Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jammie Thomas Moves To Strike RIAA $1.92M Verdict

Posted by timothy on from the in-excruciating-detail dept.

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."

8 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. Some people should realize that... by ls671 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  2. Statutory Damages by fandingo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Statutory Damages by fractoid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Following your logic, $1.92 million at $0.99 per song (ie. around iTunes price) she'd have to have uploaded 1.92 million songs. Assuming an average 3.5mb per song, that's 6.4 terabytes of data uploaded. On a 256kbps uplink, that's
      6.7 years of continuous uploading.

      (As an aside - holy shit is Google getting scary! To calculate that, I typed in "1.92 million * 3.5 megabytes" and it said "6.40869141 terabytes". Then I asked it "6.41 terabytes / 256kbps" and got 6.81574337 years. I'm starting to think we should be referring to Google as 'a logic called Joe'. :S )

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:Statutory Damages by jcr · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Isn't there some kind of common-sense law which prohibits especially large amounts like this to be handed down to individuals?

      There's language in the bill of rights that prohibits "excessive fines". This is a civil action though, so it's back to court to figure out whether an excessive award in a civil case is also prohibited.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    3. Re:Statutory Damages by ls671 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Nope, as the OP explained, judges aren't allowed to use common sense if a law says otherwise. Ultimately, people vote to elect a government that will make laws telling the judges what to do. This is how the system works.

      Higher court judges have more discretion at their disposal with regards to using common sense, I would bet she will still be found guilty but the amount to pay could be lowered.

      Lower court judges tend to stick to the text of the law. Nothing is worse for a lower court judge career than getting his sentence overruled by a higher court judge because he did not follow the text of the law. As long as he stick to the text of the law, he is safe.

      It is easier for higher court judges to establish jurisprudence. It is more risky for lower court judges although it occurs sometimes.

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:Statutory Damages by Kjella · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (As an aside - holy shit is Google getting scary! To calculate that, I typed in "1.92 million * 3.5 megabytes" and it said "6.40869141 terabytes". Then I asked it "6.41 terabytes / 256kbps" and got 6.81574337 years. I'm starting to think we should be referring to Google as 'a logic called Joe'. :S )

      You think that's impressive? Try calculating how much energy the sun has (E=mc^2): mass of sun * c^2. Want it in a different unit? Just say so: in kilowatt hours. It does currency conversions and plenty other useful things too. It's not just the search results keeping google on top...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Statutory Damages by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's exactly the fallacy in their logic: It's not ONE (illegal) distributor and MANY receipients (that's what this law was created for). That's not the case. You have MANY distributors, contributing a tiny fraction of the infringed work. Yet their logic is to sue all of them for the whole work.

      Extrapolating, if they caught all the infringers, they would actually get more people uploading than downloading. You download one copy, as you pointed out. You don't need more than that. Yet you upload to several people, all of them counting as an upload to their statistics.

      Basically, if they caught all infringers, they would come up with a multiple of the actual copies distributed.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. Smart by Barny · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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).

    --
    ...
    /me sighs