Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:My amicus curiae brief in this case (Score 1) 312

What is the State Farm/Gore test, and how is it conducted?

After the jury's verdict, if the judge finds the verdict for punitive or statutory damages to be out of all reasonable proportion to the actual economic harm sustained, it is supposed to reduce the verdict to a number that bears a reasonable proportion to the harm sustained. The Supreme Court noted that it will rarely be a number higher than 10x the actual damages. In finding the magic number, the court weighs various factors, such as the outrageousness of the defendant's conduct, etc. Regular copyright law also requires that copyright statutory damages bear some reasonable relationship to actual damages. In non-RIAA cases the courts usually sustained multiples of 2 to 4 times the actual damages.

Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 312

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#41102611) Attached to: New Judge Assigned To Tenenbaum Case Upholds $675k Verdict

Agreed, the jury in this case should be ASHAMED of themselves. There are people who are at fault accidentally killing other human beings who receive less punishment than they are handing out for someone "stealing" 30 songs. The verdict handed down in this case is a life destroying verdict for a young man. That the RIAA keeps appealing for its huge award is DISGUSTING. Giant corporate entities are working at utterly destroying one person's life. The RIAA deserves every ounce of contempt and disdain it gets from the people. For companies that like to believe that they create things that move human emotions and make people think, the RIAA collectively is a horribly dark, twisted, and evil group of people (and the MPAA is even. worse.)

Very well said.

Submission + - New judge assigned to case upholds $675k verdict in Tenenbaum case (blogspot.com)

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In SONY v Tenenbaum, the new District Judge assigned to the case has disagreed with the previous judge, and instead of reducing the $22,500 per file award to $2250 per file, has instead upheld the jury's verdict. The jury initially found defendant Joel Tenenbaum to have "willfully" infringed the RIAA copyrights by downloading 30 mp3 files which would normally retail for 99 cents each, and awarded the plaintiff record companies $675,000 in "statutory damages". Tenenbaum moved to set the verdict aside on both common law remittitur grounds and constitutional due process grounds. Judge Gertner — the District Judge at the time — felt that remittitur would be a futility, and on constitutional grounds reduced the verdict to $2250 per file. The RIAA appealed. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals remanded on the ground that Judge Gertner ought to have decided the question on remittitur grounds and reached the constitutional question prematurely. By the time the case arrived back in District Court, Judge Gertner had retired, and a new judge — Judge Rya Zobel — had been assigned. Judge Zobel denied the remittitur motion. And then Judge Zobel denied the constitutional motion, leaving the larger verdict in place. I think it is reasonable to expect Tenenbaum to appeal this time around."

Comment Re:So, sue the developer for the cost he caused. (Score 1) 267

by TheUnFounded (#40945021) Attached to: Wall Street and the Mismanagement of Software
I assume this was tounge-in-cheek, but realistically, we're actually headed that way. Licensing boards for software developers, etc. The problem is, as a software developer, it's much more costly to fix 100% of bugs than it is to fix 98% and not worry about that last 2%. If we held every developer to task for every bug in software, we'd have a whole lot less software written, and what would be written would cost 10x as much.

Comment Troll alert (Score 1) 108

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#40633099) Attached to: No, You Can't Claim 'Negligence' In a Copyright Case

Frankly, your attempt to put words in my mouth, impugn my credibility, and suggest some ulterior motive (to the point of demanding to know who my employer is) is insulting, rude, and unprofessional. But I'm sure you didn't actually intend any of that and will apologize momentarily.

Mr. Theaetetus

1. Don't hold your breath.

2. I've come to the conclusion that you are a troll and/or shill, and will ignore you accordingly.

Submission + - Appeals court upholds sanction against BitTorrent download attorney (blogspot.com)

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has upheld sanctions awarded by a District Court against one of the lawyers bringing copyright infringement cases against individuals for BitTorrent movie downloads, in Mick Haig Productions v. Does 1-670. The Court's opinion (PDF) described the lawyer's "strategy" as "suing anonymous internet users for allegedly downloading pornography illegally using the powers of the court to find their identity, then shaming or intimidating them into settling for thousands of dollars — a tactic that he has employed all across the state and that has been replicated by others across the country"."
Technology

Submission + - Court denies injunction against Aero's tv-to-computer service (blogspot.com)

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "Finding to no avail the television networks' attempt to distinguish Cartoon Networks v. CSC Holdings, the case upholding Cablevision's DVR service, a federal district court judge has denied their motion for a preliminary injunction against Aero's tv-to-computer screen subscription service. After 11 weeks of discovery, followed by a 2-day evidentiary hearing (a mini-trial, if you will), the Court rendered an excruciatingly detailed 52- page analysis of the technology involved (PDF) and of how the technology meshed with "Cartoon Network"."

Comment Re:Who are you? (Score 1) 108

by NewYorkCountryLawyer (#40619025) Attached to: No, You Can't Claim 'Negligence' In a Copyright Case
The complaint (PDF) included a 3rd claim for "negligence". Complaint, paragraphs 47 to 58.

The defendant moved to dismiss the 3rd claim for "negligence" on preemption grounds and the EFF filed an amicus curiae brief supporting the request for dismissal of the negligence claim on preemption grounds.

Thereafter the Judge granted the motion to dismiss the 3rd claim for negligence on preemption grounds.

You can say whatever you want, but the documents don't lie.

By suggesting that this didn't really happen, you are misleading anyone who cares to accept you as credible, and your motivations for doing so are curious indeed.

You can play whatever games you like, but I deeply resent your suggestion that the summary which I wrote was somehow inaccurate. If you don't intend any "offense", don't say something I wrote was wrong when it's right, and the only thing "wrong" is your outlandish argument that the papers do not mean what they say.

Submission + - No you can't claim "negligence" in a copyright case (blogspot.com)

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the myriad BitTorrent downloading cases against individuals, one plaintiff's law firm thought they'd be clever and insert a "negligence" claim, saying that the defendant was negligent in failing to supervise his roommate's use of his WiFi access. Defendant moved to dismiss the negligence claim on the ground that it was preempted by the Copyright Act, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation filed an amicus curiae brief (PDF) agreeing with him. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan agreed, and dismissed the complaint, holding that the "negligence" claim was preempted by the Copyright Act."
Software

Submission + - Forensic investigator makes claims about BitTorrent detection technology (blogspot.com)

Submitted by
NewYorkCountryLawyer
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "In one of the many BitTorrent download cases brought by pornographic film makers, the plaintiff — faced with a motion to quash brought by a "John Doe" defendant — has filed its opposition papers. Interestingly, these included a declaration by its "forensic investigator" (PDF), employed by a German company, IPP, Limited, in which he makes claims about what his technology detects, and about how BitTorrent works, and attaches, as an exhibit, a "functional description" of his IPTracker software (PDF)."

Slashdot Top Deals

Congratulations! You are the one-millionth user to log into our system. If there's anything special we can do for you, anything at all, don't hesitate to ask!

Close