Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

$1.9 Million Award In Thomas Case Raises Constitutional Questions

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the copyright-is-out-of-control dept.

Techdirt points out that the EFF is examining the constitutionality 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 excessive award should be easy to overturn since grossly excessive punitive damage awards are considered to violate the Due Process clause of the US Constitution, the Supreme Court seems to have been ignoring 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 considering a constitutional challenge to the verdict. A large and disproportionate damage award like this raises at least two potential 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 plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable 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 questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys."

2 of 439 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Here's the real costs by Neil+Blender · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Which is pretty much what they offered her before the dumb bitch thought a jury would not rule against her and decided to go to trial. She probably thought a "jury of her peers" would consist of the people on whatever internet forums she hung out on. The ones who, either before or after the fact, convinced her that there is absolutely nothing wrong with downloading music for free.

  2. Re:Failed - Did they play possum intentionally? by Score+Whore · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thomas was certainly painted as a victim in media coverage, (rightly so, yes)
    and the idea that ANY song is worth 80,000$ for being stolen in ANY form is pretty ludicrous and now widely acknowledged as such.

    I don't think you make any sense here. If I understand your position correctly it is this:

    1) Person A can get thousands(*) of items that each normally cost $0.99 without paying. Also Person A shares those thousands of items with all comers.
    2) People B -- who would normally be paid -- should have to spend thousands of dollars to take Person A to court.
    3) Person A should then be able to claim innocence in court -- while lying, destroying evidence, etc.
    4) The jury finds person A liable.
    5) Finally People B should be paid $0.99 per item, for a grand total of $23.76.

    Sorry, but the system won't work under your fantasy rules.

    * - Yes, she had thousands of songs in her kazaa share folder. They just chose 24 specific examples in order to keep things manageable in court.