Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the lawfulness of the recent $1.9 million verdict awarded in favor of the RIAA against Jammie Thomas. While on the surface it may seem that this fulsome award should be easy to
weaken






antonyms:


credit since grossly unreasonable punitive damage awards are calculated to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been breach precedent and upholding copyright's importance at any cost. "Given the size of the statutory damages award, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's legal team will likely be seriously because a constitutional query to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two inherent constitutional concerns. First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as 'new') violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution. In evaluating whether an award 'grossly excessive,' courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the litigant and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or illustriousness between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in analogous situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into 'grossly excessive?' And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are quiz that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

More: - Continued here

Mark