It could not possibly be more clear that these statutory damages are excessive. How could any court fail to rule that a $600,000 fine (let alone $2 million!) to an individual for non-commercial copyright infringement violates the eighth amendment to the constitution? "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Hopefully the defending lawyers in these cases can stop pissing off their judges long enough to make this blindingly obvious argument.
Pissing off the judge might be a good strategy. If he pisses off the judge enough for him to make a questionably-legal ruling, he gets the chance to appeal and set precedent.
That's awfully risky for the defendant. If I was the one on the stand I don't think I'd permit my lawyers to risk sticking me with a $2 million fine just so they could set precedent, even if they were from Harvard.
IANAL either, but I doubt the framers of the constitution meant their definition of "fine" to exclude a case like this.
Even if it isn't a "fine" in esoteric legal jargon it fits the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment". After all, $2 million is more than the expected lifetime earnings of an American individual. $2 million is essentially a monetary life sentence.
edit: I did some research and you're correct that this doesn't fit the modern legal definition of a "fine". Apparently fines are for criminal offenses and in civil cases like this they're called "penalties" instead. Again, however, I don't think this necessarily applies to the eighth amendment.
The whole civil system is an end-run around the Constitution anyway. The government can't take all the money you'll ever earn, but they can allow some corporate entity to. (Totally different, see! Nobody's rights are being violated!)
(Incidentally, the Constitution says "cruel AND unusual" not "cruel OR unusual". So if a cruel punishment is routinely applied, that makes it not unusual, and totally legal.)
"Joel Tenenbaum, of Providence, R.I., admitted he downloaded and distributed 30 songs. The only issue for the jury to decide was how much in damages to award the record labels. ... Under federal law, the recording companies were entitled to $750 to $30,000 per infringement. But the law allows as much as $150,000 per track if the jury finds the infringements were willful."
So at $675,000 / 30 songs, the jury decided that each track was worth $22,500?
I understand that copyright laws should exist. But it really bothers me that not only were such high values set in the laws, but that the jury enforced them even though they had the option of choosing lesser amounts.
A part of the jury's job is to provide an additional, more 'human' interpretation of the case ... in this case I think they failed.
The law in this area is horribly stacked against any individual caught up in such a case, with the full legal weight of the music industry bearing down on him.
See this write-up from earlier today (http://bit.ly/qMtUe) on how Joel Tenenbaum was basically worn down on the stand until he wound up finally admitting to liability.
Once he did that, the judge took that issue away from the jury. This means the jury was instructed that the defendant was already found liable and that their sole job was to pick a damage number using the federal statutory guidelines.
The judge had already gutted major parts of the defense before the case ever got to trial (for example, fair use was tossed out as a defense).
In such a context, even a sympathetic jury could have done little or nothing, though it appears this jury was not sympathetic.
The bullying tactics used by the music industry in these cases are atrocious and represent among the worst that the law has to offer. What is needed here is a broader solution likely involving a revamp of the copyright laws.
The music industry is not helping themselves by winning these cases. I know that sounds contradictory but people that otherwise couldn't care less are getting worked up about this.
The bigger the amount the worse the PR. People are not scared, they're angry.
I actually think you're wrong, sadly. People in the real world, people that are likely to download songs, are not digital cognoscenti like members of HN. They read about this (or watch it on TV, most likely) and think "Shit! Tell Johnny to stop downloading!". Fear tactics do work. So, i would bet that the RIAA is very happy about the message they are sending.
If they would be happy they'd continue these tactics. They are realizing that they are losing the PR battle fast so they've decided to stop these cases, new ones are not being brought. To avoid setting bad precedent they have to continue the ones that are in court (or they'd open themselves up to all kinds of trouble wrt to the fees they've already received in settlements, a good case could be made for extortion: "look, as soon as a case goes to court they drop it")
Or that's my understanding of it, maybe some legal whiz here can shine some light on that.
A part of the jury's job is to provide an additional, more 'human' interpretation of the case ... in this case I think they failed.
"Humans" tend to do whatever authority figures tell them to do. Jury selection excluded anyone with a brain. To them, this kid violated the law just like the 9/11 hijackers did. "He is basically a terrorist! So let him burn; it's not happening to me, after all!"
Can someone explain to me what happens now? Does he just declare bankruptcy and move on? My guess is, as a college student, he has little assets so a $20,000 or $675,000 judgement would be the same to him (=bankruptcy).
Am I wrong? Are damages like this equivalent to student loans(ie. bankruptcy does not erase them)?
I've often wondered what I'd do if I got hit with a lawsuit that was worth more than my entire expected lifetime earnings and couldn't discharge it through bankruptcy.
I think I'd simply choose to opt out of the economy entirely - "If you're just going to garnish all the money I make, well, I just won't make any money." But I wouldn't just sit around (I'd probably starve if I did that...) Instead, I'd work on high-risk, high-reward projects and release them all as open-source, with an eye towards being as disruptive as possible. I could continue to live by bumming meals and places to crash off folks who benefit from my work, even if they don't actually pay me.
"I could continue to live by bumming meals and places to crash off folks who benefit from my work, even if they don't actually pay me."
What makes you think people would be that generous? Seriously.
Have you ever been in a position where someone else is legally entitled to take possession of your entire present worth? I have. It's a nightmare. Just imagine what it feels like to be in a position where someone is legally allowed to rape you for the rest of your life... the frustration and anger would not allow me to focus on any productive work. Maybe it would work differently for you.
Here's a relevant article on the subject. Sounds like it comes down to the shifting legal definition of "willful and malicious", but it may be dischargeable in bankruptcy.
On September 24, 2001, the case was partially settled.
Napster agreed to pay music creators and copyright
owners a $26 million settlement for past, unauthorized
uses of music.
So by this case's logic, Napster was only guilty of stealing 1155 songs.
Wow, according to that link a "Class A felony (murder)" has a fine of up to $20,000, but he's getting fined $22,500 per song? That's disgusting. The tyranny of the RIAA has gone on long enough.
As a student that essentially eliminates his future as he will most likely be expelled from his university and have trouble gaining admission at another university. Bad luck that he has to take the fall for 30 songs, as there are many university students who pirate thousands.
My guess is that this guy will declare bankruptcy if he doesn't get this ruling overturned on appeal. Of course there are other secondary financial consequences for him like more than likely getting kicked out of school and having trouble securing a decent job in the future.
Here's a question: can you be extradited and imprisoned for failing to pay damages from a civil trial? If these damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy, seems like your best option might be to just leave the country, rather than spend your entire life in financial slavery.
It depends on what country you go to and whether you want to define a civil trial's verdict as a debt now owed. Some places still do have debtors prison, like Dubai. And, while you may not be extradited, there are still ways to force people to pay up even if they leave the country.
I get that they do that if you're fleeing the law, but if you're just avoiding paying damages awarded in a civil case, do they not let you leave the country?
Hopefully the defending lawyers in these cases can stop pissing off their judges long enough to make this blindingly obvious argument.