Dunno, to be honest. IANAL. But I would guess it would be on the basis that the total damages are excessive, despite the fact that legislation allows as much. I do understand there’s a difference between statutory and punitive damages, but it doesn’t make a bit of difference if the damages far exceed that which the defendant could hope to ever repay and ever be able to recover from it.
If they can reverse or reduce punitive damages for Exxon, they sure as hell can do it for a single person whose lifetime income would be unlikely to repay those damages. It defeats the whole purpose of awarding the damages to begin with.
She can’t pay bribes like Exxon can. Simple truth. “Justice” means who can buy the most lawyers/congress people/influence. It’s a very destructive influence on our society.
So what you’re saying is the RIAA had a huge team of lawyers, multimillions worth infact.
How many did she have, maybe one or two? How was this a fair trial? You honestly think a multimillion dollar army of lawyers vs whatever she can scrape together is a fair trial?
It’s interesting in that this point comes up again and again. If you read all the articles on the case it’s clear she’s both arrogant and amazingly, brazenly dishonest. For all that she’s held up as Standing Up To The System, what she does, apparently, is come up with one absurd lie after another.
But that shouldn’t affect the damages awarded; you’re not supposed to be sued into the next century just because you’re a bitch.
Well, if you come across as a lying scumbag who’s thumbing her nose at the judicial system, the jury is probably more likely to fall in with the idea of imposing damages at the level the law specifies.
While it’s hard to have much sympathy for the RIAA, the notion that this woman is a hero has to be called absurd.
Right, and if the system is bad enough that it needs standing up to (something that is at least arguably true in this type of case), then surely it’s worth telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. If you want to be the poster child who shows how awful the system is, you should admit what you did and argue that the system’s method of evaluating guilt is flawed, or that the punishment does not fit the crime.
Yup, they’re evil fuckers, all right; so when you next ask your bartender when his or her band (which you really, really like) is going release a CD, and s/he tells you they broke up and aren’t playing together because there’s no way to make any money in it, just choke on your drink. Thanks.
So… since you let your brother copy the CD in the first place, why not buy two copies of the band’s CD to offset the piracy you enabled? By making those songs available to your brother to copy to his laptop, you committed the same crime as the woman in the court case, albeit on a smaller scale.
As for the book… I take it you don’t use public libraries? Anyway, I don’t agree with you on the book. I don’t think you should get paid just because you wrote it. What if it’s crap? People should have the chance to sample it - in part or full - to allow them to decide if it is worth buying.
As for the OP, well… while it was good to hear someone was taking a stand against the RIAA, it’s a shame it wasn’t someone who was genuinely innocent. Even if I could believe that her boyfriend or son was the one who used her computer to download it, I can’t believe that they would use her online name as the user name. $80,000 per song is ludicrous. I doubt Gloria Estefan could have hoped to sell another 80,000 copies of that song even under the correct title.
My most favorable impression of the lady is that she knew by the point of the first trial that she would never actually pay the full amount, and decided to see how high the RIAA would go. Then she gets to publish the information, making the RIAA look ridiculous, but knowing that she’ll never actually pay anywhere near that amount.
Sure, it’ll ruin her life, but she could have thought her life was ruined with the initial settlement.
So, a court can’t reduce an award for being excessive? What if the statute said that she could be forced to pay $1000000 trillion per song? Still okay and the courts would be powerless to intervene?
I am all for protecting an author’s property rights, but this law is horribly disproportional to the offense committed. This woman could have beaten the author with a baseball bat and been awarded a lesser civil verdict.
What does it say that she “dared” ask for her day in court? That instead of $3,000 she pays $1.9 million? That needs to be done away with as well. If I would feel compensated for the wrongs done to be for $3,000, it is ridiculous to ask a Court for 2 million. There needs to be a mechanism to fight in court without one person being on the hook for a staggering amount.
I guess we should all bow to the will of our corporate masters instead of using the court system.
Another aspect of this to consider: that civil cases only require a “preponderance of the evidence” which is much weaker than “beyond a reasonable doubt” for criminal cases. So all a jury needs is to decide there’s a 51% chance you did it, and you can quite literally lose your life savings over a few songs you didn’t even download.
That’s called remittitur. On a remittitur motion, the court will reduce the verdict if it is so excessive that it “shocks the conscience.” http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/484/484.F3d.1016.06-2589.html Obviously, she has a good chance of getting the award reduced because it is so shockingly high. She hasn’t filed the motion yet.
The judge granted a new trial based on an erroneous jury instruction and avoided ruling on the other issues.
I agree. Although much of the award is punitive on purpose. The jury found that the defendant had willfully infringed the plaintiff’s copyrights. That finding raises the amount of statutory damages that are available.
It should be noted, too, for the record, AGAIN (since it’s been raised before and continues to be ignored by those who are upset at the result), that she didn’t just try the case to a conclusion, and is suffering for having done so. She purposefully attempted to mislead the court/jurors with things she said and did. THAT, I suspect, is what occaisioned this jury to increase the value of the “damages” significantly (though of course, they won’t have known how much was awarded before).
Of course she’s not going to have to pay $1.9 million, because she doesn’t have that amount of money. She’s judgement proof. The contention that the RIAA had to sue for this amount in order to recoup the enormous costs of the lawsuit is ridiculous, because they aren’t going be able to squeeze more than a few thousand dollars out of her, since she doesn’t have millions of dollars in the bank.
The reason they chose only 24 songs to sue over is that if they sued over all 1700 and each copyright infringement could be awarded $150,000 it would show how stupid the punitive damages were. Did she really do something that requires punitve damages of $255,000,000? 255 million dollars? Obviously they only chose a small number of songs because they were afraid they’d make the law look even more ridiculous if they sued her over every violation. Plus, establishing 1700 violations in court would take a lot more work and since there’s no way she can pay more than a few thousand, there’s no point in suing for more.
And that’s why she didn’t pay the settlement offer in the first place. There’s only so much they can squeeze out of her. Bankrupt is bankrupt.
And lastly, the notion that file sharing is the reason your bartender can’t start a band is just ludicrious. The reason your bartender can’t make money playing music is because the music industry skims off the excess value. Only megastars make money from recorded music. Mid-level acts see a pitance. The music industry steals everything else. So spare me the sob stories about how file-sharing takes money from the artists. It steals only pennies from the artists since the artists only get pennies from recorded music anyway.
The entire system of copyright is going to crash into the ground in the next few decades. This is just a fact of how digital distribution is going to have to work. Complaining that copyright violation is against the law doesn’t change the fact that it is trivial to violate copyright on a massive scale. And draconian punishments won’t work, unless people think it’s likely that they’ll be caught. We have draconian punishments for drugs, and how has that helped?
And this particular draconian punishment is silly, because there’s no chance the injured parties will see a payment greater than they spent prosecuting the case. I’m sure she prefered to empty her bank accounts paying for her own attorney rather than saving up to pay the RIAA attorneys. So she’s judgement proof, and there’s no way they can get any money out her. So what next?
She’s not “judgment proof”, she’s simply not going to have to pay $1.9 million since she’ll probably never earn that amount.
However, if it wants, the RIAA can assert a lien against her home and certain other chattels; she’ll effectively be prevented from selling the house, if she wants to see any of the proceeds.
I’m not all that law savvy, so there’s one thing I’ve been wondering about – on what basis is offering anything for download actually illegal? I mean, wouldn’t it be analogous (if download itself is analogous to theft) to just bringing your CDs, I don’t know, into some public place in a downtrodden neighbourhood and leaving them there unattended, so you can be virtually certain they’ll be stolen? Isn’t the crime committed by those who actually do the stealing? Or is it more the case that you can’t publicly broadcast something you don’t own the copyright to, either?
Other than that, I really want to download all those songs now, shitty as they are, just to put together a mixtape worth $1.9 million. Perhaps I could try offering it up for that price on eBay?