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.]
His comment is based upon a misconception of what civil law is supposed to accomplish. It's not intended to be a disincentive, rather a plaintiff is only supposed to be able to recover actual damages. The guiding principle is "make whole" -- a plaintiff can go to court to recover actual losses, and no more. Punitive damages are assessed where the defendant is shown to have willfully and intentionally harmed the plaintiff, but only in extreme circumstances should those damages exceed the actual damages incurred from the act itself.
The statutory minimums don't really adhere to that principle which is unfortunate.
tzs'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.
Yes, 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.
What 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.
The 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.
To 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.
"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.
They'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".
It's called an amicus curiae brief ("friend of the court brief"). In this case, you might consider the friend of the court to be famous, but the supreme court has no obligation to give their filing any more weight than any other.
Constitutionally incoherent argument is constitutionally incoherent. The executive branch houses the DOJ, which is charged with the enforcement of all laws.
> 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.
Yeah, 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?
That 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.
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2140293
Here's another:
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.]
[+] [-] redthrowaway|13 years ago|reply
The statutory minimums don't really adhere to that principle which is unfortunate.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] habitue|13 years ago|reply
It is entirely unsurprising they would react in this way
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
That being said, the DOJ is basically Congress's lawyer. It is obligated to defend Congress's laws from Constitutional challenges.
[+] [-] habitue|13 years ago|reply
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconsti...
[+] [-] teilo|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] taeric|13 years ago|reply
Personally, I do not consider this a bad thing.
[+] [-] hakaaaaak|13 years ago|reply
Hmm. Nothing in there about getting involved in potential supreme court cases.
[+] [-] rayiner|13 years ago|reply
What about defending the Constitutionality of Congressional laws seems outside the scope of "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" to you?
Also, note that the Attorney General's position was created in 1789 by the first Congress, and was tasked with more or less the responsibilities he has today: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Attorney_General
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] habitue|13 years ago|reply
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amicus+brief
[+] [-] grecy|13 years ago|reply
Does anyone care the highest office in the country has been bought?
[+] [-] tptacek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justin66|13 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] orthecreedence|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thbrown23|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dmauro|13 years ago|reply
Please sign and share: http://wh.gov/dZCl
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]