3 ms·

See my reply above. The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. Your "cannot separate"

See my reply above. The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. Your "cannot separate" argument completely misses the point: just because Congress lumps compensatory and punitive damages together in one statute doesn't mean constitutional protections don't apply. If that were the case, Congress would easily legislate its way around every Supreme Court ruling by lumping issues together. Are you arguing there is no punitive element at all to the statutory damages? If so, then why are the damages raised for the exact same conduct if it is "willful?"

seertaak 17y ago
> The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. a) "and thus" is a deduction that you form yourself. At no point did the plaintiffs assert this to be their figure for the financial damages resulting from the defendant's actions. If you can find such a statement in the transcripts, please produce it. b) Even assuming the plaintiffs had made a statement of fact regarding the financial damages wrought by the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted material, there is the significant unknown of the financial damages wrought by the defendant's unauthorized distribution of the material. You conveniently assume that by not providing evidence as to the size of this figure, the plaintiffs, defendants and jury have valued it at zero. This is of course completely wrong. c) Since the financial damages wrought by the defendant's behaviour is the sum of the financial damages wrought by each individual infraction, and the damage of one of those infractions hasn't been determined by either the plaintiffs or the defendants, and moreover, the jury hasn't provided us with the formula they used to arrive to their value of the damages, we have no way of knowing the punitive/compensatory ratio, and your argument breaks down. To look at it somewhat differently, supposing the plaintiffs had only filed suit for unauthorized distribution. What happens to your argument then? Answer: depending on how dim-witted you are, you'll either argue that the ratio is infinite or (more sensibly) you'll acknowledge that the ratio is indeterminate, whence one can't draw any conclusions as to its constitutionality. > Are you arguing there is no punitive element at all to the statutory damages? Of course not. It is right and proper that there is a punitive element to the statutory damages, simply to deter further unauthorized distribution. All I'm saying is that you're not in a position to say that this quantity is (total damages awarded) - $1.
- MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
  "You conveniently assume that by not providing evidence as to the size of this figure, the plaintiffs, defendants and jury have valued it at zero." It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. Cases are dismissed every day for failing this fundamental requirement. But, you say, there's a statute that presumes some level of damages. That's true. What's also true is that the statute authorizes punitive damages, lumped together with actual damages. That's a problem under recent due process / punitive damages jurisprudence. Per the Campbell case, you cannot have punitive damages that grossly exceed the actual damages. Here, actual damages appear to be a single person's use of 30 songs, yet the jury awarded $675,000. There is, quite obviously, a large punitive element. You are not in a position to argue these punitives were only a small fraction of the award, since, as noted above, actual damages proven were, at most, $30. Your argument is that Congress can simply sweep these issues aside, lump them together in a statute, and be done with it. That's not how constitutional law works.
  - seertaak 17y ago
    > It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. ... > That's a problem under recent due process / punitive damages jurisprudence. Per the Campbell case, you cannot have punitive damages that grossly exceed the actual damages. ... > Your argument is that Congress can simply sweep these issues aside, lump them together in a statute, and be done with it. > That's not how constitutional law works. But if we adopt such an uncompromosing position, the maximum possible "constitutional" penalty by your own criteria is surely not more than $5 (for each song). I submit that your constitutional arguments would lead inexorably to a situation in which it is, in effect, impossible uphold copyright ownership. The deterrent to unauthorized distribution is for all practical purposes removed. Moreover, litigation simply due to the costs, becomes economically irrational, removing the only vehicle of redress for any damages inflicted. You are, in other words, proposing to use a relatively expansive constitutional interpretation of due process in order to usurp another explicit constituional right, namely that provided by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "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." I think this stretches constitutional law too far (I would go so far as to say that it makes a mockery of constitutional law -- but, hey, I'm an adherent of originalism). And I would certainly hope and expect that were the supreme court to be presented with such an argument it would reject it as frivolous.

seertaak 17y ago

> The record companies did indeed prove unauthorized use of the songs by Tenenbaum, and thus the approximately $0.99. a) "and thus" is a deduction that you form yourself. At no point did the plaintiffs assert this to be their figure for the financial damages resulting from the defendant's actions. If you can find such a statement in the transcripts, please produce it. b) Even assuming the plaintiffs had made a statement of fact regarding the financial damages wrought by the defendant's unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted material, there is the significant unknown of the financial damages wrought by the defendant's unauthorized distribution of the material. You conveniently assume that by not providing evidence as to the size of this figure, the plaintiffs, defendants and jury have valued it at zero. This is of course completely wrong. c) Since the financial damages wrought by the defendant's behaviour is the sum of the financial damages wrought by each individual infraction, and the damage of one of those infractions hasn't been determined by either the plaintiffs or the defendants, and moreover, the jury hasn't provided us with the formula they used to arrive to their value of the damages, we have no way of knowing the punitive/compensatory ratio, and your argument breaks down. To look at it somewhat differently, supposing the plaintiffs had only filed suit for unauthorized distribution. What happens to your argument then? Answer: depending on how dim-witted you are, you'll either argue that the ratio is infinite or (more sensibly) you'll acknowledge that the ratio is indeterminate, whence one can't draw any conclusions as to its constitutionality. > Are you arguing there is no punitive element at all to the statutory damages? Of course not. It is right and proper that there is a punitive element to the statutory damages, simply to deter further unauthorized distribution. All I'm saying is that you're not in a position to say that this quantity is (total damages awarded) - $1.

MaxwellKennerly 17y ago
"You conveniently assume that by not providing evidence as to the size of this figure, the plaintiffs, defendants and jury have valued it at zero." It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. Cases are dismissed every day for failing this fundamental requirement. But, you say, there's a statute that presumes some level of damages. That's true. What's also true is that the statute authorizes punitive damages, lumped together with actual damages. That's a problem under recent due process / punitive damages jurisprudence. Per the Campbell case, you cannot have punitive damages that grossly exceed the actual damages. Here, actual damages appear to be a single person's use of 30 songs, yet the jury awarded $675,000. There is, quite obviously, a large punitive element. You are not in a position to argue these punitives were only a small fraction of the award, since, as noted above, actual damages proven were, at most, $30. Your argument is that Congress can simply sweep these issues aside, lump them together in a statute, and be done with it. That's not how constitutional law works.
- seertaak 17y ago
  > It's irrelevant what they valued it at: no evidence means no damages. Period. ... > That's a problem under recent due process / punitive damages jurisprudence. Per the Campbell case, you cannot have punitive damages that grossly exceed the actual damages. ... > Your argument is that Congress can simply sweep these issues aside, lump them together in a statute, and be done with it. > That's not how constitutional law works. But if we adopt such an uncompromosing position, the maximum possible "constitutional" penalty by your own criteria is surely not more than $5 (for each song). I submit that your constitutional arguments would lead inexorably to a situation in which it is, in effect, impossible uphold copyright ownership. The deterrent to unauthorized distribution is for all practical purposes removed. Moreover, litigation simply due to the costs, becomes economically irrational, removing the only vehicle of redress for any damages inflicted. You are, in other words, proposing to use a relatively expansive constitutional interpretation of due process in order to usurp another explicit constituional right, namely that provided by Article I, Section 8, Clause 8: "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." I think this stretches constitutional law too far (I would go so far as to say that it makes a mockery of constitutional law -- but, hey, I'm an adherent of originalism). And I would certainly hope and expect that were the supreme court to be presented with such an argument it would reject it as frivolous.