'Insane' $1.9 million verdict could prove RIAA's downfall

[SUBMAN1]

And good riddance if that is the case.

http://government.zdnet.com/?p=4994

This guy who wrote the article is an attorney. Might help clear up some of his insight into this mess.

-S

[Murr44]

I don't feel sorry for her. She's a thief (and that's being polite). The 1.92 million figure wasn't requested by the industry but by the jury. The award will be appealed & will more than likely be reduced.

[Rilder]

RIAA are a bunch of greedy wankers trying to use scare tactics against people.

[Buddahaid]

Oh sure. Piracy is perfectly great until YOU get robbed! Why bother being payed when you go to work? You just become a wanker. :yawn:

Buddahaid

[Rilder]

You know, Dwarf Fortress has absolutely 0 piracy.

Maybe instead of bashing their heads against the wall and whining about piracy the entertainment companies should start thinking about a new business model.

[Buddahaid]

Now that I can agree with and the business model will change when it no longer works. We're still seeing the back-swing response to Napster and like all waves, the water will settle.

Buddahaid

[AngusJS]

2 million dollars for the equivalent of shoplifting two CDs. Yeah, that punishment fits the crime.

Imagine if that reward is upheld. The woman's life will be destroyed over two dozen GD songs.

:damn:

[Murr44]

2 million dollars for the equivalent of shoplifting two CDs. Yeah, that punishment fits the crime.

Imagine if that reward is upheld. The woman's life will be destroyed over two dozen GD songs.

:damn:

They're not going to make her pay that much. The award will likely be reduced. I remember when the news first came out about this case 2 years ago. The woman had ignored all of the cease & desist requests that the record companies sent to her & continued to offer the songs for sale. That's why they took her to court in the first place; if she had complied with those requests she wouldn't be in the mess she finds herself in now.

[goldorak]

I don't feel sorry for her. She's a thief (and that's being polite). The 1.92 million figure wasn't requested by the industry but by the jury. The award will be appealed & will more than likely be reduced.


I do feel sorry for her, even if she has done something wrong.
There is something really screwed up in your justice system when doing p2p of 20 songs has a more dire consequence than that of killing accidentally a person. There is this basic principle of proportionality between what you do and what the legal consequences are. You don't see someone given a life sentence for pick-pocketing 2 cd's out of a shop do you ?
Think about this my dear friend.

[SUBMAN1]

They're not going to make her pay that much. The award will likely be reduced. I remember when the news first came out about this case 2 years ago. The woman had ignored all of the cease & desist requests that the record companies sent to her & continued to offer the songs for sale. That's why they took her to court in the first place; if she had complied with those requests she wouldn't be in the mess she finds herself in now.

You have any proof on that? I have never read anything where she offered them 'for sale'. That changes everything if so. I'd like to know where you saw that. I'm pretty sure this is not the case however.

-S

[Buddahaid]

She was offered to settle for about $3500.00 and chose to ignore it, but I do agree that the justice system far from perfect. It is also better than many others. This fine is meant to give warning to more organized piracy businesses that they can be forced to pay amounts that put them out of business, etc. Obviously she can't ever pay the fine, and can't be forced into slavery, or forfeit property, or have the sentence passed on to her heirs as in the good old days of the Western Empire. Or forced to face trial by ordeal, or any of the other old world methods of justice. :dead: She'll likely face the same original fine with a bump for trial expenses.

Buddahaid

[SUBMAN1]

She was offered to settle for about $3500.00 and chose to ignore it, but I do agree that the justice system far from perfect. It is also better than many others. This fine is meant to give warning to more organized piracy businesses that they can be forced to pay amounts that put them out of business, etc. Obviously she can't ever pay the fine, and can't be forced into slavery, or forfeit property, or have the sentence passed on to her heirs as in the good old days of the Western Empire. Or forced to face trial by ordeal, or any of the other old world methods of justice. :dead: She'll likely face the same original fine with a bump for trial expenses.

Buddahaid

Am I the only one here that thinks even $3500 is a bit excessive? She downloaded 24 CD's. She may not even have downloaded 24 CD's since the judge threw out the part about someone piping into her wireless connections. Maybe she is telling the truth? Maybe not?

But the point is, the punishment should fit the crime. That is the Constitutional law in this country. And if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then the possibly guilty must go free. In this case, that can't prove either.

I'm very liberal when it comes to the court system. Everybody deserves their day in court if accused of something. This lady has not had a fair day. She is just the accused witch in the witch hunt.

-S

[Buddahaid]

Am I the only one here that thinks even $3500 is a bit excessive? She downloaded 24 CD's. She may not even have downloaded 24 CD's since the judge threw out the part about someone piping into her wireless connections. Maybe she is telling the truth? Maybe not?

But the point is, the punishment should fit the crime. That is the Constitutional law in this country. And if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then the possibly guilty must go free. In this case, that can't prove either.

I'm very liberal when it comes to the court system. Everybody deserves their day in court if accused of something. This lady has not had a fair day. She is just the accused witch in the witch hunt.

-S

Sure it's too much. But the point is to discourage others without being draconian, and maybe I don't see the fine as that far out or dear as you do.

Budahaid

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

I don't feel sorry for her. She's a thief (and that's being polite).

It is not like the music company actually lost anything physical. In fact, you can't even prove that the company lost anything at all, since it is very far from clear any downloaders WOULD have bought the disc if only she hadn't uploaded the files.

The 1.92 million figure wasn't requested by the industry but by the jury. The award will be appealed & will more than likely be reduced.

One must wonder what is the composition of that stupid jury. I can see them agreeing to a guilty verdict, but to recommend nearly the maximum (and clearly disproportionate) punishment themselves? What a bunch of lackeys...

[UnderseaLcpl]

Am I the only one here that thinks even $3500 is a bit excessive? She downloaded 24 CD's. She may not even have downloaded 24 CD's since the judge threw out the part about someone piping into her wireless connections. Maybe she is telling the truth? Maybe not?

But the point is, the punishment should fit the crime. That is the Constitutional law in this country. And if you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, then the possibly guilty must go free. In this case, that can't prove either.


Yes, the judgement is excessive, but you're confusing civil penalties with criminal penalties. If Thomas-Rasset were being tried for felony copyright infringement, they wouldn't put her away for more than a few years in most cases, if even that. Doing otherwise would violate Constitutional protections, so you are correct about that.
But T.R. isn't being tried for a felony, she's being sued for damages in an adversarial law system, and that is a whole different ballgame. She doesn't even need to be found guilty on any charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Every year there are thousands of civil cases that are settled or judged on little more than hearsay evidence.

The civil law system in its' present form was more or less constructed by the legal industry, and it bypasses a lot of Constitutional restriction in the same way that Congress regularly does. It uses loopholes, exploits inadequately defined terms, and when all else fails, uses the state governments to do things that are constitutionally prohibited at the federal level.
I'll provide an example. For simplicity's sake, we'll assume that posts on this forum are under the juridstiction of a state-level government;
I write a post about you that is insulting. I allege that you are a communist and you kick babies or whatever. You take it to the court and file a suit. Let us say that you seek $100 in damages, and I refuse to settle.
So, we go to court and hire lawyers(and this is where it gets fun). Now we're not talking about a $100 judgement, we're talking about thousands and thousands of dollars, if not more. Unbeknownst to you, I also caused you mental anguish, distress, defamed your character, incurred legal fees, and caused medical complications by way of exposing you to stress, amongst other things. If you had a web-based business, and especially if customers read the post, I have also caused a number of other damages, but I don't want to get into that in this example.
Your lawyer, by bringing these allegations, need only prove that I wrote the post to bring me a world of pain. In the criminal system, this really isn't permissable. Many of those charges do not exsist, because I'd be getting punished twice for the same thing, but the civil system has no such restrictions. Furthermore, if it is proven that I wrote the post, I am not innocent until proven guilty, but the other way around. My lawyer has to find ways of getting me out of the other charges, which is nearly impossible because so many harms are of an intangible nature.
In the meantime, both of our lawyers are collecting hefty fees. And here's the real kicker. The court is required to use part of your award to pay my legal fees(if I cannot afford both) unless my lawyer works pro bono. If it didn't, I'd also be guilty of breach of contract through no fault of my own, and I'd be sued again. And it is so, sooo, much more complicated than that once you get into cross-juridstiction offenses and counterclaims.


Anyways, the point is that if you are relying upon the Constitution to protect you or anyone else from excessive civil damages, don't. It has very little power there. I'm sure you hate the system as I do, and as much as most everyone hates lawyers, and that is why.
Personally, I think the legal code should be re-structured from the ground up based on a system of pro se litigation, but that's a pipe dream.