Slashdot Mirror
Jammie Thomas Moves To Strike RIAA $1.92M Verdict
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Jammie Thomas-Rasset has made a motion for a new trial, seeking to vacate the $1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained. It further argues that, since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages, either as an alternative to statutory damages, or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award, the verdict, if it is to be reduced, must be reduced to zero."
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
Maybe she should pay the price of one record per shared mp3? That'd be something like $240.
Or ten record, which would come to $2400.
However, I just don't figure how the imaginary damages could rack up $18k, let alone $192M.
Whoever awarded those damages had no sense of proportion, or was bribed.
Regardless - if someone destroyed my life over some songs, I'd probably do the same to them.
What's few hundred k more for battery and assault, if you already owe $190M more than you
can reasonably ever earn. For that matter, no monetary fine would ever feel like anything -
and jail time is expensive to the society. So.. maybe it's just not worth it?
Luckily, it is people like this who are the reason why laws change.
The RIAA have their low-risk win adding to their warchest of successfully run litigation if she settles. Now they -have- to engage the courts as much as they can to win. They -have- to publicly lobby, they -have- to look the bad guy to ${PUBLIC}. They may win - and it'd be a big win - but they may lose, and losing at such a high level is quite a setback.
At the end of the day, she could've settled, but she's chosen to stand and fight. Would you do the same, given the circumstances?
It's ironic as I mentioned this very case in the thread about "Don't Copy that Floppy" as the RIAA get $84,000 per song or whatever it works out too, and Air France is giving families of the victims of the Airbus crash $24,000.
Three dead travelers worth less than one song apparently.
You miss the point--the law is wrong, that is what is being argued. Those statutory damages are designed for corporate infringement--say, by a radio station broadcasting to 100,000 people. Not by 1 person who uploading a song to...oh, the RIAA couldn't demonstrate how many (and yes, in the radio case it would have been easy to demonstrate how many listened, on an approximate level, because the radio station uses that information every day to sell advertising time).
Maybe we can employ the same logic for speeding tickets. $1.9 million because I may be able to go 105 in a 35 despite the fact that I was going 40. Downloading 24 songs is not worth destroying someone's life over. Look at the penalties for vehicular homicide and tell me the fine fits the crime.
Ok...I did look at a recent high profile case, a case as media newsworthy as the $1.92 million RIAA case, about vehicular manslaughter, where an NFL player killed someone while he was driving drunk. Do you think this penalty fits the crime? Or is our justice system truly fucked at all ends?
NFL receiver Donte' Stallworth, a former University of Tennessee star, began serving a jail sentence Tuesday for hitting and killing Miami resident Mario Reyes on March 14th while driving drunk. He had apparently spent the night celebrating a $4.5 million dollar roster bonus he received the day before at a luxury hotel bar.
His blood alcohol level at the time of the incident was a reported .126, well above Florida's legal limit of .08.
Mr. Stallworth not only chose to not check into a room to sleep it off, he proceeded to drive his vehicle while seriously impaired, at an estimated 50 mph in a 40 mph zone when he struck the 59-year-old father of one as he rushed to catch a bus after his shift for a construction company ended that fateful day.
Was he sentenced to multiple years in prison? Were there throngs of protesters lining the streets and sidewalks at his trial? Will he be vilified and his livelihood taken away?
The answer to all of the above is no. Stallworth pled guilty to DUI manslaughter and was sentenced to 30 days in jail. 30 DAYS! He will serve only 24 because he gets credit for one day served and will get five days credit for each month served, according to Florida law.
http://www.t-g.com/story/1548024.html
If you drunk dive and kill someone with your car you should get 24 days in jail. But download 24 songs and expect nearly $2 million in fines. We need to start reexamining our courtrooms.
so long as you play in the NFL, you can kill someone in a DUI crash and do 30 days.
this woman stole some songs. by doing so, others may have been able to steal those songs too.
however, nobody died. the songs are undamaged. the artists are still fucking rich.
the fact that lawyers can get away with this allows me to look more softly upon murderers.
when you break justice anywhere, you break it everywhere. this madness must end soon.
There's a bit of a difference in scale here. How do you get on with your life after paying a two million dollar fine? It's a financial death sentence and it's no surprise that she's taking any and all chances at dodging it.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
This could not happen in Europe because the UN declaration on Human Rights is built into legislation. Not surprisingly, British Conservatives want to get big business (and the US) on their side by derogating from it. This case is evidence of why we in the UK need to worry, not only about our present Government but the probable next one.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I'm fairly sure it was the Jury that decided on damages, not the judge.
Yes but it was the Judge who incorrectly gave them the latitude to do so. Under well settled principles of copyright law, he ought not to have allowed more than $750 per infringed "work".
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful