When juries award damages...

[garbon]

So just saw this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

where the kid in Boston is supposed to pay $675k in damages for the songs he downloaded.  It got me wondering, how do juries decide what damages to award? I see in the article that there are guidelines on damages, but I can't see how you'd award more than the minimum per song as that enough is able to break the defendant.  Do you just assign them based on what you think the plaintiff is owed and damn the fact that the defendant will likely have no way of paying that?

[Barrister]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

[Razgovory]

In Missouri when a jury awards damages they leave the building and destroy the plaintiff's car or other property.  This is due to poor education and misreading of statutes (which in Missouri are written on statues).  This leads to two things: fewer lawsuits and most lawyers are also art critics.

[Tonitrus]

In Missouri when a jury awards damages they leave the building and destroy the plaintiff's car or other property.  This is due to poor education and misreading of statutes (which in Missouri are written on statues).  This leads to two things: fewer lawsuits and most lawyers are also art critics.

That post has an Ambrose Bierce'ian tinge.

[DontSayBanana]

So just saw this article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

where the kid in Boston is supposed to pay $675k in damages for the songs he downloaded.  It got me wondering, how do juries decide what damages to award? I see in the article that there are guidelines on damages, but I can't see how you'd award more than the minimum per song as that enough is able to break the defendant.  Do you just assign them based on what you think the plaintiff is owed and damn the fact that the defendant will likely have no way of paying that?

There was a thread about punitive damages on the old board; I forget which lawtalker it was (much better memory for numbers; sorry  ), but the thread described how punitive judgments are traditionally limited to nine times the actual value of the damages, so it could be that he actually infracted as little as $67.5K... also, I wonder how they're determining value of the "stolen" media: Is that the fair value of the songs on a legitimate download site? Is that fair value of the physical CDs, perhaps?

[grumbler]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

It seems bizarre to a lot of us.  There are common law reasons for it (the whole issue of class in Olde Britaine), but it doesn't work in the modern world.

[ulmont]

In a copyright case, the plaintiff can ask for stautory damages based solely on the number of works infringed.  The range is $750 - $30,000 per work, with the judge allowed to increase the damages to $150,000 for wilful infringement or to reduce them to $200 for where the infringer reasonably believed their use was non-infringing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

The statutory damages scheme may very well be unconstitutional based on recent punitive damages decisions (the 9 times multiplier you mention) but it hasn't hit the appellate courts yet.

[Razgovory]

In Missouri when a jury awards damages they leave the building and destroy the plaintiff's car or other property.  This is due to poor education and misreading of statutes (which in Missouri are written on statues).  This leads to two things: fewer lawsuits and most lawyers are also art critics.

That post has an Ambrose Bierce'ian tinge.

Thank you.

[DontSayBanana]

In a copyright case, the plaintiff can ask for stautory damages based solely on the number of infringements (and tripled if wilful).

While I would need to look up the exact numbers, this amount is something like 300-10000 per infringement.

The statutory damages scheme may very well be unconstitutional based on recent punitive damages decisions (the 9 times multiplier you mention) but it hasn't hit the appellate courts yet.

Ah. Making some headway. So when counting up the infringements, are we talking periods of Internet activity (sessions spent downloading illegal music), composition by composition, or grouped by media (3 songs from one album and 2 songs from another being grouped as 2 infringements)?

[ulmont]

Ah. Making some headway. So when counting up the infringements, are we talking periods of Internet activity (sessions spent downloading illegal music), composition by composition, or grouped by media (3 songs from one album and 2 songs from another being grouped as 2 infringements)?

Composition by composition.  The actual range turns out to be nominally $750 - $30,000 per work infringed, with the judge being allowed to increase the damages up to $150,000 for wilful infringement or to decrease the damages to $200 if the infringer reasonably did not know they were infringing.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

[Martinus]

I'm glad I live in Europe, where media conglomerates do not have legislators in their collective pocket.

[Martinus]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

I know this is cultural for you guys, but for me the whole concept of juries seems bizarre and counterproductive. Sure, it made sense in the past when law was simpler and the main problem with the judicial system was a danger of power abuse by the sovereign.

However, today these problems are gone, the popular juries are often not equipped to deal with complex legal issues, and in terms of the danger of injustice, it exists not in abuse of power by the sovereign but the tyranny of the majority and discrimination of a minority - something a popular jury not only does not prevent, but seems to be worse than an educated (and thus, probably more "enlightened") professional judge.

[Neil]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

It seems bizarre to a lot of us.  There are common law reasons for it (the whole issue of class in Olde Britaine), but it doesn't work in the modern world.

True, but all the foreign lawyers on Languish are from another common-law country (Canada), and even they are repulsed by the idea of having a jury award damages.

[Neil]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

I know this is cultural for you guys, but for me the whole concept of juries seems bizarre and counterproductive. Sure, it made sense in the past when law was simpler and the main problem with the judicial system was a danger of power abuse by the sovereign.

However, today these problems are gone, the popular juries are often not equipped to deal with complex legal issues, and in terms of the danger of injustice, it exists not in abuse of power by the sovereign but the tyranny of the majority and discrimination of a minority - something a popular jury not only does not prevent, but seems to be worse than an educated (and thus, probably more "enlightened") professional judge.

I wish you would die.

[Jaron]

The whole concept of juries awarding damages just seems bizarre to me.

Here, juries determine liability (or guilt), judges determine the penalties.

I know this is cultural for you guys, but for me the whole concept of juries seems bizarre and counterproductive. Sure, it made sense in the past when law was simpler and the main problem with the judicial system was a danger of power abuse by the sovereign.

However, today these problems are gone, the popular juries are often not equipped to deal with complex legal issues, and in terms of the danger of injustice, it exists not in abuse of power by the sovereign but the tyranny of the majority and discrimination of a minority - something a popular jury not only does not prevent, but seems to be worse than an educated (and thus, probably more "enlightened") professional judge.

I wish you would die.

He will, as shall we all. Except you, of course. Neil is emo-rtal.