!

MP3 filesharing charges are a real joke. I mean come on, a typical CD costs what, 30 bucks and has about 20 songs? So lets just be generous here and say that each song is worth a dollar even though that goes against my math. So if someone is caught downloading 10 songs, that's 10 bucks of "damages". In fact, what tells them the person was planning to buy that music anyway? If he would not of found the songs he wanted perhaps he would of looked for something else.

Music should be a small claims court thing, if anything, and like every other crime out there it should require valid proof. IP address is NOT valid proof, unless they want to start doing that for spammers, hackers etc... and charge the people running botnets because they're too retarded to secure their stuff. I'm all for that, but lets be consistent here, either IP is valid evidence, or it's not, but don't pick and choose base on the crime.

Sadly with the power the RIAA has, they could pretty much start pointing out random people and say they are terrorists, and those people would get death sentence.

I'm just so glad we don't have to deal with the RIAA here in Canada and can download stuff freely without watching our backs. Though sadly I have a feeling our music rights are short lived, I'm sure the RIAA is pushing on the Canadian government a lot.

 

[TehMac]

Originally posted by: destrekor
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.

Forgive me if I got this wrong, but weren't you trumpeting about how great Obama is?

 

[RapidSnail]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
They've got to do something to instill fear in the rest of the serfs.

I'm not your serf, bud!

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: RedSquirrel

This is why sueing needs to be removed from public hands. The law need to be designed to take care of crime better, so people get charged for things, not sued. That way people would not sue just for the money. Being charged would result in the money going to some specific location like the government, or charity.

<snip>

Your right to sue is guaranteed by The US Constitution, right or wrong I'd much rather maintain the bad suits over not allowing it altogether. Which again gets back to the OP, this judgment has nothing to do with the 8th.

Civil wrongs do not mean they are illegal or a crime commited, that's the whole purpose of civil courts to hear complaints and make judgment on them. AFAIK there's nothing illegal about me telling lies about you or somebody (1st amendment), but there sure as heck a civil recourse via slander/libel.

 

[mugs]

IIRC, the RIAA has said they will still settle with her... maybe for the same ~$3k they offer everyone, maybe for a bit more because they've spent so much money dealing with this dumb chick. These lawsuits have never been about getting money out of the people they sue, they've just been intended as a deterrent.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Should be $1 per distributed song. . .

Isn't that what songs go for on the apple store?

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: 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.

You do realize bail <> penalty...right?

 

[Triumph]

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: 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.

These damages don't reflect the lost revenue from the songs downloaded, they are punative damages for copyright infringement.
If all people could be liable for was the cost of the songs they downloaded, that wouldn't be much of deterrent. By hitting a few downloaders with heavy punative damages for willful violation of the copyright laws, it serves to deter other people from doing it. (or at least in theory)

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime...

It's not a question of whether there should be a fine, but rather does the amount of the fine far exceed the damages.

BUT, these are NOT fines. Fines generally go to the court system/city/state/federal government coffers. These are damages...paid to the RIAA and the record companies.
BIG difference.

IF these were fines, then yes, they may be considered excessive...but as damages, they're well below the amount permitted by law.

Ok so explain what the difference is, in terms of real effect on the defendant, between "punitive damages" and "fines." If I get a speeding ticket, I pay a fine so that I don't do it again. Money goes to the state. If I steal songs, I pay "punitive damages" so that I don't do it again*. Money goes to the plaintiff. Please explain to me why it is ok to levy excessive fines in one case and not the other, if the purpose is supposed to be the same?

*wikipedia: "Punitive damages...are damages not awarded to compensate the plaintiff, but to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff."

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Should be $1 per distributed song. . .

Isn't that what songs go for on the apple store?

Its not for downloading its for distribution. Besides they offered everyone they brought suits against settlements ranging from $3-10k.

The law is the law, and the law sets statutory minimums and maximums for copyright infringement. This is only further entrenched with the Obama Admin. There are around a half dozen former RIAA lawyers holding high ranking positions in the Obama DoJ.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: 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.

These damages don't reflect the lost revenue from the songs downloaded, they are punative damages for copyright infringement.
If all people could be liable for was the cost of the songs they downloaded, that wouldn't be much of deterrent. By hitting a few downloaders with heavy punative damages for willful violation of the copyright laws, it serves to deter other people from doing it. (or at least in theory)

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime...

It's not a question of whether there should be a fine, but rather does the amount of the fine far exceed the damages.

BUT, these are NOT fines. Fines generally go to the court system/city/state/federal government coffers. These are damages...paid to the RIAA and the record companies.
BIG difference.

IF these were fines, then yes, they may be considered excessive...but as damages, they're well below the amount permitted by law.

Ok so explain what the difference is, in terms of real effect on the defendant, between "punitive damages" and "fines." If I get a speeding ticket, I pay a fine so that I don't do it again. Money goes to the state. If I steal songs, I pay "punitive damages" so that I don't do it again*. Money goes to the plaintiff. Please explain to me why it is ok to levy excessive fines in one case and not the other, if the purpose is supposed to be the same?

*wikipedia: "Punitive damages...are damages not awarded to compensate the plaintiff, but to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff."

Are you missing the difference between civil damages and criminal law? Is this really that difficult for people to comprehend? Read the fucking Constitution.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Triumph

Originally posted by: BoomerD

Originally posted by: 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.

These damages don't reflect the lost revenue from the songs downloaded, they are punative damages for copyright infringement.
If all people could be liable for was the cost of the songs they downloaded, that wouldn't be much of deterrent. By hitting a few downloaders with heavy punative damages for willful violation of the copyright laws, it serves to deter other people from doing it. (or at least in theory)

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime...

It's not a question of whether there should be a fine, but rather does the amount of the fine far exceed the damages.

BUT, these are NOT fines. Fines generally go to the court system/city/state/federal government coffers. These are damages...paid to the RIAA and the record companies.
BIG difference.

IF these were fines, then yes, they may be considered excessive...but as damages, they're well below the amount permitted by law.

Ok so explain what the difference is, in terms of real effect on the defendant, between "punitive damages" and "fines." If I get a speeding ticket, I pay a fine so that I don't do it again. Money goes to the state. If I steal songs, I pay "punitive damages" so that I don't do it again*. Money goes to the plaintiff. Please explain to me why it is ok to levy excessive fines in one case and not the other, if the purpose is supposed to be the same?

*wikipedia: "Punitive damages...are damages not awarded to compensate the plaintiff, but to reform or deter the defendant and similar persons from pursuing a course of action such as that which damaged the plaintiff."

Civil doesn't equal criminal.

Theres only one case that has set some sort of precedent on this issue, but it involved a civil case brought by the government against a person. There is no precedent regarding excessive civil damages awared to individuals/corporations. Its status quo and the status quo under Obama is worse than under Bush when it comes to this issue.

 

[PieIsAwesome]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Should be $1 per distributed song. . .

Isn't that what songs go for on the apple store?

Its not for downloading its for distribution. Besides they offered everyone they brought suits against settlements ranging from $3-10k.

The law is the law, and the law sets statutory minimums and maximums for copyright infringement. This is only further entrenched with the Obama Admin. There are around a half dozen former RIAA lawyers holding high ranking positions in the Obama DoJ.

Yes, $1 per distributed song.

If I distribute 1 song to 10 people then wouldn't it be $10 in damages?

 

[Bateluer]

If the RIAA's actions piss you off, and they should, stop buying their products until they either get the picture or go out of business. Simple as that.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If the RIAA's actions piss you off, and they should, stop buying their products until they either get the picture or go out of business. Simple as that.

Is there anything at all that the RIAA could do to combat piracy that wouldn't piss you off?

 

[pontifex]

the amendments mean next to nothing these days

 

[videogames101]

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.

But that law would then be in violation of the 8th amendment. You can't say "This Law says it's OK" and just pretend like the bill of rights never happened.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If the RIAA's actions piss you off, and they should, stop buying their products until they either get the picture or go out of business. Simple as that.

Is there anything at all that the RIAA could do to combat piracy that wouldn't piss you off?

Yes, stop. Because they'll never win.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: Wreckem

Originally posted by: PieIsAwesome
Should be $1 per distributed song. . .

Isn't that what songs go for on the apple store?

Its not for downloading its for distribution. Besides they offered everyone they brought suits against settlements ranging from $3-10k.

The law is the law, and the law sets statutory minimums and maximums for copyright infringement. This is only further entrenched with the Obama Admin. There are around a half dozen former RIAA lawyers holding high ranking positions in the Obama DoJ.

And those mins and maxs are excessive, how difficult is this to understand?

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: alkemyst

Originally posted by: 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.

You do realize bail <> penalty...right?

Right which is why i posted "nor excessive fines imposed" in bold. Fines / damages in this case far exceed the amount of damage done and basically cripple the person for life, whereas if someone had broke into a CD store and stole 1,000 CD's they would have gotten a much lesser settlement on damages.

 

[Juddog]

Originally posted by: videogames101

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.

But that law would then be in violation of the 8th amendment. You can't say "This Law says it's OK" and just pretend like the bill of rights never happened.

^^ This is what I'm trying to say - the Legislature passed a law which violates the 8th amendment, therefore it should be overturned.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Juddog

Originally posted by: videogames101

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.

But that law would then be in violation of the 8th amendment. You can't say "This Law says it's OK" and just pretend like the bill of rights never happened.

^^ This is what I'm trying to say - the Legislature passed a law which violates the 8th amendment, therefore it should be overturned.

Then let it go to the supreme court and removed if that's the case. If SC says it's unconstitutional then that's the end of it.

But I'm not seeing anything wrong here because it's civil, not criminal.