Human Property

Are hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages or even permanent restriction of internet access appropriate responses to illegal online file-sharing?  What’s fair in these circumstances?

As we all start to do more things on the internet — and have access to much more creative content via the internet — these questions start to become very interesting.

To date, only two file-sharing cases have gone to trial and resulted in verdicts.  In both cases, the defendants were found liable for copyright infringement and were subject to up to millions of dollars in damages.

In the first file-sharing case, a Minnesota jury decided last summer that Jammie Thomas-Rasset was liable for $1.92 million for the infringement of 24 songs.  This amounts to $80,000 a song.

The nation’s second file sharing defendant, Joel Tannenbaum, is now asking his court for a retrial, or to reduce the $675,000 award related to the infringement of 30 songs.  This amounts to $22,500 a song.

It’s totally up to the jury to decide how much to award in damages.  The Copyright Act permits damage awards anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per infringement.  In instances of “innocent infringement,” damages can be reduced to $200, but even then, something has to be paid.  Copyright infringement is a strict liability offense.

In light of the fact that songs today can be downloaded for $1 off of iTunes, is an award of $80,000 per song for infringement reasonable?  The damage awards, on their face, would strike the casual observer as punitive, perhaps made for their deterrent effect as opposed to restitution for the infringement.

Unfortunately for these defendants, they face an uphill battle in getting a judge to reduce the verdicts.  The Copyright Act expressly permits damage awards to go into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, so it would be difficult to argue a deprivation of due process based on any lack of notice.  We’ve all seen those FBI warnings every time we rent a movie.

Then again, the Supreme Court has placed limits on punitive damage awards based on similar principles.  Even in cases where a company knew it was polluting a town’s water supply or knowingly manufacturing shoddy products, punitive damage awards are limited because due process demands some restriction on damages.   The Supreme Court has held that “few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages…will satisfy due process.”  State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 425 (2003).

Ultimately, the best recourse would be for Congress to modify the Copyright Act and reduce damages in cases of file-sharing so that the punishment can better fit the crime, so to speak.  But here, too, there are forces seeking even more draconian punishments, including the restriction of internet access for repeat offenders.  Such a law has just come into effect in France, and it may be only a matter of time before industry groups lobby for a similar measure in the United States.

Would Americans be okay with a law depriving people of internet access in instances where someone was repeatedly found liable for copyright infringement?  How comfortable are Americans with the idea that profit derived from creative works should trump the value associated with access to the internet?