Rincewind53: Yes, unfortunately. The "excessive fines" clause of the 8th Amendment is essentially useless. It has almost never been invoked in the past two centuries of American jurisprudence (essentially it has only made it to the Supreme Court once in the entire Constitution's history), and the one time it was invoked it was essentially pulled into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause as the same thing. Cruel and Unusual Punishment is also essentially useless, because the Court has ruled that life in prison for possession of drugs is perfectly fine, because it was cruel, but not unusual.

Pretty much.

"Excessive" means "more than you would normally charge for this"; you can't give someone a $30,000,000 speeding ticket just because they're rich and can afford it. That the fines are ridiculous is entirely separate from the constitutional law.

Mugato: That ain't the gun one right? So fark it.

It ain't the booze one (the good booze one), either.

That's not what declining to hear a case means, Subby.

I don't think civil damages qualify as fines. Fines are assessed by governments.

No, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case because there were other avenues for rehearing which may result in the verdict being overturned. The Supreme Court really only hears cases after all other options are exhausted in the case.

So it's not OK to give excessive damages to businesses, but private citizens can get farked in the arse.

Got it.

These thirty songs must sound REALLY good to be worth that much; anybody got a list so I can go torrent them?

So, what if you start an LLC and use that to open the Internet account. Couldn't you go nuts, and bankrupt the LLC if you got sued?

I was thinking of buying a CD today. Guess I won't.

http://www.fark.com/comments/7118338/On-bright-side-when-this-Boston-U -student-files-for-bankruptcy-he-can-wipe-out-his-student-loans-too

12380 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 May 2012 at 4:30 PM

Thorak: Rincewind53: Yes, unfortunately. The "excessive fines" clause of the 8th Amendment is essentially useless. It has almost never been invoked in the past two centuries of American jurisprudence (essentially it has only made it to the Supreme Court once in the entire Constitution's history), and the one time it was invoked it was essentially pulled into the Cruel and Unusual Punishment clause as the same thing. Cruel and Unusual Punishment is also essentially useless, because the Court has ruled that life in prison for possession of drugs is perfectly fine, because it was cruel, but not unusual.

Pretty much.

"Excessive" means "more than you would normally charge for this"; you can't give someone a $30,000,000 speeding ticket just because they're rich and can afford it. That the fines are ridiculous is entirely separate from the constitutional law.

But since 30 songs ~= 3 CDs then the "normally charge" figure should be somewhere in the 45 dollar range.

That's why I don't steal songs

What do you expect? They don't get their kickbacks if they don't follow their masters' wishes.

We haven't had a Constitution since 9/11.

fred_chan: That's not what declining to hear a case means, Subby.

This. And judging by the responses thus far, it looks like subby is just another graduate of Fark.com School of Law.

Weaver95: I don't get it. what's the point of this?

So the next guy will settle for five grand rather than waste the court's time.

You get caught creating copies of music for people to download, you pay $5000, you go on with your life. I'm cool with that.

TravisBickle62: That's why I don't steal songs

People aren't stealing songs, they're simply duplicating it for their own benefit, not for profit. If I were to steal a song basically I would be passing off some other artist's song as my own and have people pay me for it.

Anyone else read it initially as "8th commandment"?

Another Government Employee: I don't think civil damages qualify as fines. Fines are assessed by governments.

Yep. A contention that damages are excessive in a civil suit between private parties is a 14th Amendment Due Process issue, not an 8th Amendment excessive fines issue. BMW v. Gore

That's some serious trolling, subby. USSC decides not to listen to a case, and you jump from there to "They said fark the constitution!".

It is quite obvious that the current SCOTUS believes that corporations should have more rights than citizens.

Macinfarker: So it's not OK to give excessive damages to businesses, but private citizens can get farked in the arse.

Got it.

Want some McDonald's coffee? Piping hot!

Tenenbaum has called the damages "ludicrous" and said he does not have the money to pay them.

I bet you had the money for the sh*t you stole. Should've spent it.

epijunkie67: Don't do the crime if you can't pay the fine...

Not a crime. It's a civil matter.

Burning city on a slippery slope.

I can still burn songs onto CD and give them away for free, right?

/Ask your parents what a CD is

TravisBickle62: That's why I don't steal songs

He stole the masters of the original music? I didn't catch that in the article.

Unless you are confusing digital copying with stealing again.

iTunes songs sound better anyway
listen to MP3's and it sounds like the artist is singing about how nice it would be to murder you for stealing their music

The Muthaship: Macinfarker: So it's not OK to give excessive damages to businesses, but private citizens can get farked in the arse.

Got it.

Want some McDonald's coffee? Piping hot!

Tenenbaum has called the damages "ludicrous" and said he does not have the money to pay them.

I bet you had the money for the sh*t you stole. Should've spent it.

He did have the money. He spent on hookers, blow, lawyers, and Romney.

An Epic of Epic Epicness: Anyone else read it initially as "8th commandment"?

HOW ABOUT SOMETHING A LITTLE MORE SPEEDY
HOW ABOUT
8TH COMMANDMENT!!!!!

LegacyDL: TravisBickle62: That's why I don't steal songs

People aren't stealing songs, they're simply duplicating it for their own benefit, not for profit. If I were to steal a song basically I would be passing off some other artist's song as my own and have people pay me for it.

Whatever, I sleep well at night knowing I paid for all my songs

deadcrickets: He spent on hookers, blow, lawyers, and Romney.

Two out of four ain't bad?

looking back on this debacle, the comedy of 30 songs = anything more than $30 is almost comedy. How many popular cds can you buy to total 30 songs? 3 at $9.99?

Banacek: So, what if you start an LLC and use that to open the Internet account. Couldn't you go nuts, and bankrupt the LLC if you got sued?


An LLC will not protect you from liability if you incorporated the LLC for the express purpose of committing what US courts have consistently held as an illegal activity (re: unauthorized file sharing). Your LLC will be dissolved and you'll get screwed. Unless of course you have millions of dollars to pay for the lawyers to keep that from happening.

So we're up to 8 now? With each new amendment it's looking more and more like Thomas Jefferson died on the cross for nothing.

The Muthaship: I bet you had the money for the sh*t you stole. Should've spent it.

So someone who commits petty theft should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars? How about a car thief? Life imprisonment for vandalism of a phone booth?

I'm fairly law and order authoritarian relative to some farkers, but the punishment must fit the crime. Since he was caught facilitating the theft of services, I have no problem with fining him, but it should be in proportion to what was denied to the companies involved. Likely no more than a few thousand dollars.

farkingatwork: looking back on this debacle, the comedy of 30 songs = anything more than $30 is almost comedy. How many popular cds can you buy to total 30 songs? 3 at $9.99?

Not that it makes it any less crazy, but I read somewhere that is was 1000s of songs, but he admitted to the 30 and they moved on to sentencing.

Remember in court when you used to have to prove your damages. Yeah, neither do I.

Weaver95: so the music industry has spent a couple years screwing the ever living f*ck out of ONE guy for...what reason was it again? File trading hasn't stopped. In fact indications are that it's only gotten easier and more pervasive than ever before. so if the plan was to scare file traders into compliance that hasn't worked. If the plan was to recover 'lost revenue' then RIAA failed there again as well. there's no way this guy will ever pay off those fines.

I don't get it. what's the point of this?

Old-timers using old-timey methods to try and support an old-time business model to keep a desperate hold on old-time tunes. The problem is the law is on their side.

I imagine the reason the fines are this high is because the Copyright Act provides for statutory damages up to I think $30K (and maybe $150K in some instances) per infringement. This guy was doling out free copies intentionally, which puts him in the same venue (in the RIAA's mind) as a guy distributing stolen goods.

These cases will do nothing but increase the bitterness towards the recording industry. While this may be a legal outcome, the backlash against the industry will only get worse.

The only commodity that the internet cannot kill is live performance, and if the industry had any brains at all they'd abandon unit sales as their primary revenue and shift their contracts to live performance revenues. That's where the artists make their money in big industry. And the smart ones have discovered that giving away your music for free and being involved in your own digital marketing, is the best way to increase your fan base...which translates to live performance $. They don't need the big labels. The industry is rapidly decentralizing.

proteus_b: So someone who commits petty theft should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars? How about a car thief? Life imprisonment for vandalism of a phone booth?

No, I think the punishment is an outright joke. But, at the same time I don't feel sorry for him. He's a thief. F*ck him.

The victim is the already beleaguered judicial system, with it's already tarnished image, looking like the pawn of big business in this case.