Slashdot Mirror
Judge Lowers Jammie Thomas' Damages to $54,000
An anonymous reader writes "Judge Michael Davis has slashed the amount Jammie Thomas-Rassett is said to owe Big Music from almost $2,000,000 to $54,000. 'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.' The full decision (PDF) is also available."
Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be "harsh" and that, were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000. But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.
Well, "he" is a single mother of 4 who works w/ a Tribal Council, meaning she is probably paid a little better than a social worker. Considering the fact that you can buy a decent house in the boonies around Duluth for $60,000, I'd say that this will greatly cut into her kids' college fund.
RTFA
The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
I corrected his flawed analogy, how is that trolling? Anyone who is still under the misunderstanding that this is about DOWNLOADING songs needs to be corrected. This is about UPLOADING songs.
I strongly disagree with the heft of the fine, but not to the point that I am willing to pander incorrect information to people. Yes, the fine for UPLOADING songs in this case is very likely excessive. I fail to see how clarifying that mistake is a trolling act.
In response to the AC about where I came up with the number 3,000, the GGP posted this:
The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.
So IF a person were to distribute 3000 CDs of protected content, the maximum possible damages would be $54,000. So IF the defendant UPLOADED 3,000 albums worth of music, the maximum possible damages would also be $54,000.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
I assume you're proposing your idea of slander and damages, not trying to recite your current understanding of the law in this area.
IANAL, but a quick google turned up this interesting page about defamation and harm. Quoting (emphasis mine):
So, in your precise scenario, spreading lies (verbally or published) that damage my business reputation are automatically presumed to cause damage. According to this Wikipedia page, all states of the United States except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee consider "allegations or imputations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" to be defamatory per se.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
As has been pointed out, that's roughly the value of a house in the area of the country she lives in. She's married now so I'm guessing she'll quit her job (if she hasn't already), and never work for a wage again. Since she can't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy, she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.
So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool. Congratulations.
the average seed ratio is between 0 and 2 uploads per download. 100 is possible, but highly unlikely. 3000 is absolutely absurd, especially for someone who is supposedly only sharing 24 songs.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
In case you were unaware, you don't have to upload 3000 copies of a file for 3000 people to be able to download the file.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
Where did you get 3,000 CDs?
It was right in the parent post.
See that little 'parent' button right next to 'reply' ? Try clicking it some time. It might give you an insight into what everyone else is talking about.
You'll see how this works in a few hours when this post is modded flamebait due to others doing exactly what you did, not reading the parent post and thus replying to this comment 100% out of context :P
> Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
Either false or a tautology. For example, if one runs a prison and has no money for more guards or walls or floodlights, so people keep cutting through the fence and coming in to break people out or smuggle drugs, a simple solution may prove very effective for the short-term: buy a couple of chickens and put them around the prison. They'll go crazy whenever anyone noses around, and you suddenly have a cheap alarm system. (True story.)
In the alternative, a complex problem may by definition be one that has no simple solution.
In this case, the simple solution to a complex problem is to have an option to pay for music using alternative methods--dollars (or pennies) to buy a song, dollars for a subscription service, time in the form of advertisements or saleable tasks. And songs released into the public domain once they're a certain number of years old or have earned a certain number of dollars.
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
I'm a student-IT assistant at my university (it's like $40 a week, but I don't have to do anything). Part of this job is handing out infringement notices.
I've only done a few, but I have to say - they're doing these right. First of all, they are sending out DMCA C&Ds (which is an order to remove the infringing material i.e. delete it, and not get caught again), not lawsuits. Second, they have the list of the exact files, infringing products, dates and times, and checksums - all linked to the IP address which has been duly looked up by our IT department (we are, after all, an ISP and bound by the same rules). They actually send the whole thing along as an XML file, with a custom schema
Maybe they're just laying off a bit because it's college students. But they're really being quite reasonable IMHO - and this is coming from someone who did, and does, hate the MPAA/RIAA with the burning passion of a thousand firey suns. No lawsuits, and it effectively boils down to a warning. If it comes to it, they leave discipline to the university (who will cut of 'net access, or worse).
Big media is still a leech, contributing little of value to the creative process - but when they make an accusation, they at least aren't being dicks about it.
YMMV.
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Slander per se != slander.
Look on the bright side: $54k isn't going to pay RIAA's fees, either.
The RIAA has probably spent a million dollars on this case.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful