Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks 918
Damon Tog notes a Wired blog posting featuring quotes from a juror who took part in the recent RIAA trial. Some excerpts: "She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars... Spoofing? We're thinking, "Oh my God, you got to be kidding."... She lied. There was no defense. Her defense sucked... I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naive. We're not that stupid up here. I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The jury's job is to determine if she broke the law, not determine if the law makes sense.
We're not stupid up here (Score:5, Insightful)
She could have shoplifted the cds for a few hundred dollars in fines.
More than a preponderence of evidence (Score:4, Insightful)
Dumb (Score:1, Insightful)
Not the question of guilt, but of quantity (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, yeah, she was pretty clearly guilty (e.g. wiping the hard drive after she got in trouble). That's not the issue. It's a question as to whether the ruinous damages were justified.
They weren't.
The jury *was* full of morons... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, $9,250 is ridiculous and doesn't send a message about anything other than the fact that, contrary to the comment of your fellow juror that you do in fact know what's going on in Duluth, you really don't know what the fuck is going on. You awarded money that was originally meant for people who were *SELLING* copyrighted songs, not "sharing" for free.
White Bronco Redux (Score:5, Insightful)
You guys have picked the wrong horse.
Re:More than a preponderence of evidence (Score:2, Insightful)
It wasn't a criminal trial. What are you talking about?
Re:We're not stupid up here (Score:2, Insightful)
Thats a totally different scenario.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They got to choose what her financial penalty was.
They purposefully picked an amount that had absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the financial damages that may have been incurred. This was not a matter of law. This was a bunch of citizens sitting in a room and purposefully deciding to ruin the life of somebody that they didn't like.
the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's assume we agree that the defendant was, as this juror said, an obvious liar, and guilty on all counts.
Should she really lose her house or retirement savings over this?
I'm personally against stealing copyrighted music. But this penalty is waaaaay out of proportion to the crime, IMHO.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
May I introduce you to the U.S. Congress?
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The law says you can't distribute stuff when you don't hold the copyright.
Did she distribute?
She was convicted of distribution. Actually, she was also convicted to pay more than 9000$ for each song she allegedly distributed. But there wasn't a shred of evidence that she distributed anything.
For that simple reason, she should not have been convicted.
Don't get me wrong here. I am no pirate. I fact I am probably one of the few rare examples of people who don't have a single illegal MP3 file or movie. I also believe that pirates should be punished.
But the evidence must be present. No matter how much I dislike pirates, ensuring a fair trial (with appropriate evidence) is far more important that collecting money for the greedy "content industry".
- Jesper
She was made an example of (Score:3, Insightful)
Meanwhile, will it really deter piracy? No. Does the punishment fit the crime? No. They can see all that money slipping away and there's not a thing they can do about it.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree but ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The jury definitely had their minds made up well before their deliberations. They came to the right legal conclusion for the wrong reasons: they felt insulted.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If the appeals court decides, for instance, that the trial judge was wrong in the instructions to the jury in a material way, the case could be retried, but the retrial itself isn't the appeal.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
In a civil trial (such as this one), the judge can set aside the jury's verdict if the judge finds that the jury's findings are unreasonable. So even if the jury hates copyright law and wants to find for the defendant, the judge can still impose liability (especially since there is a $750 per work minimum for infringement, a minimum that the jury cannot ignore).
Re:White Bronco Redux (Score:5, Insightful)
The lesson learned is that the next person who get a fine from the RIAA, and the opportunity to settle had damn sure better have a solid defense if they take it to court. Claiming someone outside your apt hacked your wifi when you don't own a wireless router just won't cut it, even in RedneckVille, USA.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
They were legally required to assign a penalty appropriate to the crime, but they did not do so. They ignored this obligation, choosing instead to "send a message" to a woman who they did not like.
They used the law as a weapon to destroy a person who offended them personally. They succeeded only in proving that feeble people, when given power, tend to abuse it, and that Duluth has plenty of feeble people.
Re:Hegg was certainly no genius: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:4, Insightful)
She would have paid far less if she hadn't wasted the court's time and insulted the intelligence of the Jury.
I support more excessive remedies for people who bring lawsuits or escalate civil action to court under fraudulent circumstances (yes, on both sides of the battlefield).
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:White Bronco Redux (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately the current laws regarding copyright, and it's power in enforcement is completely unjust, and against it's intent.
Not to mention paying a 100 times the common sale value of something as a fine is excessive.
There's one thing I don't understand... (Score:4, Insightful)
OK, let's assume there were 50 to 100 total downloads.
100 downloads, at 0.99 cents a piece (let's be realistic here), equal = 100 dollars!
So, what's the basis to affirm that she should pay $222,000 for 24 songs? This is where the RIAA's case is illogical. They assume that the downloaders will distribute and that this will cause them many losses. But that's THE DOWNLOADERS' FAULT, not hers.
They're making her responsible for what EVERY DOWNLOADER DID. Instead of downloading from her they could have bought a CD (even pirated!) or downloaded from someone else.
And this is where "making available" doesn't equal massive infringement. The fines MUST BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF DOWNLOADS.
Re:We're not stupid up here (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been impossible to distribute 2 million copies in one day. Her lawyer totally failed if he allowed that to be used as a basis.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
One aspect is that, if somebody is not doing well, or has done something wrong, it's ok to kick even more so s/he "learns" and gets better (the stern father penalizes).
Effects are overpopulated prisons, total weak or missing social umbrella and an increasing number of people under poorness level.
The other fact shown here is that people are totally out of touch with financial reality. Financially ruining a life of (is she a single mother?) a person with the idea to doing something "right" shows an overwhelming degree of insensitivity.
I am appalled!
Re:Conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
10,000 time the value of a track isn't not reasonable...at all.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. every juror has an obligation to understand the concept of "jury nullification". End of story.
Don't Lie (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're going to get up and give testimony, don't tell obvious lies.
The jurors have been called away from their everyday lives to sit and listen to an argument between two parties they have no interest in. The least you can do is show them some respect.
If I was on that jury, I would have counted that as a big strike against the defendant as well.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
all people.
Feeble people just need to be given less power in order to start abusing it...
Sorry, juries don't work like you think they do (Score:2, Insightful)
Its obvious from reading some of the jackass comments on here that most of you have a) never served on a jury, and b) have no concept of what a jury does.
Contrary to what a bunch of people here seem to think, a jury does NOT have the option of totally ignoring the law. A jury has only two choices...does the evidence support the plaintiff/prosecution (civil trial/criminal trial) by a preponderance of the evidence/beyond a reasonable doubt (again, civil trial/criminal trial), or does it not. It all boils down to those two choices, and only those two choices. A ruling of "she might have broken a law but the law sucks so we find in her favor/innocent" (again, civil/criminal) is not allowable in most states, and I'd be surprised if its allowable in any.
In the eyes of this jury, not only was she at fault, she blatantly lied to the jury (in their opinion). So not only did they agree with the prosecution that by a preponderance of the evidence she did violate copyright law, they whacked her for thinking they were stupid.
Had I been on this jury and been presented with the same evidence that we've seen in the press, I'd have voted for the plaintiffs also. I'm not sure I would have gone so high on the fine, but I for damned sure would not have let her off at the bottom of the scale either.
Not only was she stupid to not settle beforehand, she's stupid for appealing. What her boneheaded lawyer should now be doing is trying to find out if the record companies would settle for a smaller amount that they have reasonable amount of being able to collect. And maybe now she'll make sure she acquires her music legally, and does not make it available for mass distribution to others...but I doubt she's that smart.
Copyright penalties are DELIBERATELY draconian. (Score:5, Insightful)
Penalties for copyright violations are deliberately draconian and have been since the beginning of the law.
The idea is apparently that:
- It's very hard to identify the violators (or even that a violation took place).
- So only a small fraction will be caught.
- If the penalties are comparable to the actual damage of the offense (a pittance), potential offenders may simply make take the chance - and be rewarded on the average by nearly-free copies.
- So the penalties are set high in proportion to this fraction.
- With high penalties the offenders' bet becomes a losing proposition, a low probability of a big hit. Paying for the content in the first place becomes cheap insurance.
- And with high penalties the copyright holders can make enough from the small fraction they do catch and convict to be "made whole" on their losses from the great mass they miss.
Of course there are problems with this. And the biggest one is with the standard of proof.
Civil law is about making things right. Two roughly equal parties with a dispute go to a court. The court decides which is more likely to be right ("preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The one found to be in the wrong pays the amount needed to make things right. If the one found in the wrong was found to have known what was right and been wrong deliberately, that typically means he pays the wronged party three times the amount of correcting the harm, rather than just the amount.
- Draconian penalties to shift the expected outcome of a rule-breaker's bet is the stuff of criminal law, with its higher standard of proof.
- A person paying, not only for his own misdeeds, but for that of thousands of others, is hardly "setting right" the result of their own misbehavior.
- If the punishment is to be, not three times, but nine thousand times the cost of the alleged offense, how fair is it to use a "more likely than not" standard? If an innocent person is to be put at risk of paying nine thousand times the price of the stuff he allegedly obtained, shouldn't this require a "nine-thousand-to-one" standard to prove the case?
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not "half the purpose of a jury", it's the whole purpose of a jury of the defendant's peers. When the law is wrong, the jury's constitutional, patriotic duty is to overturn the bad law. If not for jury nullification, a jury of peers is useless. Laws are laws and peers or not, a jury would have to uphold them against any benefit to society allowed by removing the bad laws. Except they can nullify bad laws and not have to uphold them.
Only in the case of a good law (i.e. not indefinite copyrights held by non-human, non-individual entities) would a jury need to find the accused guilty.
Re:We're not stupid up here (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
So they could have settled on a penalty of anywhere between $18,000 and $3,600,000? Certainly that upper limit is absurd, but I don't see how that takes the blame out of the jury's hands for choosing $222,000 when they could have chosen something more reasonable.
In Soviet Russia... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Says who?
Even if you had a right to jury nullification (which you don't) the jurors didn't much seem interested in finding for the defendant. The evidence of infringement was overwhelming, the defendant repeatedly lied to avoid a judgment. The jury had the option of fixing penalties at $750 per song. They opted for more than 10x that.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fine the judge, jury, and the useless sack of garbage that is the RIAA if you want.
But in THIS country, evidence is what is used to convict or punish. Not "not gitten no respect" like you seem to imply.
"I support more excessive remedies for people who bring lawsuits or escalate civil action to court under fraudulent circumstances... "
Liar. That sentence is incompatible with the rest of your expressed views.
I really really hope some cop gets a bug in his blue bonnet about you glancing at his well-beaten girlfriend and tasers your ass, throws you in jail under "resisting arrest". After all, it's a bad bad thing to piss off the authorities in your view. The evidence be damned, and fuck you if you are unlucky enough to get noticed.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
I think she was probably informed by the prosecution that she had broken the law. But I could be wrong. Those RIAA lawyers are wacky.
If I'm ever on a jury and I disagree with the spectrum for something like the 'theft' of 'intellectual property,' I'm going with not guilty. I don't think it's fair to charge 220,000 for 25 songs, which works out in the neighborhood of $9,000 per song. Let's just pretend she got songs from 25 different CDs, and that the CDs are $20 apiece. That's only $500 that she could have possibly ACTUALLY stolen. In theory. How about we then fine her half a year's salary, say, ohhhhh $15k, and her kids have to eat ramen, don't get vitamins, and get to go to community college on pell grants. now THAT'S reasonable.
$220k? Not fucking reasonable. At a dollar per song, that's 220,000 people that downloaded it from her. What the fuck? This did not happen. I personally object to the whole thing based on the RIAA's:
1. 100-year reputation of treating artists and consumers like shit
2. argument that copyright infringement is theft, when last time I checked, theft was measured by the material loss of the victim.
3. everything else. I'm getting tired.
-Nathan
Re:White Bronco Redux (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because the British and American systems of law are based on precedents (unlike many European systems that are derived from Roman law), and like it or not, the precedent is now there to fine YOU a quarter of a million dollars for no good reason if this stands.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
That witness does not even validly qualify as an "expert witness" and has had their testimony thrown out of numerous courts as well as being threatened with legal action if they continued their work in the state of Texas. Their "facts" have been proven invalid again and again as well as being laughed at and torn apart here at Slashdot. Unfortunately her lawyer didn't mount a strong attack on this or apparently even object to their ranting in court about all the harm being done by "pirates" as being irrelevent as to the matter of whether or not his client was liable in this particular case. Further, the "expert witness" has been known to break into people's computers to look for evidence, once that happens how can you expect to be able to call anything they "find" on a computer to be valid?
The interviewed juror seemed to think spoofing was an unbelieveable claim just because he didn't know how ("we aren't stupid") and with his comment about his wife you have to wonder if he didn't discuss it with her, which would be a conduct violation on his part. Being as this jury wanted to prove "we aren't stupid around here" then it was likely that in their ignorance they decided to go with the "higher authority" and perceiving that to be the RIAA instead of one individual.
All this case proves is that the system works and I don't mean the Justice System, I mean the one that starts with you being taught to blindly accept authority by the Public School System. The jurors perceived the RIAA as the authority here and accepted all the crap they fed them.
One of the major problems with the civil justice system is that "preponderance of evidence" is too often equated with who produced the most evidence. It is undeniable that a corporation can afford to produce a greater quantity of "evidence" then an individual can and it is almost impossible to prove you did NOT do something. In this case Best Buy even had the sales records where she had purchased the albums that include the songs she was accused of sharing. There was no Kazaa software on her hard drive nor any evidence it had been there. Yes the drive had been replaced but it was testified by the Best Buy tech that this had been done before the alledged events.
She testified she ripped all those songs from cds she owned, RIAA tried to say she couldn't have done it as fast as the times indicated. Feel free to test this, grab a fast entire cd at a time ripper and race it against finding and downloading the same tunes, willing to bet the ripping process wins hands down especially if you have your cd collection right there and run it like the back up operation it is.
There is more that could be said but I am tired of ranting. Maybe Mr. Beckerman will log in and give that "cut and dry" line a proper roasting.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Do you think that's what she was figuring when she was breaking the law:
"I've got a good job and two kids. But you know, I want to get music for free instead of paying for it. So I'll go ahead and break the law and if they catch me I'll tell them I'm a single mother."
Ultimately it's her job to make sure that she provides a good home for her kids. I mean, having kids doesn't suddenly mean that all criminal punishments are reduced because you have to take care of children.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The application of law is already whimsical and often capricious. Bush had the Justice Dept. stop prosecuting Microsoft. Cops have the freedom to not give tickets to friends. DA's have the freedom to (silently) choose not to prosecute for political reasons.
And besides, we can't really expect judges to support the people's overriding of a conviction the judge would like to make. We the People are the final authority in the U.S. system, even if judges, DA's, congressmen, and Presidents claim otherwise. I submit that we just lack the balls to consistently assert our authority.
Re:Not the question of guilt, but of quantity (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
You not only have the right to do so, but the civic duty. In this case, being charged thousands of dollars per song she wasn't commercializing is simply ridiculous.
I agree with you in principle, she broke the law and deserves some kind of punishment. The damage inflicted by her, however, doesn't fit the punishment she recieved.
The pot calling the kettle black. (Score:3, Insightful)
help her out then /. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thankfully I live in Canada where the amount of statutory damages are far more sensible for a crime of this nature. To quote Michael Geist from his blog [michaelgeist.ca]:
Re:Sorry, juries don't work like you think they do (Score:5, Insightful)
Your woeful ignorance of the concept of jury nullification not only bothers me, but it terrifies me. The jury is the final arbiter of truth, and a not guilty verdict cannot be overturned, "legal" or not. It has a long standing tradition in North America, predating the American Revolution. In fact, citizens of the colonies used jury nullification several times to "nullify" laws they found unjust. Since you've served on so many juries, no doubt you noticed that the jury doesn't read the verdict plus a paragraph of reasoning? Jury nullification cannot be truly removed with the current system we have in place.
That said, I also believe that she was shown guilty far beyond what the law calls for.
Re:We're not stupid up here (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is the law. If you don't like the law, change it at the ballots, not the jury box. It's a democracy, after all. If the law was applied based on how the jury feels about the defendant, there'd really be no point in having courts. "Oh, she's a single mother--let's let her off." "Oh, she's disabled, let's let her off." "Oh, she's white! Let's let her off." "Oh, she's black, single mother scamming disability--let's screw her!"
I think the law is retarded. But blaming the jury is like blaming the soldier on the ground in Iraq for the war--he just does what he's told, and not what he thinks should be done.
That juror "never used the internet"! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we can all see the problem here. Anyone in the US who hasn't been on the internet by 2008, well, they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. Also this guy calls her a "liar", while she was off by a year in terms of when she had the HD replaced, she had it replaced *before* the RIAA notified her and the guy who replaced it testified that it was really, honestly broken.
Apparently, there was only one juror who held out for reasonable damages (the $750 minimum) and the $9,250 per song was a compromise.
Naïve? No. Ignorant? Yes.
At least she plans to appeal [freejammie.com].
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
From the Wikipedia article on jury nullification. If the laws are unjust, let them stand and be mocked. Let them be remembered in history as a shameful chapter. But don't take matters into your own hands in a back room.
Re:Geek question... (Score:3, Insightful)
My intimate knowledge of how software "REALLY works" wouldn't really have much to do with this decision. Sure - maybe her IP address or MAC address were spoofed. It's possible, but unlikely, given all of the evidence supplied.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
>Should she really lose her house or retirement savings over this?
Sure. Lie in court to the extent that even the judge and jury understand you are blatantly lying, and you should probably go to prison.
If we accept people being dishonest in court, we have no justice system, and no rule of law.
I don't believe the penalty corresponds to the damage of the original claim, but I don't think any punishment is too severe for a person who lies in court.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words because the system isn't perfect, we should make it worse?
And besides, we can't really expect judges to support the people's overriding of a conviction the judge would like to make. We the People are the final authority in the U.S. system, even if judges, DA's, congressmen, and Presidents claim otherwise. I submit that we just lack the balls to consistently assert our authority.
The jury already has authority on matters of fact, and it's typically the evidence that's lacking when if the judge is out to "get someone". The judge has very little leeway to interpret law, and is likely to get overturned on appeal if he tries. There are in fact supreme courts that only deal with matters of law and whether it was correctly applied. From what I've understood, the primary function of jury nullification is to counteract corrupt laws.
But when the legislative process is working properly, I'd much rather trust the "we the people" that through representative elections vote in congressmen which pass law, rather than the "we the people" biased sample of a dozen, where any single individual is given the authority to fuck the process. To give one member of the public the authority to override the authority of we the people, is not to empower the people.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
OK. So when someone threatens you with a law suit but offers to settle for a much lower amount, you should always settle. Well, if that's how you feel. Your name here on slashdot offends me. It is too close to dick, which is a common euphemism for a penis. I'm going to sue you for 10 Billion dollars. You have the option, of course, for settling for a measly $5 million if you so choose. Since that is so much lower than the total amount (less than 1%), I expect that you will be settling. Send me a message via slashdot with your bank account information so I can go ahead and do a reverse ACH payment and we will consider this little matter closed. I expect you to have the money within a week.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:5, Insightful)
A little hint: it's not because such a jury is going to "weigh the evidence" better than a panel of people who have received training in analyzing legal & evidentiary issues.
It's specifically because the Founders wanted a last-ditch mechanism for common citizens to protect each other if all three branches of government are operating out of the bounds of common sense.
It's only natural that the judicial system try and discourage this kind of thinking (and it's a damn shame that schools don't teach enough American Civics anymore to make people aware of their duties in this area), but that doesn't change the original intent of the Founders, and it's one damn good way for people to push back against an out-of-control government.
It's too bad there aren't more such ways. I personally think that it should be a Constitutional right to vote, regardless of whether you've been convicted of a crime or not (unlike the usual policies of disenfranchising convicted felons).
The way I see it, if your society is running in a healthy way, then there shouldn't be too many criminals & their vote won't have much of an effect on votes/elections.
If the government is heading in a direction where it's criminalizing a large chunk of the populace, however (which is a common tactic when the "leaders" of a society want to disenfranchise people who don't support them), then the votes of the convicted should provide a valuable negative feedback mechanism to the officials being elected to make them think twice about what kinds of laws they are passing.
Re:Jury Instructions... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's called Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. You know, the other half to jury nullification, which itself is nullified when the jury does not obey instructions not to engage in questions of law. Jury nullification is when a jury refuses to punish an individual for violating the law. It is *not* an open-season referendum on whether the law should be enforced.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets start with the notion that copyright is meant to serve the public interest.
Follow that up with the notion that "cruel and unusual" punishment is wrong.
Yesterdays top 40 hits simply aren't worth ruining a civilian's life over.
Re:help her out then /. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want to fuck with the RIAA, a) write a letter to your congresscritter, perhaps along with a campaign donation, and b) don't buy RIAA products. But don't think giving a bunch of money to the RIAA is going to discourage them.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Geek question... (Score:3, Insightful)
It depends on what you want to focus on. It'd be a pretty hard sell to explain to 11 people who have at best a passing familiarity with computers how spoofing and viruses introduce an element of doubt into who has what IP address on a filesharing network. It'd be easier to wonder aloud whether $750/song ($18,000) wouldn't be more than enough deterrent to casual downloading on the defendant's behalf. And it'd probably be easiest to speculate that if there are millions of people on P2P networks at any given point the odds are pretty good that even a steelworker's kids might find their way into some pretty major financial damages on the family computer without his knowledge until it's too late. I think it's easier to change minds when the argument you put forward is in terms that others can understand, process, and judge based on what they know, so if it comes down to explaining technology against trying to work out how long it'd take anybody in the room to pay off $222,000, I'd definitely try the latter approach.
In a federal civil trial the verdict must be unanimous unless both sides agree to a non-unanimous verdict; basically, if you're sufficiently motivated you can stick to your own decision and force a new trial (likely after a few days of being sent back in the little room by the judge and getting 11 people + most of the courtroom frustrated with you.) So -- depending on the Slashdotter -- the result could have been significantly different, but as it depends on either employing persuasive communication techniques or sacrificing personal comfort for the greater good... well, I don't know that I'd put money on it.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is nothing in the Constitution that even REMOTELY implies that juries should have the power to determine which laws are good and which are bad. And the mandate in the Constitution for equal protection under the law completely opposes that argument. The purpose of having a jury of your peers is to have an objective judgment concerning the facts of the case. It is not their role to judge the law.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Irrelevant. There's a reason Thomas Jefferson held trial by jury as more important to democracy than a representative legislature - because ultimately, on issues where the law is in question, the people have to be able to decide a law should not be enforced because the law is wrong.
This is only going to occur in cases when the legislature has profoundly misrepresented the people by passing laws the people don't support (for example, granting ridiculously high damages in copyright cases). THIS is why Jefferson understood that a jury gives people the most power.
Jury nullification IS a right, but one that should be practiced very, very carefully. That some have abused it does not relieve us of its value in a democratic system.
Re:So did the jury ... (Score:4, Insightful)
If mp3 copyright infringement was prosecuted as this case was, 99% of the people aged 15-22 would be in bankruptcy.
This case was akin to being charged a $1,000,000 fine for a speeding citation. The statutory minimum damages are unreasonable, and the jury is even more unreasonable for assigning an even higher fine.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:2, Insightful)
alas no (Score:3, Insightful)
They did try to be nice, in their warped world view, by asking for their original small fine that is piddling in the face of this court ordered fine. I wonder at her intelligence to be honest, she was caught stealing, whatever the nature. They said uploading, but she downloaded too, both aren't especially wise. The best course of action would have been to admit it, pay the small settlement amount and move on. She did bring this upon herself.
I am distressed more by the way the government appeared to applaud the destruction of her life in this manner.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone comes to kill someone and asks you if you know where they are hiding, it is moral to lie.
If someone asks you if you believe in jury nullification, it is moral to like and say "no" since saying "yes" would get you disqualified from the jury. If you do so, you must use any reason besides jury nullification as your reason for finding the defending "not guilty" or you could face contempt charges. However if you just pick some stupid ass reason and stick to it then you are okay. "I just don't believe that she is guilty-- I can't really say why but i just do not believe it. Just a 'gut' feeling, okay?"
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Much as I hate to split hairs... I'm gonna split hairs.
A right is something granted to you by some entity. Nowhere are you given explicit permission to nullify the law. Jury nullification is an option open to a jury as a side effect of the jury being an unquestioned trier of fact in court. It is almost always a bad option. In rare cases has jury nullification been used to block implementation of an unjust law. More often than not it is used to excuse criminal behavior and deny justice to the victims because the jury is biased.
Jury nullification is a "right" the same way the US has the "right" to launch nukes. They are both options always available to their respective parties, they are nearly always very bad ideas, and calling them "rights" is being a bit liberal with the term.
I am not unsympathetic to your position. I am on record at the local superior court as having stated plainly during jury selection that I _will_ hang a jury if I believe a guilty verdict would lead to an execution because I believe that the death penalty is unjust. I still do not see this as a right. I see it as a very undesirable option.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming a US soldier serving in Iraq for Iraq war would be like blaming a Mafia thug for helping enable the crimes of Mafia. US doesn't have conscription, but a voluntary for-pay army. If you choose to take money from it in order to help it in its activities, of your own free will and under no coercion, then of course you can be blamed for taking part in said activities. Why on Earth would US soldiers be exempt from being held accountable for their choices ?
As for the jury, it decided to enforce an unjust law when it had the option of not doing so, and not only that, but ordered higher penalties than the law required. It is guilty as Hell.
Besides, if the jury must uphold the law, then just why are they there ?
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:4, Insightful)
If this woman had downloaded 22 songs and been caught, _then_ turned over the right hard drive and not told lies, taken straight to court with no reasonable offer to settle and been honest, then probably either the jury would've decided on the minimum $750/song penalty or refused to convict. Because then all she would have done would be download a few songs and probably share a few back, total money lost maybe $200 even with the price of a single.
However, what she actually did do was obstruct the police and lie a lot (which juries do not like, especially when it's obvious after the fact that the lies were never going to work), then when she had an offer to settle (which was larger than a 'reasonable offer' would be in the previous case, but after the lies it was probably the best option) she rejected it.
So this jury was not going to be some bunch of totally impartial citizens looking at the money lost by the RIAA only, instead they were a bunch of citizens who probably had lots of better things to do than be grabbed for jury duty, who gave a penalty mainly for lying and acting like an asshat after the downloading. This is why most financial penalties come with a wide range of possibilities: so the jury can either take a bit off if they feel there are mitigating circumstances somehow, or add a bit on if they feel it's necessary. That said, the low end of the range here is far too high.
Short version: if you're on the wrong end of this sort of thing, don't start lying and being obstructive unless you're sure that you can actually get away with it. Instead tell the, truth then if you get a settlement offer below $20/song you probably should take it, otherwise go to court, stand up and say you did download what the prosecution say you did (assuming they don't try to lie which they almost certainly won't) but you do not believe $750/song is reasonable and you hope the jury will agree.
Re:There's one thing I don't understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:alas no (Score:5, Insightful)
There's really few options this person has now.
Re:There's one thing I don't understand... (Score:2, Insightful)
let's assume that the woman DID share the files. OK, let's assume there were 50 to 100 total downloads. 100 downloads, at 0.99 cents a piece (let's be realistic here), equal = 100 dollars!
OR, let's assume there were 800 million downloads...let's see that's about 800 million bucks. This is the problem. Nobody KNOWS how many people got pirate copies of music from her, and just pulling numbers out of your posterior is meaningless, as I have just illustrated.
So, what's the basis to affirm that she should pay $222,000 for 24 songs? This is where the RIAA's case is illogical.
No, that's the law. The RIAA case is every bit as logical as the laws they have bought, thanks to all the "file sharers"
They assume that the downloaders will distribute and that this will cause them many losses. But that's THE DOWNLOADERS' FAULT, not hers.
I would agree, except that it is impossible to find out who did the downloading and many were probably in jurisdictions where the copyright owners of any particular works (not just the evil people of the RIAA, but ANY copyright owners) cannot catch-up with them. THIS woman is, however, a willing accomplice just as a bank employee who willingly helps her friends rob a bank is an accomplice even if she does not end up with any ill-gotten gains
They're making her responsible for what EVERY DOWNLOADER DID. Instead of downloading from her they could have bought a CD (even pirated!) or downloaded from someone else.
Yes, "they" could have done ANYTHING. The anonymous downloaders might have killed somebody too. Who knows? Unfortunately for her, and for all of us, she helped them with the copyright violations and she set bad legal precedents WE will now all have to live with.
And this is where "making available" doesn't equal massive infringement.
It sure does. If you intentionally do it, you have intentionally helped somebody else break the law. Even if that somebody else, gets away with it, there is no guarantee that you will or that you should
The fines MUST BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF DOWNLOADS.
I Agree! Let's assume copies of the MP3 files she "made available" echo around the internet for the next 50 years and get copied on every continent by millions of people. Shall we setup a "tab" for her and just keep adding-up the penalty? What sort of payment system will she be using? Will she be establishing a fund to keep paying when she is an old lady in a nursing home? Never demand true justice...you might get it when what you would rather have is mercy.
"file sharing" of copyrighted works is a fraud and a sham and I am tired of having to live with the resulting side-effects. When you "share" something, you take something you rightfully have and let somebody else have it (temporarily, as in "sharing a book", or permanently as in "sharing half of a sandwich) and you are deprived of it while you are "sharing" it. THIS is the morally "nice" form of sharing your mom tried to teach you. There is nothing morally superior in usurping somebody else's copy RIGHT, and distributing THEIR work to others under YOUR chosen terms and not THEIRS. All the rampant "file sharing" of copyrighted works is what gave the RIAA and MPAA the ability to go to congress and get all the laws (like DMCA), and all the DRM put in place so that we cannot watch and/or listen to ANY of the content we buy on ANY of the devices we own. The lawlessness has had a HUGE impact upon all of us, particularly the people who never did any illegal and unethical "file sharing" of SOMEBODY ELSE'S copyrighted works. I hate the big media companies as much as the next guy, and I stopped buying CDs when they started the lawsuits (I have plenty of good music and can live without newer tracks), but the rampant "file sharing" turned out to be not-so-free. Free as in beer, perhaps (for those willing to do it), but not "free" in any sense that really matters.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
I disagree with you, on principles. She broke the law and, considering what that law is, didn't deserve any kind of punishment.
She did no damage whatsoever: no matter how loudly and how long they'll say it, copyright infrigement isn't thief.
Yes and (Score:2, Insightful)
I am not actually guaranteed a trial by my "peers," but rather by the lowest common denominator of whatever turns up in a completely random sample. Anyone who is intelligent enough to think critically about the situation will be the first pass of the opposing lawyer.
The idea is nice in theory, but falls down in practice.
Aside: this is a fine example of how one person's stupidity makes her dangerous to those around her. Choosing ignorance for bliss is not simply a self-indulgent lifestyle preference, it is also directly harmful to others. I don't look down on stupid people because I am arrogant, but because they are a threat to me.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:5, Insightful)
In Criminal cases, the jury is the sole arbiter of the facts and law. They read the law as given in jury instrcutions as given by the judge, apply them to the facts, and come up with the verdict. Abesnt evidence of serious corruption within the jury room - that's the end of the road and the Prosecution can't bring the case again or ask the judge to overturn the jury (as opposed to the defense who can ask the judge to toss out a guilty verdict.
In a CIVIL case like this, the Judge is the sole arbiter of the law, the jury decides the facts. If the Jury tosses the law out the window and makes a decision which is contrary to law -- the plaintiff may enter a motion for Judgement as a Matter of Law (formerly: Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict.) [this is a summary, post trial JMOL is actually a renewed JMOL, if you want to read up on it.. wikipedia is a good source: here [wikipedia.org].]
Essentially, since the judge has determined that "making available" is a sufficient act to violate a copyright - the question for the jury was "did the defendant make songs available for download." Evidence at trial linked her to the share folder - the kazaa username was the same that the defendant uses on myspace, and a small collection of other sites. She also wiped her drive / possibly handed over a false drive durring discovery (trying to hold back evidence == bad in the eyes of the court - as attempting to flee is evidence of guilt, attempting to hide or destroy evidence is evidence of a guilt.) The judge must then ask (in response to the JMOL) could a reasonable juror reach the conclusion that it is more likely the defendant did NOT make those files available for download? If no - then the JMOL is granted - the jury finding gets tossed, and they move on to determining the damages.
Jury Nulification is NOT for the win in RIAA cases.
-GiH
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Distribution is irrellevant. (Score:3, Insightful)
-copies or phonorecords distributed (which there weren't) and
-they must have been distributed "to the public" (which they weren't) and
-there must have been "sale[s] or other transfer[s] of ownership, or
So, out of all of the required elements, the RIAA proved exactly..... none. And under the jury instructions, were required to prove exactly..... none.
Re:the fine didn't fit the crime (Score:1, Insightful)