DoJ Sides With RIAA On Damages

Alberto G writes "As Jammie Thomas appeals the $222,000 copyright infringement verdict against her, the Department of Justice has weighed in on a central facet of her appeal: whether the $9,250-per-song damages were unconstitutionally excessive and violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The DoJ says that there's nothing wrong with the figure the jury arrived at: '[G]iven the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause; they were not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable."' The DoJ also appears to buy into the RIAA's argument that making a file available on a P2P network constitutes copyright infringement. 'It's also impossible for the true damages to be calculated, according to the brief, because it's unknown how many other users accessed the files in the KaZaA share in question and committed further acts of copyright infringement.'"

Re:The good news...

[The Only Druid]

Because we all know, no courts ever consider the DOJ a good source of argument...

Realistically, this is expected but not necessarily a big deal; had the DOJ presented some new argument here - one which was more powerful than the existing arguments - that would have been problematic. Here, they've done little more than endorse the existing arguments.

The DOJ is Right

[devjj]

If you RTFA, you'll find that the DOJ is siding with the RIAA because the defendant agreed to the terms put forth to the jury. She acknowledged and went along with the instructions, which included precisely how much she could be liable for if found guilty. In so doing she effectively waived her right to make this claim.

I'm one of the last people who would take something the DOJ says seriously these days, but their reasoning on this issue is sound.

More on this at Ars Technica [arstechnica.com].

Why is this tagged Republicans?

[halivar]

The DMCA was written by (predominately) Democratic lobbyists, advanced by Fritz "Disney" Hollings (D), and signed into law by President Clinton.

The Republicans may have been the majority party at the time, but at least own up and take some of the responsibility. This is bipartisan hatred-of-consumers.

I think you misread me

[palladiate]

she effectively acknowledged that the statutory damages were not in violation of her rights because she agreed to the instructions.

And what I said was that the Eighth Amendment may constitute a right you cannot waive. While that right cannot be stripped, it may also be a right you cannot waive, as in you cannot agree to a public dissection (drawing) if the DA wants to pursue that option. You cannot waive your right to be shielded from cruel and unusual punishment.

However, the same court said in Lockyer v. Andrade that life in prison for shoplifting $150 worth of video tapes was not excessive, so I doubt they'll have a problem with the constitutionality of the judgment.

Rational penalties

[palladiate]

In terms of excessive punishments, California sentenced a man to life in prison for stealing a handful of DVDs from a store. See Lockyer v. Andrade [wikipedia.org], life in prison for stealing $150 worth of DVDs was held by the Supreme Court to not be excessive.

It's called punitive damages

[DarthStrydre]

It sounds like you are in favor of punitive damages, and I would think that most of the /. community would not argue with reasonable punitive damages. Damages in this case are not punitive, but statutory, and far beyond reasonable punitive damages. Refer, perhaps to the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages [wikipedia.org]
"In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is broad enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional."

Re:no surprises here then...

[Orange Crush]

Get off scott-free for anything you do

Or get sued personally when the prosecutor succesfully argues your corporation is a sham and pierces the veil.

Re:NO

[Jhon]

If we take that as a guideline for punishment, approved by the DOJ, for a serious crime, then I think that the damage to Jammie Thomas' reputation would be penalty enough for a
finding of copyright infringement of 24 songs.

Damage to Thomas' reputation & a $250,000 fine... to complete your weak Libby connection. Why does everything need to be hate-bush-speak? Jeez.

not the same

[commodoresloat]

Lockyer's a three-strikes case. He wasn't sentenced to life for stealing dvds; he was sentenced for getting a third felony. I'm not defending that -- I disagree with the three strikes law and I think the High Court made the wrong decision here -- but the decision was about the three strikes law, not about what is a reasonable punishment for stealing DVDs.

Re:Why am I not surprised?

[Anonymous Coward]

Amateurgress.

Re:NO

[bladesjester]

Hey now. anonymous coward has a 3 digit uid. It's 666.

Seriously.

Re:NO

[gbobeck]

There is always the option for Jury Nullification.

Of course, IANAL, so check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification [wikipedia.org] for a decent overview.

Re:NO

[reebmmm]

As one of the authors of the JN article (look for my name backwards) let me be first to say that JN doesn't work as well in civil cases. It's true that a jury COULD do whatever they want, but a judge has the power to reverse the jury in civil cases Judgment notwithstanding the verdict [wikipedia.org] and, assuming a judge doesn't grant the JNOV, appeal the verdict to a higher court.

The reason it works so well in criminal trials is because there is no JNOV. If the jury acquits, the prosecutor cannot get a JNOV or appeal the jury decision. // This is not legal advice.