Obama administration defends $222,000 file-sharing verdict
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2140293
Here's another:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4781933
She's not a very sympathetic defendant. [Late edit: I should be more careful, since the case could be made that she's being taken advantage of by unscrupulous attorneys, and it's they who are unsympathetic.]
[Even later: I thought it was 'tzs who had pointed out that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had also lied under oath, first claiming that her relatives had been behind the downloaded files, but eventually admitting that it was her; ultimately, the narrative I picked up was, "the RIAA offered to settle for $5k, but instead she went to court with a defense so ludicrous she had to disavow it on the stand; she achieved a retrial, at which point she was again offered a $5k settlement by the RIAA, which she again refused". That is, for what it's worth, what seems to have happened, but I'm not sure that whole story is attributable to 'tzs.]
AS tzs points out, the fines were created with no intention of punishing individuals without a commercial incentive. Applying the law as-is isn't justice, as obviously a lot of people feel.
The fact she could have gotten off with less doesn't change the feeling people have that it's wrong, regardless of the legal standing.
But then I remember that Thomas-Rasset lied under oath, so clumsily that her own expert witness wound up testifying against her at trial. And despite that, despite losing the trial so badly that jurors were interviewed as flat out calling her a "liar", she was again offered the same actual-damages $5000 settlement. And instead of just accepting that, she forced everyone back to court a second time. And then a third time. And then to a federal appeals court. And now to the Supreme Court.
I'm sure they are regretting their bad luck in suing somebody that will just not bend over and take it. Which is probably why they probably offered her the 5K settlement a second time.
Her fighting spirit sets a "bad" example for the rest of us. It may even inspire a lot of us to follow her example and not bend over when the RIAA comes knocking. If that happens then the RIAA is pretty much fucked.
Note that while they won't throw her in jail, it will come out of her paycheck, they'll also make her sell a lot of her assets, etc.
Also, ever hear the expression "bad facts make bad law"?
She is not the case you want in front of the supreme court. It isn't about wasting time/money, it's about whether she's going to end up fucking over a lot of people who actually stood a chance of getting ridiculous verdicts overturned. Given her circumstances, there is a significant chance she will be singled out by the supreme court as an example of when 220k for a verdict is okay. It's hard to predict, but instead of helping others and getting a good legal result, she may end up having wasted some RIAA money and fucked over a lot of people. What a great idea!
In short: You are horrendously short sighted, and courts are not a great place to take our your frustrations on an organization you don't like.
Whose time and money? The government. Please, we wasted so much money already on senseless wars and security theater that this argument is silly at this point.
>>Note that while they won't throw her in jail, it will come out of her paycheck, they'll also make her sell a lot of her assets, etc.
One word: bankruptcy
>>It's hard to predict, but instead of helping others and getting a good legal result, she may end up having wasted some RIAA money and fucked over a lot of people. What a great idea!
OK, I'll grant you points on this one. Getting a bad precedent would not be a good idea. Although, note sure if that is even possible in this case so you just sound like you are fear mongering. How are people going to get fucked over? Are you sure you are not just spreading FUD?
Yes i'm sure i'm not spreading FUD. It is entirely possible that the supreme court will take the case. If they made the decision that the ratio of damages like her case was okay, it would fuck over all the other similarly situated people who aren't just lying on the stand.
Read about it and the debts that are not actually dischargeable are student loans (USA). Are there any more? Could you cite an example? In this specific case, would her debt not be dischargeable?
The bankruptcy code defines a bunch of things that you can't discharge, including debts you acquired through fraud, through embezzlement, through larceny, or government fines.
Taxes and tax liens
Student loans
Alimony and child support (domestic support obligations)
Debts obtained through fraud, false pretenses or false representation
Debts you failed to schedule in time to allow creditors to file proofs of claim (unscheduled debts)
Debts for fraud while you were acting in a fiduciary capacity, or for embezzlement or larceny
Debts for willful and malicious injury
Debts for most criminal liability. Debts for fines or penalties to governmental units
Debts for judgments in wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits resulting from motor vehicle, vessel or aircraft accidents while you were intoxicated
Condominium or cooperative association fees or assessments
In her case, willful infringement is "maybe" dischargeable. Probably not, but it's not really come up yet.
But it doesn't change the fact that it's still a shakedown scheme. The fact there were offers might change what we think of her personally, but shouldn't change the sense of justice.
It's similar to someone being extorted, and we say "What an idiot; he refused to pay $5 protection, now he has a broken knee". It's still unjust and unfair. Or the folks protecting Aaron Swartz's prosecutors: He could have just plead guilty to a felony and taken a lighter hit.
It seems like your position here is for her to make an efficient, safe, decision, instead of for actual justice, regardless of cost.
The statutory minimums don't really adhere to that principle which is unfortunate.
For whatever it's worth, the RIAA offered --- on two very separate occasions --- to settle for actual damages.
Despite thinking this particular verdict is ridiculous, in a lot of cases, walloping unreasonable defendants if they lose is a mechanism to prevent overburdening the courts.
Courts are a wildly inefficient way to settle disputes, they know this, and they are overburdened docket-wise with mostly bullshit. There is a determined push by most courts across the country to not try cases that could be settled. Some force day-of-trial mediation for simple suits. For complex suits, the vast majority now require at least some mediation.
If you come along, refuse to settle a case that is by-the-books law and you lose, judges will generally impose enough to make you think twice about doing this again.
Whether they should, whether it's right, this is what happens. This has actually been fairly successful on the torts side. Only something like 2% of tort cases now go to trial across the US. Results in other areas are not so good yet. Family law is an area where it is very hard to get people to settle, even when lawyers on both sides tell their clients "you won't get what you want at trial, the judge is going to follow the law and statutory guidelines, and do X. We should settle". They still want a trial (mostly because they want some judge to tell them they were right and their ex was wrong, and instead the judge just tells them both they are wasting his time), then get angry at the lawyers.
In any case, to be fair to the judges, most people truly have no concept of the amount of stupid cases[1] that the average federal district court judge sees. This kind of stuff is why the average civil lawsuit now takes years to resolve.
[1] Not person did dumb thing stupid, but cases that are so trivially resolvable that they complete waste of time for everyone involved.
It is entirely unsurprising they would react in this way
Fixed that for you. :)
That being said, the DOJ is basically Congress's lawyer. It is obligated to defend Congress's laws from Constitutional challenges.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconsti...
I admit, I have not studied the history of such particular requests from the justice department, but I do not remember hearing so many of them from previous administrations. By "previous" I mean before Bush, since if memory serves, W did a lot of this as well.
Personally, I do not consider this a bad thing.
I think the reason it seems worse in this administration is because Obama's DOJ is fucking bad at public relations. Their understanding of the optics of cases is unusually bad.
Hmm. Nothing in there about getting involved in potential supreme court cases.
What about defending the Constitutionality of Congressional laws seems outside the scope of "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" to you?
Also, note that the Attorney General's position was created in 1789 by the first Congress, and was tasked with more or less the responsibilities he has today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
That sounds like a defendent of the record companies, not the executive branch trying to ensure law is faithfully executed. It would be one thing if the supreme court were ignoring laws, but arguing for the denial to review a case is hardly taking care that law is faithfully executed. Our executive branch is suggesting the subversion of due process in this case.
In other words, ignore the man behind the curtain.
Edit: to clarify- this is the final statement in the reasoning why due process should not be considered. Read the argument.
In the context of Constitutional challenges to Congressional laws, the DOJ has the same job. They will first seek to have review denied because that's the quickest way for Congress to win. If review is granted, the Solicitor General, whose office is part of the DOJ, will have to drag his ass to the Supreme Court and argue strenuously in favor of upholding the Constitutionality of Congress's law.
That's just the way the adversarial legal system works.
Also, your Due Process point is way out of bounds. Due Process does not entail the right to Supreme Court review. The Supreme Court could deny the petition for no other reason than "it sounded boring" and there would be no Due Process violation.
Does anyone care the highest office in the country has been bought?
The executive branch is involved whether they want to be or not. Since these people were tried under federal law by federal prosecutors, it would be weird for federal prosecutors (employed by the executive branch, remember) to simply stop communicating during the appeals process. It's the expected behavior for them to put a position forward.
The good news is that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to do as the executive asks.
Please sign and share: http://wh.gov/dZCl