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

[Capt Caveman]

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime...

 

[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.

 

[ballmode]

Those fools

 

[Capt Caveman]

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.

It's a deterrent.

 

[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.

 

[frostedflakes]

Courts need to use a little common sense in cases like these. I can understand damages up to $250k in the case of commercial infringement/bootlegging. Obviously there is a lot of money to be made with these activities, which is why the law allows for such large damages. You need a large deterrent to prevent people from engaging in commercial infringement.

File sharing is a completely different beast, though. The law needs to put a much lower cap on damages for non-commercial infringement, or as I said the courts need to use a little common sense and stop awarding ridiculous damages for these cases. There's no justification for fining some file sharer $80k per song.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

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.

It's a deterrent.

That may be the intention, but it's not going to work.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Courts need to use a little common sense in cases like these. I can understand damages up to $250k in the case of commercial infringement/bootlegging. Obviously there is a lot of money to be made with these activities, which is why the law allows for such large damages. You need a large deterrent to prevent people from engaging in commercial infringement.

File sharing is a completely different beast, though. The law needs to put a much lower cap on damages for non-commercial infringement, or as I said the courts need to use a little common sense and stop awarding ridiculous damages for these cases. There's no justification for fining some file sharer $80k per song.

Common sense? American court system? :^D :^D :^D

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Courts need to use a little common sense in cases like these. I can understand damages up to $250k in the case of commercial infringement/bootlegging. Obviously there is a lot of money to be made with these activities, which is why the law allows for such large damages. You need a large deterrent to prevent people from engaging in commercial infringement.

File sharing is a completely different beast, though. The law needs to put a much lower cap on damages for non-commercial infringement, or as I said the courts need to use a little common sense and stop awarding ridiculous damages for these cases. There's no justification for fining some file sharer $80k per song.

Which causes more damage and lost revenue to the media industries, a few commercial shops that pirate tens of thousands of copies on street corners or overseas, or the millions of people who regularly pirate music and movies? The large fines make sense because the damage is caused by the behavior of millions of small violaters which is is not practical or possible to go after. The paperwork alone for suing millions of people is prohibitive. Recognizing that in this internet environment that copyright owners cannot pursue every violator, the law was crafted to include extremely large fines to deter that behavior. Is every single violation a "lost sale"? Of course not, but the recent decrease in music sales didn't happen by coincidence either.

 

[Razgriz]

yea I could steal a CD from a store (with roughly the same amount of songs), and would owe a fraction of what this person does. That's how screwed up our court system is.

 

[frostedflakes]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

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.

It's a deterrent.

That may be the intention, but it's not going to work.

Yeah, especially considering most people don't go to court and end up having to pay these ridiculous fines. The actual deterrent is about $4k or whatever the RIAA tries to settle for before taking someone to court. Crazy how the fine can go from $4k to $1.92M. Anybody care to provide a justification for this?

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Courts need to use a little common sense in cases like these. I can understand damages up to $250k in the case of commercial infringement/bootlegging. Obviously there is a lot of money to be made with these activities, which is why the law allows for such large damages. You need a large deterrent to prevent people from engaging in commercial infringement.

File sharing is a completely different beast, though. The law needs to put a much lower cap on damages for non-commercial infringement, or as I said the courts need to use a little common sense and stop awarding ridiculous damages for these cases. There's no justification for fining some file sharer $80k per song.

Which causes more damage and lost revenue to the media industries, a few commercial shops that pirate tens of thousands of copies on street corners or overseas, or the millions of people who regularly pirate music and movies? The large fines make sense because the damage is caused by the behavior of millions of small violaters which is is not practical or possible to go after. The paperwork alone for suing millions of people is prohibitive. Recognizing that in this internet environment that copyright owners cannot pursue every violator, the law was crafted to include extremely large fines to deter that behavior. Is every single violation a "lost sale"? Of course not, but the recent decrease in music sales didn't happen by coincidence either.

I understand what you're saying, I just don't think it's right or fair for the RIAA to bleed a handful of people dry to make up for the money lost due to all file sharers.

Also I'm pretty sure all these laws were crafted well before the internet, which is the point I was trying to make. I don't think they necessarily had non-commercial infringement (P2P file sharing, for example) in mind when these damages were thought up.

And where did you get the idea that music sales are down? Record label profits are up, probably because they are finally starting to embrace new, innovative sources of revenue. Digital downloads are booming, and I think mobile music videos and ringtones are pretty big markets as well. Obviously CD sales are going down, but that probably has more to do with kids these days not wanting CDs than piracy. Of course they blame lower CD sales on piracy and downplay their growth in the digital market because it furthers their propaganda about piracy killing the music industry. It hurts them no doubt, but they're still doing pretty damn well.

 

[SearchMaster]

Originally posted by: 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?

My point was that the Constitution protects you from the GOVERNMENT imposing excessive fines in a CRIMINAL trial. For example, they can't fine you a million bucks for speeding because that is excessive. If, however, someone can demonstrate damages of a million bucks because of your actions or negligence, the government can uphold those damages in a CIVIL trial.

My statement has absolutely nothing to do with a judgment on the veracity of the RIAA claims. I think the fines are ridiculous personally. However, the OP posed a question about how these fines can be constitutional, thus my response. And the RIAA has been in front of many judges who have upheld similar damage figures so there must be something demonstrable in their case. But IANAL.

 

[Razgriz]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
Courts need to use a little common sense in cases like these. I can understand damages up to $250k in the case of commercial infringement/bootlegging. Obviously there is a lot of money to be made with these activities, which is why the law allows for such large damages. You need a large deterrent to prevent people from engaging in commercial infringement.

File sharing is a completely different beast, though. The law needs to put a much lower cap on damages for non-commercial infringement, or as I said the courts need to use a little common sense and stop awarding ridiculous damages for these cases. There's no justification for fining some file sharer $80k per song.

Which causes more damage and lost revenue to the media industries, a few commercial shops that pirate tens of thousands of copies on street corners or overseas, or the millions of people who regularly pirate music and movies? The large fines make sense because the damage is caused by the behavior of millions of small violaters which is is not practical or possible to go after. The paperwork alone for suing millions of people is prohibitive. Recognizing that in this internet environment that copyright owners cannot pursue every violator, the law was crafted to include extremely large fines to deter that behavior. Is every single violation a "lost sale"? Of course not, but the recent decrease in music sales didn't happen by coincidence either.

Links may be dated, but the point remains.
Text
Text

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

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.

It's a deterrent.

That may be the intention, but it's not going to work.

Yeah, especially considering most people don't go to court and end up having to pay these ridiculous fines. The actual deterrent is about $4k or whatever the RIAA tries to settle for before taking someone to court. Crazy how the fine can go from $4k to $1.92M. Anybody care to provide a justification for this?

RTT. As to the RIAA, even after they win at trial they offer to settle for far less than the damages awarded.

 

[dmcowen674]

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.

Silly you

You didn't get the memo? Corporations own the U.S. Government circa 2001.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: Razgriz
yea I could steal a CD from a store (with roughly the same amount of songs), and would owe a fraction of what this person does. That's how screwed up our court system is.

Shoplifting a CD is more difficult than downloading the songs off a P2P service, so it makes sense that downloading the songs carries a harsher penalty.

That said, the amount they have established per downloaded song is still insane.

 

[Juddog]

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

 

[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.

 

[Juddog]

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.

Yes - murder an infant, $1.85M
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1729941

Download 3 CD's worth of songs - $1.92M.

Makes perfect sense.

 

[Red Squirrel]

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.

Yeah it's retarded. Problem is the RIAA has so much power they can get away with it. If a smaller music company tried to pull that off they'd be laughed at and it would be thrown out of court.

 

[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.

 

[lxskllr]

Originally posted by: mugs
...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 agree with you.

 

[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.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Juddog

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.

Yes - murder an infant, $1.85M
http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1729941

Download 3 CD's worth of songs - $1.92M.

Makes perfect sense.

er, you don't know what murder means do you

 

[Safeway]

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)

Right, but the idea of punitive damages as punishment works when leveled against a massive corporation with massive amounts of capital. The punitive damages are paid and amount to a fraction of the corporations net worth. Anything beyond that are immediately deemed excessive.

This $1.92 million judgment against the defendant is ludicrous in comparison and defines the term excessive. The judgment is many times the net worth of the individual, and collection would be impossible.

If they want to make examples out of individuals, if they want to really scare people, move for penalties that are payable. When the prosecution moves for a payment plan worse than any private university, people will be scared. No new cars, no new house, ...