| |
Obama Supports $675K File Sharing Verdict | Threat Level | Wired.com
by Decius at 12:27 pm EST, Jan 21, 2010 |
The Obama administration is backing $675,000 in damages a Massachusetts student must pay the Recording Industry Association of America for file sharing 30 songs.
1. Liberals who argued in the run up to the 2008 election that Obama's administration was not going to be staffed with copyright maximalists and that Biden's influence would mostly relate to foreign policy have been totally discredited. Obama is a copyright maximalist. 2. The Eight Amendment apparently doesn't apply to Jury awards in civil trials. 3. There is probably a fundamental problem here that requires a new Constitutional Amendment, as Congress can create excessive statutory damages on behalf of campaign donors who can collect through the civil court system. There is a direct profit model possible here - fund Congress person, get law, file suit, collect excessive damages, profit, repeat. Conservatives might argue that modern tort law is operating off this very business model today, but generally conservative interest groups support copyright maximalism, so they won't make that argument in this context. 4. The courts may uphold the 1.9 million dollar file sharing fine. 5. If that fine is ultimately upheld it may galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists. 6. If a 1.9 million dollar fine doesn't galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists, nothing ever will. Those interests may have too much control over what people think to ever have their interests threatened. |
| |
RE: Obama Supports $675K File Sharing Verdict | Threat Level | Wired.com
by noteworthy at 7:20 pm EST, Jan 21, 2010 |
Decius wrote: The courts may uphold the 1.9 million dollar file sharing fine. If that fine is ultimately upheld it may galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists. If a 1.9 million dollar fine doesn't galvanize broad political opposition to the copyright maximalists, nothing ever will.
The maximalists' strategy of extremely selective enforcement would seem to reduce the likelihood that a critical mass of the electorate will feel a personal connection to the issue. Imagine a scenario in which drug use is a capital crime, but there are no virtually enforcement actions. In this scenario, drug use is pervasive in society. Of the few enforcement actions, nearly all are settled out of court and result only in relatively small fines. However, in exactly two cases, the police arrest a casual drug user, convict them, and put them to death. The intent, they argue, is to produce a deterrent effect among the general population. Opponents of the policy say the punishment is disproportionate to the crime. The general public, drug users and non-users alike, remains apathetic. Consider the case of Cameron Todd Willingham. Despite compelling evidence that Willingham's conviction was unsound, the execution proceeded. There was no public outcry, even though one is more obviously demanded for an invalid conviction than for a disproportionate punishment in the case of a proper conviction. Years later, there is still no public outcry. There will be no outcry. Now, if the maximalists proposed a large-scale system for automatically issuing infringement fines, a la the motor-vehicle systems for privately operated stoplight cameras, speed cameras, etc., then you might see people getting exercised: The largest provider of red light camera and speed camera services in the US admitted yesterday that public opposition has begun to affect the bottom line. In an announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX), Melbourne-based Redflex Traffic Systems reported a nine percent drop in net profit for the year ended June 30, 2009. This has come about in part as motorists increasingly refuse to pay automated fines and use public pressure to force cities to eliminate photo enforcement programs.
|
|
| | |
RE: Obama Supports $675K File Sharing Verdict | Threat Level | Wired.com
by Decius at 8:56 pm EST, Jan 21, 2010 |
noteworthy wrote:
Imagine a scenario in which drug use is a capital crime, but there are no virtually enforcement actions. In this scenario, drug use is pervasive in society. Of the few enforcement actions, nearly all are settled out of court and result only in relatively small fines. However, in exactly two cases, the police arrest a casual drug user, convict them, and put them to death.
This is, in fact, the policy in several south east asian countries such as Taiwan and Singapore. I don't disagree with your point. I also don't think this sort of wicked excess of government policy is compatible with justice or consistent with the values of a "free country." |
|
|
|
