Nearly two years ago, the Bush administration sided with the major record labels in their civil lawsuit against an alleged and briefly famous Kazaa user named Jammie Thomas. Now the Obama administration is doing so as well.
In a legal brief filed on Friday, the US Department of Justice said the $1.92m (£1.17m) fine that the Recording Industry Association of America imposed on Thomas was perfectly constitutional.
Federal prosecutors argue that the relevant law is "carefully crafted" and consistent with "due process" and part of a necessary "regime to protect intellectual property". Under current law, copyright holders can sue for up to $150,000 per work (such as an MP3 file, DVD or book).
Their brief adds: "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed." It does not take a position on issues other than the constitutional ones.
In the case of Jammie Thomas — now Jammie Thomas-Rasset — a jury decided that she had wilfully infringed copyrights on 24 songs, and it awarded the RIAA a total of $222,000. Her lawyers successfully argued for a new trial, in which the RIAA won $80,000 per song in damages, or a total of $1.92m.
Now her lawyers are asking for a third trial on grounds that the total fine is unreasonably, and even unconstitutionally, high.
Thomas's attorneys' brief filed last month says the up-to-$150,000-per-song statutory damages "bear no reasonable relation to the actual injury suffered by the plaintiffs. The damages awarded are grossly in excess of any reasonable estimate of that injury... An award of statutory damages of $1.92m for 24 songs assessed as punishment, not compensation, shocks the conscience and must be set aside".
The Obama Justice Department's arguments echo the ones made by the Bush Justice Department in a December 2007 brief, which said: "Congress has crafted a statute that serves as a deterrent to those infringing parties who think they will go undetected in committing this great public wrong."
Friday's filing was not unexpected; for one thing, the Justice Department is generally tasked with defending acts of Congress from legal challenges. It sided with the RIAA in a recent Massachusetts case, and in an unrelated peer-to-peer case in New York.
The RIAA has said it is willing to settle its Minnesota case against Thomas for far less than the seven-figure sum it is now owed. "It was a jury of regular folks who rendered this decision," Jonathan Lamy, a spokesperson for the RIAA, said in June. "We do not seek any specific damage awards. For the few existing cases, this verdict is a reminder of the clarity of the law. "With any case, including that of Ms Thomas-Rasset, we seek to settle these out of court. We stand ready and willing to talk settlement with Ms Thomas-Rasset or anyone. "We think that's most beneficial for everyone involved."
One of the RIAA attorneys in the Thomas case was Donald Verrilli of Jenner and Block in Washington, DC. In February, Obama named Verrilli to a senior Justice Department post as associate deputy attorney general.
Talkback
is, by admission, scapegoat tactics. Make an exteme example to deter others. No wonder Gary doesn't want to be extradited, as all the signs are there that he'll be scapegoated - unless, perhaps, America would seek to avoid international embarrassment consequent on an extreme sentence.
I pity Jammie, her life must be a misery at the moment.
Maybe this is one of the ways Obama is planning to pay for his government takeover of the nations health care system.
"Federal prosecutors argue that the relevant law is "carefully crafted" and consistent with "due process" and part of a necessary "regime to protect intellectual property". Under current law, copyright holders can sue for up to $150,000 per work (such as an MP3 file, DVD or book)."
Yet again big industry cheats its way to victory the true definition of the above is clearly a referral to other businesses or individuals profiteering of the back of others copy righted material as in "SELLING IT".
As Jammie was not doing this then this cannot be applied to the constraints of her case even if they is no other classification available for an individual basis such as this.
"Federal prosecutors argue that the relevant law is "carefully crafted"
We'll they would thats the whole basis of there case crack this nut open and you show that the current implementation of this law falters when it comes to cases like this, and therefore destroying there interpretation of it along the way.
No wonder the riaa are wanting to settle this quietly they have every intention of abusing this path again in the future, and thus trying to pound there will into the people.
Jammie's legal team could also argue the fact that many file sharing programs do so without the user's knowing, they is already an ongoing investigation involving US governmental departments employee's using file sharing programs at work, who have unwittingly shared classified material around the world already.
You can't have it for one and then not the other.