Comment Re:yikes! (Score 1) 285
Of course, the statutory damages are far too high to provide anything like justice; the amount should be based on actual damages.
Agreed
Comment Re:Good Lord (Score 1) 285
Thomas did not ruin the life of any of the involved corporation(s), nor did she ruin the life of any of their employees. It is simply not just to ruin her life in retaliation. That this goes on and is so widely considered legitimate is an example of our remaining barbarism.
I think most people, both in and out of the United States, see a result like this as absurd.
Comment Re:Piracy = theft? (Score 1) 285
Nearly 10k per song is just dumb. If a CD is 12 tracks and costs ~15 bucks, its a bit over $1 per song. So this is a 1000000% penalty. one million percent. Just insane, no way that isnt unconstitutional. The fines should be like 200, maybe 300% penalty, maybe even 1000% (10x). That's reasonable. The punishment must fit the crime and all that.
That's the issue all right. And I think the Court's decision is absurd.
Submission + - 8th Circuit upholds $220,000 verdict in Jammie Thomas case (blogspot.com)
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes: "The US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has upheld the initial jury verdict in the case against Jammie Thomas, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset, ruling that the award of $220,000, or $9250 per song, was not an unconstitutional violation of Due Process. The Court, in its 18-page decision (PDF), declined to reach the "making available" issue, for procedural reasons."
Comment No distribution here (Score 1) 312
I noticed some pro-RIAA posts saying that defendant was liable for distributing, not just downloading. This is simply not so. Distribution, within the meaning of the Copyright Act, requires a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a rental, lease or lending.... none of which occurred here. 17 USC 106(3)
Comment Re:Bankruptcy (Score 1) 312
What principle, exactly, is he fighting for? The right to flaunt existing copyright law and then lie about it? Or the right to destroy evidence?
No, constitutional due process... the principle that statutory damage awards are supposed to bear some reasonable relation to the actual damages sustained.
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 My amicus curiae brief in this case (Score 3, Informative) 312
In case you're interested in reading the arguments I made in 2009 in this case, as to why the verdict was in violation of due process, here they are (PDF)
Comment Re:Bankruptcy (Score 1) 312
Can't this kid just file for bankruptcy?
Yes he could. But there's no point in doing it now, the case isn't over. He's fighting for a principle here. He has a right to appeal, and I believe the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit will reverse this decision.
Comment Re:Wow. (Score 1) 312
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)
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 Troll alert (Score 1) 108
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)
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"."
Submission + - Court denies injunction against Aero's tv-to-computer service (blogspot.com)
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
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.
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.
