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.
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
I would like to see this turned around: because the RIAA's case did not offer any information about the damages done by download these 24 songs in the trial, the court should enforce that the RIAA sell all its tracks at the value assigned to each song by the jury (~$81,000). The court might even take pity of the poor industry and lower that to $40,000 if it assumes some reasonable amount of the fine (50%) was awarded for statutory damages. That way, if the RIAA accepts the ruling, they would immediately go out of business as every CD they sell would be marked up to $500,000. Why isn't there a Draconian party running for government anywhere?
/*No comment*/ #No comment
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.
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).
...
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.
Three dead travelers worth less than one song apparently.
Jammie Thomas' Playlist:
You have to realize that figure was averaged per song. Three dead travelers don't even come close to the value of "Welcome to the Jungle". They might be worth a Goo Goo Dolls song however.
1) He likely paid much more than $2 million in his settlement with the family.
2) The "victim" was attempting to cross a 6 lane divided highway with wall barriers and concrete center dividers in the dark and was nowhere near a crosswalk or streetlight.
3) Stallworth should have done more time for the DUI.
4) Manslaughter is a huge stretch in this case which is why the DA settled.
5) Other drivers in the area noted that it would have been impossible for even a non-impaired driver to have avoided hitting the victim.
Was it stupid for the guy to drive while impaired? Yes. Would it have made a difference if he had been completely sober? Probably not.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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."