Obama administration defends $222,000 file-sharing verdict

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/02/obama-administration-defends-222000-file-sharing-verdict/

by redthrowaway • 13 years ago

45 51 13 years ago

teilo• 13 years ago

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.

taeric• 13 years ago

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.

Personally, I do not consider this a bad thing.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

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.

grecy• 13 years ago

Disgusting 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?

tptacek12• 13 years ago

Constitutionally incoherent argument is constitutionally incoherent. The executive branch houses the DOJ, which is charged with the enforcement of all laws.

justin66• 13 years 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.

habitue3• 13 years ago

Just 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/

It is entirely unsurprising they would react in this way

tptacek12• 13 years ago

Government attorneys defend by-the-books application of decades-old federal law. Film at 11.

vishaldpatel• 13 years ago

Government attorneys fail to act on behalf of the people. Film at 11.

rayiner7• 13 years ago

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.

habitue3• 13 years ago

It seems, the POTUS has discretion in telling the Justice Department what to pursue:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/obama-doma-unconsti...

rayiner7• 13 years ago

The DOJ's decision to not prosecute DOMA is actually quite a soupy mess, and much more controversial legally than it was politically.

DannyBee5• 13 years ago

This happens so rarely that POTUS having done this is itself now becoming a huge political football.

tptacek12• 13 years ago

Here's 'tzs on Jammie-Thomas Rasset:

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.]

MichaelGG2• 13 years ago

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.

tptacek12• 13 years ago

You 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.

redthrowaway• 13 years ago

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.

tptacek12• 13 years ago

The US has had punitive damages since its inception. The point of punitive damages is to deter conduct when the mere threat of actual damages is insufficient. It is exactly the same principle that leads a ticket for a skipped tollway toll to cost $75 when the underlying damages were only 80 cents: if the ticket only cost 80 cents, or even a buck sixty, nobody would pay tolls, because it would be economically irrational to do so.

For whatever it's worth, the RIAA offered --- on two very separate occasions --- to settle for actual damages.

hakaaaaak5• 13 years 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.

tptacek12• 13 years ago

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".

hakaaaaak5• 13 years ago

Point taken. Edited language to indicate they are only "getting involved"...

habitue3• 13 years ago

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.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Amicus+brief

rayiner7• 13 years ago

> he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States

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

hakaaaaak5• 13 years ago

Read the section labeled "argument" here: http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/02/12-715...

That sounds like a defendent of the record companies, not the executive branch trying to ensure law is faithfully executed. It would be one thing if the supreme court were ignoring laws, but arguing for the denial to review a case is hardly taking care that law is faithfully executed. Our executive branch is suggesting the subversion of due process in this case.

thbrown23• 13 years ago

I'm glad for not living in a country with so many cases of legal bullying for small cases of copyright infringement.

dmauro• 13 years ago

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.

Please sign and share: http://wh.gov/dZCl

Obama administration defends $222,000 file-sharing verdict

Related Stories