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."
$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.
I think you missed the "distributing" part.
The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.
What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD? Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service? This guy didn't even steal anything.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
'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.
I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything. Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music. In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.
If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k. This is better than before, but still very bad.
Free Martian Whores!
...I think it is still a bit much, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was. I like that the judge acknowledged that he wasn't doing this because he sympathised with the defendant, but rather was disgusted with the punishment based on the crime. The reasons he gave for changing the amount are the way a judge SHOULD be.
Living With a Nerd
I have a restaurant. You run around town telling people we spit in each and every plate that goes out. I've lost business because of it. Are you saying I'd have to go and find each and every person that didn't come to my restaurant because of your lies? Even if I could find them all, what possible way would I have to convince them to testify for me?
Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
Maybe because there's some legal specification as to the min/max of statutory dmgs? As a judge he is allowed to move the slider but not change the endpoints, I'm guessing.
...it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right? Is that how legal precedence is established?
It still seems quite high. I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song. I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation. That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego.
Lame.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
As I understand it (I'm not a lawyer):
His decision was that the amount awarded was in violation of the principles of remittitur. As a result, it was his duty to find the absolute maximum in damages which could be awarded based on the violations. In this case, he determined that sharing 24 songs could be worth, at most, $54,000 in damages ($2,250 per song).
He ALSO felt that, while that was the maximum in damages, he believed this case was not deserving of the maximum in damages. HOWEVER, he felt that while altering the damages awarded to be in line with remittitur were within his powers, he did not feel that lowering it further were, and thus let the judgement of the jury stand as much as possible.
I think you missed the part where distributing was never proved.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
To say that that a copyright holder could only recover his actual damages would render the law meaningless. That is why the law allows for statutory damages "in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court
considers just." Three times the minimum does not seem excessive as a matter of law to me.
Depending on his salary and how much he wants to spend on living expenses, he can pay that off in a few years.
And if he didn't have to pay it off, he could, you know, spend the money on something that enriches society, like, say, purchasing a piece of real estate and thus maybe helping someone retire, purchasing a LOT of music legally and thus, compensating the artists justly, purchasing some new gizmos and gadgets that help sales rates and thus, help companies like Apple and Motorola and Google and so on continue to produce new, good products. In other words, he could spend that $54,000 on living and that money would get distributed throughout society. Now, instead, it will filter into the check books of record execs and lawyers and be spent in the brothels of hell, thus bringing nearer the inevitable hell on Earth apocalypse....or on hookers and coke.
1) It sets an example. Don't get caught
To which I respond:
Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all
-Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Still, I think $18,000 is a number that already more than took into effect the need for deterrence and costs of enforcement, since it's already massively higher than any actual damages or lost revenues, which are in the several hundreds of dollars.
I think the problem with the law is that there are two different things it is addressing. This case is about an individual who shared a handful of songs with a few people with no expectation of monetary gain. For that case, a few thousand dollars is a significant deterrent.
But there is also the case where someone decides to make a business out of selling illegally copied music. The statutory damages in the law are really meant to be a serious deterrent to this kind of business. Without being able to attach a really big number to each infringing activity, someone might decide that the risk of paying a few thousand dollars is offset by the big money you can make by selling music without having to pay any artists.
I think the law itself is reasonable, it just gets really ugly when it is applied to individuals. They probably need to expand the law to distinguish personal file sharing from commercial intent. That could result in reasonable penalties for infringement. It sounds like the judge was doing the best he could to provide justice while still following the law.
Minimum is $750, and that is tripled in case of willful infringement, which is what jury decided was the case.
As he said in his ruling, you can't only look at the actual damages, since this fine needs to serve as a deterrent, too. If you are only going to pay the value of the songs you downloaded when you get caught, then there would be no deterrent to downloading songs for free.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.
I'd really like it if it was, but I don't see how this could have that result.
It's not like they could have gotten the two million from this poor person anyways. About 50k is probably the limit they would have gotten from her anyways. She'll be in debt to the RIAA until she dies from old age, most likely. My college loan was less than that (about half actually) and I'm *still* paying on the bastard.
And a precedent in that court was set. Payoff is: $750 * 3 * [number of songs]. Wait until they catch some poor schmuck sharing his whole boot drive. It'll be back up in the millions pretty quick. 50k is what you get for sharing only 24 songs.
Nope, this doesn't go down in the win column for us I'm thinking.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Overkill is the point. That's what makes it a deterrent.
Spelling and Grammar errors have been added to this post for your enjoyment
The cost of enforcement is pretty high, so actual damages might have to include those.
This is totally absurd. If I steal a bread and the bakery develops their own hitech satellite surveillance system to catch me, they couldn't possible claim that they lost a billion dollars because I stole a bread.
If the cost of enforcement is more that the actual damages, it's a stupid business decision and clearly their problem that they chose to do it.
Keep an eye on that vein in your forehead.... Honestly, I think you're blowing this out of proportion. You could most likely buy *a* house in her area with 54,000 dollars. If it wouldn't be enough for a reasonably nice house, maybe that undermines his point a bit, but the point is that 54,000 dollars is still quite a lot of money for a person who isn't independently wealthy.
What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD? Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service?
Perhaps that's the lesson to be learned here. Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Those kids were never going to college.
She's a single mother of 4, that means not only did she not have the sense to not get knocked up without proper support, she did it 4 times. There isn't a lot of common sense in that family so its highly unlikely any of her rugrats are going to do anything more than Janitorial service. Its possible, but its just not a realistic expectation.
Or, you know, it's possible that she was married and that her husband ran off with another man, or mysteriously disappeared from a bar one day, or was killed in an auto accident, or a million other things. But don't let facts like having no idea what her situation is get in the way of your right to sneer at her.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
So? I’d hire her exactly because of her refusing to cave to the bullshit reality of others.
That makes her reliable not to fall for schizophrenia-like diseases, like religion, strong irrational beliefs, being detached from reality etc.
Which is a great and rare quality to have.
Also, I’d hire her for minimum legal wage, and unofficially pay her a lot more.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
No damages of any amount are appropriate when the "crime" in question is virtuous act of making recorded music available to all, thereby enriching the people as a whole.