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."
Resistance is futile in some cases ;-))
Disclaimer: The above sentence was intentionally left ambiguous if we relate to TFA context. As a hint, by "resistance",
"A force that tends to oppose or retard motion." was meant.
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
are used when actual damages cannot be determined. Since the RIAA was able to show that there was distribution (the jurors bought it), they can seek statutory damages. They have no idea how many copies Ms. Thomas assisted in making. The law is crystal clear on this. In copyright law, plaintiffs can seek statutory damages when actual damages cannot be determined. I'm in no way defending the law, but it is clear. If this judge were to throw this out, it would be a case of exceptional judicial activism. I applaud his plea after the first trial to Congress to fix this problem. The courts have no authority to change something like this. I've been saying this since before her second trial, she should have settled, and she still should. The RIAA has gone out of its way to try to reach a settlement. In fact, according to Ars Technica (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/jammie-thomas-challenges-monstrous-192m-p2p-verdict.ars) they are still willing to settle for less than the Copyright Act allows (24 *750 = 18,000). You got to know when to hold them and know when to fold them. She could get out of this surprisingly reasonably, but instead, she wants to hit a home run.
As per one of my previous posts postulated, they are not fighting based on technical defense, but on a constitutional one, the first court case was indeed a sham to coax the jury to make the biggest most outrageous damages they could. As per NYCL they didn't even call their own witnesses or cross examine (if memory serves me correctly).
...
That's reasonable? 18,000 for sharing 24 files? You think she SHOULD have settled? REALLY??? Sure it's less INSANE than millions of dollars but it's still INSANE.
Hell, why don't we go back to sending kids who steal bread to Australia while we're at it.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Just some guesses but:
1) it's very difficult to determine the "best price"
2) copyright infringement has likely increased by several orders of magnitude in the past ten years (i.e. it's volatile--making it very difficult to estimate in the future)
3) They had likely pushed the market beyond the profitability of "best price" using monopolistic behavior.
4) The longer they can squeeze profit out of their current setup, the better, because adapting costs money.
5) Adapting likely opens a window for competitors to enter the market (of course, delaying adapting may do the same thing, risky gamble)
6) They effectively control all popular modern music and can just tell everyone to piss off?
>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.
That's because 24 songs is worth more. What is a 59-year-old father worth? Not much compared to, say, 24 Beatles songs. That's treasure.
It's like the old Fight Club trope. "If the cost of a recall is more than the lawsuit, we don't do one."
You misunderstand the arguments made, you lump all slashdotters into one category, and you assume the same people are making the same arguments.
You're trolling the wrong thread. This is the 'damages are excessive' thread, you want the 'flagrantly violating the law is okay because who gives a shit?' thread.
We don't mind corporations making money. We'd like it if it wasn't extorting millions of dollars at a time from people, even ones as dumb as Jammie.
Incidentally, I downloaded some music today without paying for it. No, it wasn't some Creative Commons stuff. I listen to the Pandora music service quite often, violating no law as I do so.
There goes your black-and-white viewpoint, I suppose. Next time try actually making an argument, or perhaps find a different news site. Until then, enjoy your fail.
The artists are rich? You mean the labels are rich. The artists don't get crap from album sales nor will they from this settlement. Don't confuse the two.
http://torrentfreak.com/p2p-collection-costs-man-huge-fine-suspended-sentence-090704/
Man in France was just sentenced for 12,591 MP3 files, 426 movies, 16 full TV-series and dozens of items of pirated software. The man was sentenced to 33,000 euros ($46,200) in damages and a 2 month suspended jail sentence.
They are not quite as big of jerks over there it seems. He had considerably more than 24 songs and was only fined about 50k.