Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Edit: Isn't the law supposed to protect against ridiculous punishments like these?
When malice or fraud are involved, there is no limit on punitive damages. Note that the fraud must be part of the crime itself; Thomas' perjury on the stand should play no role in punitive damages.
The award will almost certainly be reduced...however...it is likely that Thomas will settle before then. Though $200k was outrageous in the first trial, unique circumstances in this trial make it unlikely that the judge will reduce the amount to anywhere close that number, given that a separate and independent jury found such a large number.
However, SCOTUS has ruled very recently that punitive damages must be proportional to the income and assets of the defendant, for example, $1M is nothing to Bill Gates but is beyond devastating to the average man.
This behavior of record companies makes it hard for geeks like me who don't support the abolishment of copyright. I think the worst that should happen in cases of copyright infringement of music is a several hundred dollar fine total, not per song.
In the end, the whole thing was just a circus that missed the most obvious point: What is a reasonable course of action for dealing with this type of infringement? The sad part is, this trial was a wasted opportunity where we could have begun to address this issue. Instead the judge let it slip once again into a good ol' fashioned case of American side-show freakery.
In Minnesota, schools are funded with general state taxation on a per-enrollment basis. But that doesn't keep the government-run schools from being remarkably ineffective.
Healthcare? Quality education? Who gives a fuck- I want my free mp3s!
There's a reason the American dream isn't called the American reality: widespread socioeconomic injustice is alive and well in the United States of America.
But the copyright industry certainly wants everyone to believe it is a crime. Looks like it is working.
Sad.
This result was definitely unjust, but the lawyers are the wrong ones to blame.
The clients really are at fault here.
That's not exactly how a lawyer's professional responsibility is defined. But anyway, as a producer of original writings that have been infringed more than once, I'm glad there are lawyers who work to uphold the copyright laws.
The lawyers in this case where asked to act within legal and ethical boundaries and within those boundaries they had a duty to act in their clients interest. The final results where unjust, but their actions where fully in upholding their duty.
The results where wrong, but the fault lies elsewhere. In looking for the fault, I would start by looking at the clients (namely the RIAA) that insisted on pursuing this and at the law itself which permits statutory damages so grossly out of proportion to real damages.
In fact, there has been some contention that such high statutory damages may be unconstitutional and I would not at all be surprised if Mr. Camara pursued that avenue.
(I might go to hell for suggesting this but... what the hell)
Tennessee Attorney General Paul G. Summers announced today that five of the largest U.S. distributors of pre-recorded music CDs and three large retailers agreed to pay millions of dollars in cash and free CDs as part of an agreement on price-fixing allegations. The companies will pay $67,375,000 in cash, provide $75,500,000 worth of music CDs, and not engage in sales practices that allegedly led to artificially high retail prices for music CDs and reduced retail competition as part of the agreement. Tennessee's share is an estimated $993,948 in cash and $1,507,852 in CDs.
http://www.attorneygeneral.state.tn.us/press/2002/story/PR13...
Public libraries all over the country got shipping containers full of Mariah Carey deadstock.
The lawyers leading the class action got tens of millions of dollars.
And no, I wouldn't steal a purse, because a purse is a physical object, owned by an ordinary individual human being, who would be materially and emotionally harmed by the theft. This case of Copyright infringement involves imaginary property of enormously rich corporations who would not be materially affected by it in any measurable way. It's more akin to stealing an invisible mote of dust from the bottom of someones purse, without them being aware of it at any point.
All the evidence actually suggests that music sharing increases income for commercial music as a whole, yet sharing these 24 tracks has resulted in a $2m fine. Ironically, you would be punished enormously less for actually mugging someone and stealing their purse.
I can see how my point was made unclear by the unsuccessful joke, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGXavXZwRcg ;-)
(this judgment is a bloody disgrace btw).
(UK)