This is a classic case where a law passed to deter certain very serious activity (willful copyright infringement) now finds itself being applied to new circumstances where it falls with a particularly heavy and disproportional hand.
The remedy needs to be tailored to the nature of the wrong - that is, the law needs refinement, not jettisoning. This can come from Congress or perhaps from judicial refinements via statutory interpretation.
It will not come from some wild approach striking down the concept of statutory damages as unconstitutional. The article is way off on this.
It's not as "off" as you think. Punitive damages limitations have already been applied to common law copyright cases, and numerous courts have considered, but not ruled on, their application to the statutory regime.
But there's a more basic issue: it doesn't matter if the damages arise by statute or common law, the constitution protects the defendant all the same. Congress has no power to override a due process protection.
I obviously agree with the basic issue that Congress has no power to override a due process protection. I just don't think this approach to the problem is going anywhere.
Mea culpa (and apologies), however, for overstating my point. There are two sides to this.
Excellent point, but could you clarify how it could come about via statutory interpretation?
As I understand it (which could easily be entirely wrong), barring some invalidation of the law, the plain reading clearly and unambiguously supports the awards the RIAA is getting in this case.
The remedy needs to be tailored to the nature of the wrong - that is, the law needs refinement, not jettisoning. This can come from Congress or perhaps from judicial refinements via statutory interpretation.
It will not come from some wild approach striking down the concept of statutory damages as unconstitutional. The article is way off on this.