FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/copyright
The Minnesota woman a federal jury dinged $220,000 for pirating 24 copyrighted songs asked the trial judge on Monday to set aside the verdict on the grounds the judgment is unconstitutionally excessive.
It's a novel theory that, if successful, could undermine the Recording Industry Association of America's litigation machine that has sued thousands of alleged pirates.
The petition (.pdf) to U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of the 1976 Copyright Act, the law under which the RIAA sued Jammie Thomas of Minnesota, as well as over 20,000 other defendants. The $750 to $150,000 fines the act authorizes for each download is unconstitutionally excessive and against U.S. Supreme Court precedent, wrote Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney.
The RIAA said the argument is "baseless." In pretrial court documents in a New York federal copyright case against a Brooklyn woman, the RIAA acknowledged that such an argument might kill its zero-tolerance suing machine by making "it economically unsound for any copyright owner to seek to protect its copyright interests."
That case is pending trial in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Thomas, 30 and a single mother of two, was the first RIAA defendant to go to trial. The bulk of the cases have settled for a few thousand dollars each, while others are pending or have been dismissed since the industry's lobbying arm began suing individuals four years ago this September.
The minimum penalty under the Copyright Act equals a ratio of over 750 times the actual injury, assuming the value of a single music track is iTunes' 99-cent rate. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts say financial punishments exceeding a 9-to-1 ratio are unconstitutional.
Toder speculated that each digital download that is pirated costs the industry only 70 cents -- meaning Thomas' conduct was punished at a ratio of more than 1,000 times actual damages.
"Whether the court recognizes actual damages of zero dollars, $20 or whatever figure plaintiffs suggest ... the ratio of actual damages to the award is not only astronomical, it is offensive to our Constitution and offensive generally," Toder wrote.
Toder wants the judge to reduce the award or order a trial on the amount of damages the industry suffered by Thomas' conduct. The industry has refused to divulge how much it loses per download, but says it loses billions of dollars to piracy.
But whether Toder's legal position has any legal legs is uncertain. The RIAA doesn't think so. In the New York case, which is raising the same argument, the group's attorney, Richard Gabriel, called the assertion a mischaracterization of the law.
Gabriel said in court documents that the 2003 Supreme Court precedent at issue concerns constraining juries and judges from awarding unlimited damages, while Congress has authorized a range of damages in the Copyright Act serving "to constrain and limit the potential damages that any particular defendant can be assessed, thereby eliminating the concerns address by the Supreme Court."
Attorney J. Cam Barker took a position that supports Toder's claim, in a 2004 article in the Texas Law Review, noting that extreme monetary damages-to-costs ratios were likely in the RIAA's digital downloading cases. "At this point, a 'suspicious judicial eyebrow' might be raised," he wrote.
No hearing date in the Thomas case, tried two weeks ago in Duluth, Minnesota, has been set.
The Minnesota woman a federal jury dinged $220,000 for pirating 24 copyrighted songs asked the trial judge on Monday to set aside the verdict on the grounds the judgment is unconstitutionally excessive.
It's a novel theory that, if successful, could undermine the Recording Industry Association of America's litigation machine that has sued thousands of alleged pirates.
The petition (.pdf) to U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of the 1976 Copyright Act, the law under which the RIAA sued Jammie Thomas of Minnesota, as well as over 20,000 other defendants. The $750 to $150,000 fines the act authorizes for each download is unconstitutionally excessive and against U.S. Supreme Court precedent, wrote Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney.
The RIAA said the argument is "baseless." In pretrial court documents in a New York federal copyright case against a Brooklyn woman, the RIAA acknowledged that such an argument might kill its zero-tolerance suing machine by making "it economically unsound for any copyright owner to seek to protect its copyright interests."
That case is pending trial in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Thomas, 30 and a single mother of two, was the first RIAA defendant to go to trial. The bulk of the cases have settled for a few thousand dollars each, while others are pending or have been dismissed since the industry's lobbying arm began suing individuals four years ago this September.
The minimum penalty under the Copyright Act equals a ratio of over 750 times the actual injury, assuming the value of a single music track is iTunes' 99-cent rate. Rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts say financial punishments exceeding a 9-to-1 ratio are unconstitutional.
Toder speculated that each digital download that is pirated costs the industry only 70 cents -- meaning Thomas' conduct was punished at a ratio of more than 1,000 times actual damages.
"Whether the court recognizes actual damages of zero dollars, $20 or whatever figure plaintiffs suggest ... the ratio of actual damages to the award is not only astronomical, it is offensive to our Constitution and offensive generally," Toder wrote.
Toder wants the judge to reduce the award or order a trial on the amount of damages the industry suffered by Thomas' conduct. The industry has refused to divulge how much it loses per download, but says it loses billions of dollars to piracy.
But whether Toder's legal position has any legal legs is uncertain. The RIAA doesn't think so. In the New York case, which is raising the same argument, the group's attorney, Richard Gabriel, called the assertion a mischaracterization of the law.
Gabriel said in court documents that the 2003 Supreme Court precedent at issue concerns constraining juries and judges from awarding unlimited damages, while Congress has authorized a range of damages in the Copyright Act serving "to constrain and limit the potential damages that any particular defendant can be assessed, thereby eliminating the concerns address by the Supreme Court."
Attorney J. Cam Barker took a position that supports Toder's claim, in a 2004 article in the Texas Law Review, noting that extreme monetary damages-to-costs ratios were likely in the RIAA's digital downloading cases. "At this point, a 'suspicious judicial eyebrow' might be raised," he wrote.
No hearing date in the Thomas case, tried two weeks ago in Duluth, Minnesota, has been set.
Just returning the favor guy.