DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive

from the tell-that-to-Jammie dept

While this probably isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry (and because it's filed similar briefs before), but it's still worth noting that the Justice Department has filed a brief in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, in support of the constitutionality of the $1.92 million fine (and, no, none of the former RIAA lawyers are signatories to the brief, though you have to imagine their "expertise" was consulted). The reasoning is quite troubling and appears to include some serious revisionist history.

First, what's stunning is that the brief claims the awards are perfectly constitutional because it is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable." Really? It seems that an awful lot of people find the idea of being forced to hand over $80,000 per song without any evidence that it was ever actually shared by anyone is severe and oppressive to the point that it's disproportionate to the offense and quite obviously unreasonable. I mean, this is a woman who wanted to listen to her favorite bands, and she now has to pay nearly $2 million. How can anyone claim that's not "severe and oppressive" in relation to the actual "harm" done?

Second, the brief claims that the damages should be much more than the $1.29 price per song found on iTunes, because it "ignores the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing." Except, if that were the case, shouldn't the plaintiffs been required to show that these songs were actually shared? And should Thomas also be liable for the actions of anyone else she shared the songs with? That seems to go quite beyond what the law states.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the Justice Department's sneaky little claim that the statutory rates are obviously fair for file sharing, because they were put in place in 1999, with the explicit statement from Congress that these numbers were there because of internet file sharing. That sounds good, but ignores the fact that this little change in the law was pushed almost entirely by entertainment industry lobbyists (the same folks who now run the Justice Department!) to protect their dying business model, rather than through any empirical evidence. The real original purpose of statutory rates had nothing to do with punishing personal, non-commercial use, but were very much about dealing with commercial harm.

It's a neat, but immensely troubling, trick by the entertainment industry. Sneak through bizarre and totally unsupported legislation through a Congress that's never met a stronger copyright law it didn't love, using your high paid lobbyists. Then, get those same lobbyists appointed to the Justice Department to defend it against Constitutional challenges. Regulatory capture at its finest.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions

from the can't-stop-the-lying dept

This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.

On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment

from the time-to-pull-back-the-attack-dogs dept

It's been interesting to see the aftermath of the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million ruling, as it appears that even the RIAA is recognizing that such an insanely large award gives them something of a black-eye and has the possibility of creating a bit of a backlash. However, apparently they forgot to send out that message to all of their usual attack dogs. In an AP article discussing the ruling and the $1.92 million number with a variety of different people, the RIAA tried to distance itself from the number, specifically stating, "That was not our number, that was what 12 regular folks rendered." Uh, yeah, except that the RIAA has long used the statutory numbers in their arguments about the "risks" of file sharing.

Tom Sydnor, from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), a loud and proud supporter of stronger copyright at every turn (and who is well funded by the RIAA labels), apparently missed the memo on playing down the number. He told the reporter that it was a perfectly reasonable number.

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song,"

Except... that's not even close to accurate. The record labels presented no proof that she gave the song to millions of users, and seem to totally ignore the fact that these songs were available from tons of other sources (either legally or illegally) for prices between nothing and $1. To claim that the record labels would literally consider an option to license a single user putting a song into a shared folder at $80,000 is simply ridiculous.

But, of course, it shows the mentality of those paid for by the RIAA. These are the same people who accuse Larry Lessig of being a communist by taking a few statements totally out of context, and then accuse universities of supporting terrorism by not violating students' privacy and handing over their details to the RIAA.

So, if the RIAA is really serious about playing down the size of the jury award, it might want to rein in Sydnor before he says much more. If you're looking for someone to get out a message by appearing as a caricature of the evil record labels, I don't think you could find any organization better than PFF. But, that's probably not what the RIAA needs right now, unless it really wants to give the folks on the fence even more reason to leap over to the side who recognizes just how much the labels have twisted, stretched and abused copyright law over the years, totally at odds with its constitutional prescription of promoting the progress of science. Defending a $1.92 million award to the record labels for 24 songs in a shared folder, with no evidence that a single one was actually shared, is not promoting the progress. It's promoting massive greed and regulatory capture at the expense of society.

136 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case

from the seems-a-wee-bit-excessive,-no? dept

Like many others, when I first heard about the $1.9 million the jury awarded the record labels from Jammie Thomas in her trial, my initial question was how that could possibly be constitutional and not excessive. However, given the immediate talk of settlements, I figured that question is unlikely to be asked in a courtroom. The EFF, however, has taken a look at the specific constitutional issues and how any appeal might be organized. There are two specific potential problems. First, the award is clearly designed to be punitive, rather than remunerative:

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "grossly excessive" punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as "new") violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. In evaluating whether an award "grossly excessive," courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into "grossly excessive"? And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys.

The second issue questions whether the court has the right to try to use Jammie Thomas as an examples to warn off others (something the RIAA has been pushing for throughout this entire show-trial of a case):

Second, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe. It's hard to know without having been in the courtroom, but if the record industry lawyers urged the jury to "send a message" to the millions of other American file-sharers out there, they may have crossed the constitutional line.

Interesting stuff, should Thomas decide to push forward. The downside, however, is that for whatever reason, to date the Supreme Court seems to throw normal precedent out the window when it comes to copyright law. I was just reading a long study (more on that later) of how a series of recent Supreme Court rulings on copyright seem to simply ignore precedent and simply accept the myth of copyright's importance over all else.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million

from the bad-bad-idea dept

Last month, we noted that it was a really bad idea for Jammie Thomas not to settle her lawsuit with the recording industry. There was simply way too much evidence for a jury not to convict her. The trial itself was, again as expected, something of a circus, rather than anything interesting or compelling. So, it should come as no surprise that, yet again, Thomas has been found guilty. But what is surprising is that the the jury chose to fine her $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. That's $1.7 million more than the original trial. $80,000 per song! Still, it was a really bad idea for Thomas to go through with this suit as there was way too much evidence linking her to the music (and too many problems with her own testimony). Now the RIAA is handed a gift. A verdict that it can gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages. What might be interesting is whether (for all the RIAA gloating) this ruling has a similar impact as The Pirate Bay victory had in Sweden -- galvanizing people to support the Pirate Party. Somehow, the story isn't quite as compelling though.

104 Comments | Leave a Comment..

'Free Software' Scammers Fined $2.2 Million

from the this-is-not-the-'free'-business-model-we're-talking-about dept

We've seen various incarnations of the scam (often found in infomercials) where a company offers you something for "free," but in the fine print, you're really signing up for an ongoing paid service. For years, some of the biggest "ringtone" companies made much of their money this way, offering "free" or cheap ringtones that actually involved the user signing up for a monthly service without realizing it. The infamous "Video Professor" has been accused of running a similar system, though the company vehemently denies this.

Either way, it appears that the FTC is starting to crack down on some of these practices, fining a competitor to "Video Professor," called ThinkAll, $2.2 million. Apparently ThinkAll took this scam to a new level. It offered "free" software, where you simply had to pay for the shipping and handling -- though, it sounds like that was really just so the company could get your credit card on file. After receiving that first free CD, customers were offered 3 more titles totally free (not even any shipping). If you decided to accept that software (and why wouldn't you?) it made you check a box saying you had read the terms of service. Of course no one reads the full terms of service, which include (hidden down in the 7th paragraph) the fact that in accepting this "free" software, you're actually agreeing to sign up for a monthly fee-based service. Quite sneaky... until the FTC stepped in. Hopefully other businesses take notice and start avoiding these types of scams.

32 Comments | Leave a Comment..