US Dept. of Justice May Intervene To Help RIAA

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "In a Corpus Christi, Texas, case, Atlantic v. Boggs, where the defendant interposed a counterclaim alleging that the RIAA's $750-per-song file damages theory is unconstitutional, and the RIAA moved to dismiss the counterclaim, the US Department of Justice has sought and obtained an extension of time in which to decide whether to intervene in the case on the side of the RIAA. What probably precipitated the issue is that the constitutional question was raised not just as a defense as it was in UMG v. Lindor, but as a counterclaim, thus prompting a dismissal motion by the RIAA."

Burden in counterclaim?

[EveryNickIsTaken]

Is it now the responsibility of the RIAA / US DOJ to show that the $750/song is constitutional? Or is it the defendant's responsibility to show it is unconstitutional? How would this work?

Re:Burden in counterclaim?

[JamesRose]

Generally the person making the claim has to prove that the claim they are making is true, not the otherway round. If it were used in the persons defence against the RIAA that 750/song was unconstitutional then it may be the other way round, but IANAL.

Re:So much for the government working for the peop

[TheRealMindChild]

You know the REAL problem here? Is they DON'T work for you, and they don't really CARE what you say you want. And the kicker is, they will likely STILL get reelected.

Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?!

[nuzak]

It's not even about contributions. They have money, therefore they are afforded respect and deference at our own expense. They're "good for the economy". They don't have to give much of the money away at all, just show it off, much like a peacock's feathers, or my preferred analogy, a baboon's ass.

Anything that's Good For The Economy is what Must Be Done. All other pursuits, goals, and ideals of this country are secondary to The Economy.

Re:Burden in counterclaim?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that part's done by the legislature. The executive has to assume that the will of the people has been correctly expressed by the legislature, which is why it has a duty to defend the constitutionality of the laws passed.

Re:So much for the government working for the peop

[krgallagher]

"We voted for you."

Did you really vote? If so it is a matter of record that the politicians can look up.

"You work for us."

They only work for voters and supporters. The best way to get your opinion heard is to vote and contribute to campaigns. BTW, contributing to the opposing candidate works too. Campaign contributions are a matter of public record. If you say "I will support your opponent in the next elections." they can check if you have ever supported any candidates before. If not they will treat it as an empty threat.

"We want you to tell the RIAA to f**k off."

Have you actually told your congressman this? I email [house.gov] my congressman regularly on issues that are important to me. I hope you do as well.

Re:Two

[thefergus]

Agreed. That's about as *on* topic a response as you can have!

Perhaps someone fears allusion over illusion...

Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?!

[Johnny5000]

How funny that our tax dollars are being used to help a beligerant corporation make it's case, but why doesn't the common citizen get such help?

Maybe I'm missing something here...

You're not missing anything.

The government doesn't even pretend to be on the side of the 'little guy' anymore.
They used to at least give lip service to the idea, but now they don't even try to hide their kleptocracy.

Re:Twinkies don't work that way

[vux984]

You obviously don't steal many Twinkies (or at least you don't often get bust for it).

Apparently neither do you.

If people just get fined retail value when they steal something, then there is no punitive/discouragement factor.

You are absolutely correct. A punishment component is both reasonable and required.

So for stealing a twinkie, $1.00 for the twinkie and $750 punitive fine is a perfectly reasonable judgement. However, if you stole a case of 100 twinkies instead of just one, what should your penalty be then? Would it be say, a single conviction, with a judgement of $100 for the twinkies plus $750 punitive fine or maybe even $800 or $900 in punitive damages? That seems fair to me.

Or would it be 100 convictions, each with a separate fine of $1 + $750 resulting in a $75,000 fine for stealing 100 twinkies.

THAT is how copyright infringement penalties works. There is a statutory $750 fine for each work that is infringed. The courts can't lower that amount, that minimum is right in the law.

There needs to be some sort of punitive damages to discourage further activity. $750 per song is probably a bit steep, but charging any reasonable flat rate per song is probably a crazy way to address the issue. Perhaps they should fine $1 per song plus some punitive damages ($500 for up to 10 songs, $1000 for more).

Yes. But their isn't, and the courts can't apply that scale even if they wanted to. The law requires that they be charged $750 per title infringed. Of course the RIAA is willing to 'settle' for far less... their 'good guys' after all.

But in the final analysis, a law that requires $375,000 in punitive damages for putting a few dozen cds on a web server, when the songs can be bought on itunes for $1 each is massively excessive, and that excessiveness can render it unconstitutional.

Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?!

[Danse]

Now and again he does: Civil Rights Act of 1964,

Now if only a bunch of CEOs would have to go through what the civil rights activists went through in order to get these favors from the government, I might be ok with it.

Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?!

[Adambomb]

Which is interesting since the US economy and the value of US currency versus most first-world currencies has been nose-diving pretty handily in the past decade.

Re:So much for the government working for the peop

[Danse]

They only work for voters and supporters

No, they only work for supporters. They will comply with voters if enough of them raise a big enough stink. That's largely what's wrong with government today. It's all about the money. Career politicians, corporations and lobbyists are running the show, and people keep voting them back into office, or at best replacing one career politician with another. This is, in turn, largely due to the ridiculous election system we have, along with gerrymandering to keep incumbents safe. We need a lot of changes if things are ever going to get better.

Re:An excellent idea

[SoulRider]

Damn, if that site isnt satire Im buying a gun.

While it may be going for the moon

[Sycraft-fu]

I think it is an extremely important challenge. The concept of "punishment fitting the crime" is more than just an ideal to be upheld in American law, it is actually part of the Constitution. You know, the whole "nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted," thing. Seems pretty easy to argue that the statutory fines in copyright cases are excessive in relation to the actual harm. Would be the same kind of deal if a simple speeding ticket for going 5 miles an hour over carried a $5,000 fine or something.

I'm glad someone is finally pushing the issue of the excessive fines. Actually what I'd really like to see challenged is copyright lengths themselves. The Constitution has something to say on that as well, specifically "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." Not hard to see how current copyright lengths violate both the "to promote progress" part and the "limited times" part.

Re:So much for the government working for the peop

[goldspider]

This [slashdot.org]

I understand; Slashbots are supposed to react to both the RIAA and politicians with knee-jerk indignation, regardless of how little they understand the matter at hand.

Re:the DoJ is required to consider it

[conspirator57]

Yes, but there is a soft societal limit to "outrageous." For moneylenders, we call this usury. Obviously this varies according to your society. In Japan, usury used to begin @ 100% interest. In the US, it's typically ~30%. A bit off topic, but a good example.

On topic, those of us in Virginia are variously upset over civil penalties for a variety of traffic violations. They start @ $1000 and go up from there.

So, yes moderately disproportionate penalties are a deterrent, but at a certain point they become a weapon. The defendant argues that the RIAA are employing the damages portion of the copyright act as a weapon to extort the lower "settlement" fees from him unjustly. And given the other areas they've behaved like thugs in his case, he's probably in the right. For instance, RIAA filed for summary judgment asserting that the defendant hadn't appeared, when in fact there are court transcripts that place the RIAA lawyer and the defendant in the same room at a pretrial conference.

Re:You forget you can't spell DMCA without the *D*

[Anonymous Coward]

Bigger hint: It's BOTH parties. BOTH parties are in the pockets of the corporations. Like the Soviets, here in the USSA we have only one party: the Republicrats. This party actually has two wings. One wing wants to tax and spend, the other wing wants to borrow and spend. One wing is for the corporations, while the other wing is for the corporations.

Unlike the Soviets, the Republicrat Party has convinced the citizens of the USSA that their vote does indeed count (at least the 45% of the citizens of the USSA who actually go to the polls). And they have convinced the 45% who go to the polls that the 55% who don't are apathetic. Well actually they are, who cares which one wins when neither has our interests at heart?

The corporations, each and every one of them, finance the USSA's elections 100%. Each corporation "contributes" to both wings of The Party.

When that great American corporation Sony can "donate" to both major parties of an election, it doesn't care who loses, Sony wins.

Shortly after they start snowball fighting in hell there will be two laws passed.

1. It will be illegal to donate to more than one candidate in any given race, as bribery is WRONG.
2. It will be illegal to donate to any candidate one is not eligible to cast a vote for. I can't vote for Senator Hatch's opponent without moving to Utah and registering there, Bill Gates can't donate to Dick Durbin without moving to Illinois and registering here, and neither my employer nor my union can donate to anybody at all.

-mcgrew (splitting my vote vetween the Libertarians and Greens. I won't waste my vote on someone who not only doesn't represent me, but represents those whose interests are diametrically opposed to mine).

Re:An excellent idea

[merreborn]

The reader comments on STR are pretty sad. Apparently your average blog reader is too dim to grasp satire.

Re:DoJ is helping out a huge corporation?!

[JesseMcDonald]

Which is interesting since the US economy and the value of US currency versus most first-world currencies has been nose-diving pretty handily in the past decade.

Well, that's what happens when you proceed to take anti-economical actions (e.g. anything political) "for the good of the economy". Just because economic improvement is their excuse (and maybe their goal) does not mean that political means are suited to achieving such an end.

The use of economic (non-aggressive) means strengthens the economy. Political means (aggression) can only undermine it, however good one's intentions might be.