gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
gfx gfx
gfx
76507 Posts in 13436 Topics by 2084 Members - Latest Member: MagixMark September 29, 2020, 03:51:50 pm
*
gfx*gfx
gfx
WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional  (Read 578 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Blitzen

  • Forum Member
Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional
« on: July 09, 2010, 09:28:50 pm »

 :D

http://torrentfreak.com/judge-slams-riaa-675k-fine-ruled-unconstitutional-100709

Quote
Another break happened today in the RIAA’s case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, as the $675k fine was reduced by 90%. The judge in the case criticised the RIAA and held that the jury’s damages were unconstitutional. Even the reduced fine is described as “severe, even harsh” by the District Judge.

In the US there have been two major file-sharing cases against individuals that have gone to trial. In both cases the RIAA was initially awarded hundreds and thousands of dollars in damages, but in both cases these were slashed on appeal.

In the RIAA’s case against Jamie Thomas, the jury-awarded damages werereduced significantly as the excessive damages were ruled to be unconstitutional. Today, the same thing has happened with the case against Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum.

The ruling issued by District Judge Nancy Gertner states that the constitutional issues are clear, and that attempting to avoid the constitutional challenges (that the damages are excessive in proportion to the crime) by reducing the damages would be the best way to handle these.

The verdict comes as no surprise to many, and may even come as a relief to the RIAA, who have faced some negative publicity over the damages awarded. It’s unclear, though, if this modification will stand, as the RIAA will have to accept it. If they don’t, a retrial will be called.

Judge Gertner finds a retrial likely, stating in the judgment: “The plaintiffs in this case, however, made it abundantly clear that they were, to put it mildly, going for broke. They stated in open court that they likely would not accept a remitted award.”

“The Constitution protects not only criminal defendants from the imposition of ‘cruel and unusual punishments’, but also civil defendants facing arbitrarily high punitive awards,” Gertner added.


This judgment relieves some of the PR pressure around the RIAA. While they were clearly happy with the height of the damages, hoping it would intimidate filesharers, it also became a rallying cry for others. The reduced damages proposed by Judge Gertner may silence the opposition to some extent, and reduce the impact of campaigns.

Joel Tenenbaum was somewhat relieved upon hearing the verdict. In a telephone interview with the Boston Globe he said: “Obviously, it’s better news than it could have been. But it’s basically equally unpayable to me.”

Even if he could pay it, none of the money – be it $675,000, or $67,500 – would find its way into the pockets of the artists whose songs were involved. The RIAA told TorrentFreak that the damages will be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns instead.

Whether or not there will be a retrial, the current verdict is a blow to their anti-piracy campaigns, while the Constitutional concern may preclude any further strengthening of copyright laws and punishments in the near future.


Offline White Stripes

  • Core
  • *****
  • ***
  • Je suis aimé
Re: Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #1 on: July 10, 2010, 02:42:07 am »
a comment from http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2010/07/675000-verdict-reduced-to-67500-in-sony.html ;

Quote
Ed. note. Since the Court concluded that the actual damages were ~ $1 per work, or $30 total, I don't understand how it arrived at the conclusion that an award of 2250 times that amount passes constitutional muster. -R.B.

while a good thing it was "reduced"... the price is still unpayable.... and imo still unconstitutional...

http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am8.html

i think that inflating the cost of a handfull of songs to the price of a luxury vehicle counts as 'excessive' ... what say the MX masses?

Offline Bluey_412

  • Forum Member
  • I'm Watching...
Re: Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2010, 09:41:01 am »
Even if he could pay it, none of the money – be it $675,000, or $67,500 – would find its way into the pockets of the artists whose songs were involved. The RIAA told TorrentFreak that the damages will be used to fund new anti-piracy campaigns instead..

That, on it's own, stinks...

It just shows further, the RIAA is ripping off artists more so than it rips off its 'customers' (the ones that buy movies/music)

(oh wait, we dont buy the movie or music, just a conditional licence to repeatedly view/listen...)
What you think is important is rarely urgent
But what you think is Urgent is rarely important

Just remember that...

WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Judge Slams RIAA, $675k Fine Ruled Unconstitutional
 

gfxgfx
gfx
©2005-2020 WinMXWorld.com. All Rights Reserved.
SMF 2.0.17 | SMF © 2019, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
Page created in 0.031 seconds with 24 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!