Appeals Court Reinstates $675,000 File Sharing Verdict

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Remember the college kid that had his file sharing case reduced to $67k because the judge felt the original amount was "unconstitutionally excessive?" Well, it looks like the original amount of $675,000 for 30 songs has been reinstated. :(

A federal appeals court on Friday reinstated a whopping $675,000 file sharing verdict that a jury levied against a Boston college student for making 30 tracks of music available on a peer-to-peer network.
Click to expand...
 
The system has failed. Really going after a college kid for 675k is so stupid. He's basically going to have to go bankrupt and ruin his life because of these greedy A-Holes.
 
Arcticfox04 said:
The system has failed. Really going after a college kid for 675k is so stupid. He's basically going to have to go bankrupt and ruin his life because of these greedy A-Holes.
Click to expand...

I agree these student loan corporations are way out of control....oh wait....ha! :D

Same outcome though.
 
now he is going to appeal it again,

even if he ultimately loses, he will just declare bankruptcy...:D
 
Arcticfox04 said:
The system has failed. Really going after a college kid for 675k is so stupid. He's basically going to have to go bankrupt and ruin his life because of these greedy A-Holes.
Click to expand...

This debt was classified as a court reward, bankruptcy wouldn't absolve him on it. He's basically doomed to have the RIAA garnish his wages for the rest of his life, or if he ever has something happen like winning the lottery he'll have to hand that right over. Yet, if he'd taken an actual physical copy he'd have been looking at maybe a few weeks in jail maximum on a misdemeanor (and with jail overcrowding there's a chance it would have been reduced to probation entirely if this was his first run in with the court system)
 
Meanwhile in Milwaukee raping your child is less of a punishment and you can be reunited with your family.
 
The Gonz said:
I agree these student loan corporations are way out of control....oh wait....ha! :D

Same outcome though.
Click to expand...

One of the last things the Bush administration was able to push through was bankruptcy reforms. Under 11 USC 523(a)(8) an exception is outlined for student loans - in other words you can't get rid of them by declaring bankruptcy anymore.
 
Ualdayan said:
This debt was classified as a court reward, bankruptcy wouldn't absolve him on it. He's basically doomed to have the RIAA garnish his wages for the rest of his life, or if he ever has something happen like winning the lottery he'll have to hand that right over. Yet, if he'd taken an actual physical copy he'd have been looking at maybe a few weeks in jail maximum on a misdemeanor (and with jail overcrowding there's a chance it would have been reduced to probation entirely if this was his first run in with the court system)
Click to expand...

Just so there is no confusion he didn't download a copy of the music (aka taking a CD from a store).
He made available on the P2P network, music for sharing (aka distributing out of his car).

That is much worse obviously but the penalty is still excessive. Just a clarification of why it is so.
 
This is when you start not paying taxes, nothing to report, they can't automatically take anything. Or just get payed in cash.
 
Apparently no one cares that it is the 8th amendment to the Constitution of the United States that no excessive fines shall be imposed. The courts seem to have an issue with the word excessive but to me it is very simple, if person's (income * 2) < fine then the fine is excessive. I don't care if anyone says $250,000 per offense or even $1 per offense, if a person cannot pay the fine levied on them by with 2 full years of their income, the fine is already beyond excessive.
 
Time for imigration to France (if you don't know why google Polansky case :D)

Anyway i wonder how much it costed RIAA in "donation" to the law systym ;)
 
Ualdayan said:
One of the last things the Bush administration was able to push through was bankruptcy reforms. Under 11 USC 523(a)(8) an exception is outlined for student loans - in other words you can't get rid of them by declaring bankruptcy anymore.
Click to expand...

Could you ever get rid of them? A roomie of mine from college came down with cancer (and no insurance) and wound up in bankruptcy as the medical bills mounted. His student loans never went away, and this was back in the early '90s.
 
Do you feel the government is corrupted by corporations? Have no money and want some music, say about 30 songs? Economy in the shitter? Can't find a job cause they've been moved overseas? Don't know why you haven't killed yourself yet?

Well, what you need is a unrealistic charge of $675,000 for 30 songs you probably stopped listening to long ago. Killing yourself has never been easier. Cause you know you'll never make that amount of money 10 years. Just remember freedom isn't free!
 
If he doesn't pay, does he go to jail and add to those costs?

If they wanted $2,000 they would probably get it without all this effort. Still a lot just for music uploads, but something.
 
You can't file bankruptcy on student loans ever. Most other things you can.

What they are doing here is wrong. I could go on and on with this topic, but I will stop myself now...
 
If we, the people, don't strike in favor of this, RIGHT NOW, the constitution is as good as dead.
 
Ok. let's look at this reasonably.

He shared 30 songs, which can be purchased legally for $0.99 each. Lets assume that each song was downloaded even 20 times (which seems kind of high) Maybe 5 of these downloads per song were from people who actually would have bought the song if they couldn't pirate it for free.

So actual damages are at most $150.

So they want to discourage people from doing this? Sure, I can see that. So add punitive damages. Standard practice seems to suggest a ratio of 4:1 for punitive damages is appropriate, so this kids actual amount should be $750, not $675,000...

The verdict is 900 times too high.

I'm all for acquiring your music legally, but this is just insane. Someone needs to stop these ruthless pieces of shit in the RIAA.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
You can't file bankruptcy on student loans ever. Most other things you can.
Click to expand...

It's insane but its true. The banks have paid so much money to politicians so that they get their own protections.

The purpose of bankruptcy is to restructure your debt so you can actually pay it, in extreme cases where all else has failed. There should be NO exclusions to debt write offs by bankruptcy.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037770590 said:
Ok. let's look at this reasonably.

He shared 30 songs, which can be purchased legally for $0.99 each. Lets assume that each song was downloaded even 20 times (which seems kind of high) Maybe 5 of these downloads per song were from people who actually would have bought the song if they couldn't pirate it for free.

So actual damages are at most $150.

So they want to discourage people from doing this? Sure, I can see that. So add punitive damages. Standard practice seems to suggest a ratio of 4:1 for punitive damages is appropriate, so this kids actual amount should be $750, not $675,000...

The verdict is 900 times too high.

I'm all for acquiring your music legally, but this is just insane. Someone needs to stop these ruthless pieces of shit in the RIAA.
Click to expand...

Actually, I was wrong... A 4:1 punitive to compensatory damages ratio is what has been established as being too high to be constitutional... So that $750 figure should be even lower!

There is no maximum dollar amount of punitive damages that a defendant can be ordered to pay. In response to judges and juries which award high punitive damages verdicts, the Supreme Court of the United States has made several decisions which limit awards of punitive damages through the due process of law clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In a number of cases, the Court has indicated that a 4:1 ratio between punitive and compensatory damages is high enough to lead to a finding of constitutional impropriety, and that any ratio of 10:1 or higher is almost certainly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
 
Arcticfox04 said:
The system has failed. Really going after a college kid for 675k is so stupid. He's basically going to have to go bankrupt and ruin his life because of these greedy A-Holes.
Click to expand...

I would go bankrupt just so they didn't get shit.
 
TechLarry said:
I would go bankrupt just so they didn't get shit.
Click to expand...

As has been stated earlier in this thread, court awards are on the growing list of liabilities which can't be thrown out in bankruptcy court.

Bankruptcy laws have changed significantly over the last several years to benefit corporations with large sums of money to spend on lobbyists and campaign donations...
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
They can't imprison you for not paying. However they can destroy your life to the point of it not being worth living.
Click to expand...

The guy got hit by the RIAA Mafia to the tune of nearly 3/4 of a million dollars. I think he's pretty much destroyed.

Over 30 songs.

What a fine group of bastards they are. I'd have this story plastered over every newspaper that would listen.
 
Zarathustra[H];1037770590 said:
Ok. let's look at this reasonably.

He shared 30 songs, which can be purchased legally for $0.99 each. Lets assume that each song was downloaded even 20 times (which seems kind of high) Maybe 5 of these downloads per song were from people who actually would have bought the song if they couldn't pirate it for free.

So actual damages are at most $150.

So they want to discourage people from doing this? Sure, I can see that. So add punitive damages. Standard practice seems to suggest a ratio of 4:1 for punitive damages is appropriate, so this kids actual amount should be $750, not $675,000...

The verdict is 900 times too high.

I'm all for acquiring your music legally, but this is just insane. Someone needs to stop these ruthless pieces of shit in the RIAA.
Click to expand...
This is a scare tactic they use to try and discourage people from doing this. This is what the IRS did way back. They literally went after people, to use them as an example. Destroying peoples lives, for no reason but to set an example.

The idea is that what is the cost of corporate profits? The cost is someones life. Quiet a lot of lives. The cost of $750 is not something that'll discourage people from piracy, but $675,000 will keep you awake at night, wondering if police started going door to door to see if you legally bought that music on your iPod.

The tactic works, and is a horrible thing to do to any human being. Most companies don't even get fines that large, so why do this to a human being?
 
I love reading the political fallout after these rullings.
Say each song costed $1, we'll pretend that he bought them off iTunes for $1.25.
So he personally stole $37.50 worth of music.
He would have had to contributed to 18000 downlads for the fine to meet the money lost by the labels.

That's possible I suppose but it seems like a lot.

Then again perhaps the fine was not intended to be equal to the money lost by the labels but equal to the money lost by the labels plus their lawyer fees. In which case $675000 makes a lot more sense.
 
Wow, that is just beyond crazy. There is absolutely no way for him to ever pay that off.

If they wanted to make an example of things, couldn't they just fine many people for large (but not life ruining) amounts of money? That way it would still get media coverage but not completely ruin someones life to the point where they can't ever recover and still be a serious deterrent.

Maybe I am just crazy though, I don't understand how these laws and stuff work :/
 
LurkerLito said:
Apparently no one cares that it is the 8th amendment to the Constitution of the United States that no excessive fines shall be imposed. The courts seem to have an issue with the word excessive but to me it is very simple, if person's (income * 2) < fine then the fine is excessive. I don't care if anyone says $250,000 per offense or even $1 per offense, if a person cannot pay the fine levied on them by with 2 full years of their income, the fine is already beyond excessive.
Click to expand...

The 8th amendmnent applies to criminal penalties only...not civil (which this case is).

Don't like it? Don't pirate other peoples property...problem solved.
 
fatrat said:
The 8th amendmnent applies to criminal penalties only...not civil (which this case is).

Don't like it? Don't pirate other peoples property...problem solved.
Click to expand...

If you think $675,000 is justified, you're likely part of the problem.
 
The Obama administration argued in support of the original award...
Click to expand...
Seriously people, we can only blame ourselves. Vote for people like Ron Paul, or don't be surprised when our government pulls this kind of crap on us.
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
They can't imprison you for not paying. However they can destroy your life to the point of it not being worth living.
Click to expand...

Well, he can upload more music and try to make some profit somehow for food. Why not, at this point?

After foreiting assets, I'm sure poor credit rating would factor into finding employment, so it's cyclical.
 
fatrat said:
When you create something of value you want to sell for money to the public....then you will understand. :)
Click to expand...

I am all for penalizing people for crimes. But, the punishment has to fit the crime. This is equivalent to getting the death sentence for jaywalking.
 
Ualdayan said:
One of the last things the Bush administration was able to push through was bankruptcy reforms. Under 11 USC 523(a)(8) an exception is outlined for student loans - in other words you can't get rid of them by declaring bankruptcy anymore.
Click to expand...
You just have to become a perpetual student for life, then you don't have to pay them while you're enrolled in school. Or get a hardship deferment (hey, these are hard times). Or, as I recently found out, if you become disabled you can get them discharged. If only I'd known, 6 years ago, before I made all those overpayments (so nice of them not to tell me I could do that).
 
singe_101 said:
Well, he can upload more music and try to make some profit somehow for food. Why not, at this point?

After foreiting assets, I'm sure poor credit rating would factor into finding employment, so it's cyclical.
Click to expand...

Lesson: When you make poor choices, don't be surprised when they bite you in the ass for years to come.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top