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."

10 of 392 comments (clear)

  1. 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 Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    2. Re:Statutory Damages by adri · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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?

    3. Re:Statutory Damages by greensoap · · Score: 5, Informative


      Standard, I am not a lawyer, I do not intend to create a legal relationship with any reader. This is merely my opinion and should not be relied upon under any situation. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney in your jurisdiction

      .
      Sorry parent, but that is not how statutory damages work in copyright. In copyright cases, the holder gets to elect to take statutory damages instead of actual damages. There is no requirement that they show an inability to prove actual damages in that case. The only limitation is that the work must be registered with the Copyright office in order to be eligible for statutory damages.

      The statutory damages range from $750 - $30,000 per infringed work. That $750 is why the RIAA is willing to go only that low, since they will recover atleast that amount at trial--unless the defendant can show that she was not aware and had no reason to know she was infringing. Damages jump to $150,000 per work when the infringement is willful.

      17 USC 412 explains registration
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html
      17 USC 504 explains statutory damages
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

      (2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:

      Standard, IANAL disclaimer. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Re:Statutory Damages by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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).

  2. Re:Can't pay the fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Re:Can't pay the fine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  4. Re:Some people should realize that... by fdragon · · Score: 5, Informative

    Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.

    If only more Americans understood this.

    Please no. That will only do more harm.

    You are apparently failing to understand the concept of the US Government check and balance system with the division of power. While in general congress has the power to make law, the executive the power to enforce law, and the judicial to judge a case based on law, each branch has the ability to effect the law in different ways. The executive has the ability to make law by signing of treaty with foreign powers, or to render a law useless by failing to enforce it. The judicial branch has the ability to make and remove laws as well in the form of rulings on the law or the result of jury nullification in the later case.

    Unfortunately many people, for whatever reason, fail to understand exactly how the US government is organized, and what powers each branch of government really have over the others. A good read can be had at : http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/legislative-judicial-checks-balances for more detailed information on this.

    --
    The program isn't debugged until the last user is dead.