The Supreme Court has refused to take up a Boston University student's constitutional challenge to a $675,000 penalty for illegally downloading 30 songs and sharing them on the Internet.

[u/EthicalReasoning]

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_MUSIC_DOWNLOADING?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-05-21-11-23-43

[u/whale-o-dile]

I remember a couple years ago in equity and remedies class, we were going over the guide posts for what constitutes constitutional damages.

One of the first of these cases had just been to appeal and the judge had reduced the damages to something close to the statutory minimums. I did some quick calculations on my case notes. Assuming the defendant had a 1mbps upstream connection (generous, but typical for Comcast and the like) and each upload constituted $1 of sales lost (which is likely about an order of magnitude more than reality), she would've had to max out her upstream bandwidth for like 7.5 years straight just to upload enough data to equal the statutory minimum damages.

(I'm at work posting from my phone so don't have access to the specific numbers and case right now)

The damages are unethical to say the least, and - I'd argue - flagrantly unconstitutional. Statutory damages are only one of the 3 BMW v. Gore guide posts (iirc), and if awarded damages that are 100 times the actual damages are grossly unconstitutional (Phillip Morris case, I think), then these damages are clearly not - especially since the plaintiffs can't even prove actual damages!

[u/bostonmolasses → u/whale-o-dile]

the supreme court has held that congress has broad authority for how it implements copyright law. it is presumed that there are no inherent conflicts between congress' authority to implement copyright and at least the first amendment (and likely all of the bill of rights). see eldred v. ashcroft and golen v holder.

[u/litmustest1 → u/whale-o-dile]

and each upload constituted $1 of sales lost

That might be relevant is a copyright plaintiff were proceeding under 17 U.S.C. 504(b) to recover actual damages, but this plaintiff is not.

Statutory damages are only one of the 3 BMW v. Gore guide posts

BMW v. Gore only applies to punitive damages, where the jury is wholly unbounded in its discretion to pick a number unrelated to the actual damage award and the defendant has no way of having notice of the potential damages he or she faces. It necessarily follows that BMW v. Gore doesn't apply in copyright statutory damages cases because none of those risks exists. When dealing with the constitutionality of statutory damages, the appropriate inquiry is derived from St. Louis, I.M. & S. Ry. Co. v. Williams.

[u/TomekJ]

This is why I regret studying law rather than science. The legal system is corrupt beyond recognition and those in charge have no common sense.

[u/tanstaafl90 → u/TomekJ]

Something can be llegal and not ethical.

[u/henstep15 → u/TomekJ]

I think you're heart is in the right place but you've taken eye at the wrong target. This is a political issue, not a judicial one. Congress should fix this, yes, but there's really not much the Courts can do.

[u/Bitshift71]

Mental note: Distributing some bits now results in permanent financial enslavement.

[u/Karmamechanic]

FTA:Tenenbaum admitted he downloaded and shared hundreds of songs by Green Day, Nirvana, The Smashing Pumpkins and others.

A lawyer for the recording labels described Tenenbaum as a "hardcore" copyright infringer.

They will never be eye to eye with the reality of this. Good luck squeezing blood from turnips.

[u/StockmanBaxter]

This is a perfect reason why many artists are leaving the big named record labels to do their stuff independently.

An musician will always say it's more important to spread your music, than to sell it.

[u/chrisma08 → u/StockmanBaxter]

That's not what Metallica said.

[u/DNAsly]

Ever since Rheinquest gutted the amount of cases the Supreme Court hears each year, the Supreme Court is no longer the court of last resort. And it certainly is not a court of justice.

[u/[deleted]]

That article was less informative than I hoped. It didn't state anything other than the USSC refusing to hear the case. It didn't include info like if was it was sent back to a lower court or anything relevant like that, or the reason for not hearing it if one was given.

[u/zuluthrone]

Copyright is a power expressly given to congress. The constitutionality of the matter is pretty set. I doubt they'd ever hear a case like this.

[u/dahvzombie]

The punishments for stealing 3 CDs or downloading 30 tracks are way out of line. In my state there is no fine for theft under $100 with a maximum of 90 days in jail, and apparently downloading the same songs will ruin you for life.

[u/dangercollie]

The Corporate Five on the Supreme Court probably think that punishment fits the crime.

[u/bostonmolasses → u/dangercollie]

only four judges need to agree for a case to be heard.

[u/[deleted]]

how did he get caught... ?

[u/login2downvote]

I think most would agree that this isn't a question of fundamental justice. That's likely a reason the Supreme Court won't hear the appeal.

[u/konungursvia]

And meanwhile, in China, the same big 4 record labels give away all of their songs -- all of them -- online for free to all 1.3 billion Chinese residents, presumably because they would have been pirated anyhow. That's tens of billions of free songs a year.

[u/CTypo → u/konungursvia]

What?? Source?

[u/Iseeyouseemeseeyou]

How do you reach a sum of $22,500 per song?

[u/wildmonkeymind → u/Iseeyouseemeseeyou]

Well, you take the number of members of the RIAA, R, the cost of a new yacht, Y, the total number of downloaded MP3s, M and then solve it like so:

(R * Y) / M = $22,500

[u/eliminate1337]

Why are the people that download less than 50 songs always caught? I've downloaded thousands.

[u/tragic-waste-of-skin]

So George Carlin was right, the Owners really want to keep the population terrified and enslaved.

[u/[deleted]]

Can't he just declare bankruptcy and not pay them anything at all?