5 ms·
Obama administration defends $222,000 file-sharing verdict
- teilo 14y agoWhat is it with these administrations in recent years urging the Supreme Court not to do it's job? I admit, I have not studied the history of such particular requests from the justice department, but I do not remember hearing so many of them from previous administrations. By "previous" I mean before Bush, since if memory serves, W did a lot of this as well.
- taeric 14y agoTo be fair, you are pretty much limiting the search to "pre internet." My understanding is that the level of visibility into everything has increased more than can really be considered. Personally, I do not consider this a bad thing.
- rayiner 14y agoThe DOJ will always weigh in on the side of asking the Supreme Court not to invalidate the Constitutionality of a law. It's part of their job. The decision to not defend the constitutionality of DOMA was quite controversial actually. I think the reason it seems worse in this administration is because Obama's DOJ is fucking bad at public relations. Their understanding of the optics of cases is unusually bad.
- grecy 14y agoDisgusting that the executive branch is sticking it's nose into copyright law and the Supreme Court. Does anyone care the highest office in the country has been bought?
- tptacek 14y agoConstitutionally incoherent argument is constitutionally incoherent. The executive branch houses the DOJ, which is charged with the enforcement of all laws.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- justin66 14y ago> Disgusting that the executive branch is sticking it's nose into copyright law and the Supreme Court. The executive branch is involved whether they want to be or not. Since these people were tried under federal law by federal prosecutors, it would be weird for federal prosecutors (employed by the executive branch, remember) to simply stop communicating during the appeals process. It's the expected behavior for them to put a position forward. The good news is that the Supreme Court is under no obligation to do as the executive asks.
- habitue 14y agoJust in case anyone was not aware (or is shocked by this), the Obama administration has very close ties to the copyright industry: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/04/obama-taps-fift/ It is entirely unsurprising they would react in this way
- tptacek 14y agoGovernment attorneys defend by-the-books application of decades-old federal law. Film at 11.
- vishaldpatel 14y agoGovernment attorneys fail to act on behalf of the people. Film at 11.
- tptacek 14y agoGovernment attorneys fail to act on behalf of the people I favor. Film at 11. Fixed that for you. :)
- burke 14y agoYes and no. There's a clear divide in this case between corporate and personal interests. America wasn't originally all about defending corporate rights more vigorously than personal ones.
- rayiner 14y agoYes, it's a stupid verdict. Yes, the defendant's reasoning that the statutory damages in this case be analogized to unconstitutional punitive damages is a very compelling one. That being said, the DOJ is basically Congress's lawyer. It is obligated to defend Congress's laws from Constitutional challenges.
- habitue 14y agoIt seems, the POTUS has discretion in telling the Justice Department what to pursue: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconstitutional_n_827134.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconsti...
- tptacek 14y agoHere's 'tzs on Jammie-Thomas Rasset: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2140293 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2140293 Here's another: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4781933 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4781933 She's not a very sympathetic defendant. [Late edit: I should be more careful, since the case could be made that she's being taken advantage of by unscrupulous attorneys, and it's they who are unsympathetic.] [Even later: I thought it was 'tzs who had pointed out that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had also lied under oath, first claiming that her relatives had been behind the downloaded files, but eventually admitting that it was her; ultimately, the narrative I picked up was, "the RIAA offered to settle for $5k, but instead she went to court with a defense so ludicrous she had to disavow it on the stand; she achieved a retrial, at which point she was again offered a $5k settlement by the RIAA, which she again refused". That is, for what it's worth, what seems to have happened, but I'm not sure that whole story is attributable to 'tzs.]
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- MichaelGG 14y agotzs's comments boil down to "she could have settled for less, it's the court's fault the fines are so high". AS tzs points out, the fines were created with no intention of punishing individuals without a commercial incentive. Applying the law as-is isn't justice, as obviously a lot of people feel. The fact she could have gotten off with less doesn't change the feeling people have that it's wrong, regardless of the legal standing.
- tptacek 14y agoYou know, I would love for this to be one of those rare occasions when I can get behind the prevailing sentiment on HN, because $220,000 for noncommercial music piracy sounds as crazy to me as it does to you. But then I remember that Thomas-Rasset lied under oath, so clumsily that her own expert witness wound up testifying against her at trial. And despite that, despite losing the trial so badly that jurors were interviewed as flat out calling her a "liar", she was again offered the same actual-damages $5000 settlement. And instead of just accepting that, she forced everyone back to court a second time. And then a third time. And then to a federal appeals court. And now to the Supreme Court.
- hakaaaaak 14y ago"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States." Hmm. Nothing in there about getting involved in potential supreme court cases.
- tptacek 14y agoThey're not telling SCOTUS what to do. They're filing a brief with the court. That's what they're supposed to do. When I go to traffic court to contest a ticket, I'm not "telling the judge what to do".
- hakaaaaak 14y agoPoint taken. Edited language to indicate they are only "getting involved"...
- deleted 14y ago
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- orthecreedence 14y agoYeah, we should, like, you know, like, be able to listen to music without paying for it. Artists should make, like, music for free and I can go to my job and work for free and it would be ok because food and cars would be free and we could all live out in the fields and dance to free music every night, you know?
- dmauro 14y agoStrawman much?
- orthecreedence 14y agoHow is that a straw man? I was attacking his (now deleted) point of view using exaggerated sarcasm.
- thbrown23 14y agoI'm glad for not living in a country with so many cases of legal bullying for small cases of copyright infringement.
- dmauro 14y agoThat quote from the solicitor general upset me enough that I decided I would go right ahead and petition the White House to address this issue. We've got this great democratic resource, so I figured I may as well use it. Please sign and share: http://wh.gov/dZCl http://wh.gov/dZCl
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]