Slashdot Mirror
RIAA To Appeal Thomas-Rasset Ruling
frank_adrian314159 writes "The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 million fine for file sharing to $54,000. '"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.' Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for. '"Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."
The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 fine for file sharing to $54,000
That wouldn't be a reduction. That would be a dramatic increase.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost in court. She should have settled in the first place.
But really, she's judgement proof: whether its $50K or $5M or $5B, they can't get blood from that stone, she's Judgement Proof.
So really, its principle on both sides. The RIAA wants a scary number to prevent solvent people from fighting these cases, and she wants the RIAA to get zippo. Neither will give in, and dollars-to-doughnuts says the judgement of at least $50K will withstand appeals and the RIAA will be left to try to collect it before just giving up, with both sides in that case winning: the RIAA gets their huge verdict through and tested, and Jammie Thomas-Rasset gets to tell the RIAA's bill collectors to go F-themselves.
Test your net with Netalyzr
I wouldn't settle for $1.92 either, those RIAA jerks aren't getting a penny!
I want my two dollars!
I don't know why the story says it's an "appeal". It's not an appeal. It's just a new trial of the appropriate statutory damages.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The real question is what the goal of copyright law is. If the goal is to encourage innovation and ensure property owners get paid when their work is used, then there's no need for huge punitive damages. (You still want some, because the system can't send everybody who breaks the law a bill, since it doesn't know who they are, so it has to discourage people from breaking the law.) But if we somehow feel that this is a fundamental and huge violation of the copyright rights and that those rights are very highly valued by our society, then an extreme penalty might be justified. In either case, as the court rightly pointed out, $54K is more than sufficient. (Especially absent showing of commercialization or massive redistribution.)
Personally, I'm a fan of a sort of sliding scale of copyright protections--enough to encourage anyone to innovate, but not so much that things don't enter the public domain. When someone has made the greater of $10M or Cost+100% on an artistic work, it should either enter the public domain automatically or be licensable for a nominal amount. (Perhaps the percentage or absolute amount will vary based on the kind of work.)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
The point is for there to be news items that say:
RIAA wins 54 MILLION DOLLARS in Illegal Music Download case!
It's not about the money per se, it's about media splash to hopefully deter others from doing the same. The IRS uses the same tactic - they just go after the big fish ( Like Martha Stewart) and theoretically, it will dissuade others from cheating on their taxes. Nobody there really believes that they can recover their "losses" by suing. Anyway the real losses, from a strict dollars and cents perspective, are not worth suing over, This is PR via the courts.
The point is for there to be news items that say:
RIAA wins 54 MILLION DOLLARS in Illegal Music Download case!
It's not about the money per se, it's about media splash to hopefully deter others from doing the same. The IRS uses the same tactic - they just go after the big fish ( Like Martha Stewart) and theoretically, it will dissuade others from cheating on their taxes. Nobody there really believes that they can recover their "losses" by suing. Anyway the real losses, from a strict dollars and cents perspective, are not worth suing over, This is PR via the courts.
Small correction. Martha was busted for insider trading, not cheating on her taxes.
...it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million. That's what I've always felt about people suing me... If I'm going to declare bankruptcy to get out of the debt anyway, does it really matter how much they are suing me for? They are going to collect the same amount anyway! (This might not be true in this case, "Intentional Torts" may not be dischargable in bankruptcy, but IANAL so I couldn't tell you whether or not that applies to this case.)
As a side note, I once got out of a $500,000 lawsuit by taking the opposing lawyer outside, pointing to my old ragged motorhome, and telling him "That's my only asset; I'm living in it, and I'm pretty sure I owe more on it than it is worth... you're welcome to try to take it away from me, but you're going to have to find it first! Now, how much effort do you really want to put into this case?" Once you convince them their best case scenario will simply drive you into bankruptcy and they will collect nothing anyway, they're not so keen on taking cases on contingency anymore -- especially meritless ones.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Unless the RIAA has figured out a way to successfully amend the U.S. Constitution through the courts(hint: they cannot), then there is not a damned thing that is going to change. I believe that corporations should be limited to receiving the real losses for IP theft. If a person is caught stealing one song, then the RIAA would get $0.99 USD, and if someone steals a movie, then the MPAA would get the cost of a movie ticket or DVD/Blu-ray disc, depending on which version is stolen. It is only fair, as these assholes do not deserve to turn a higher profit on each violation because the hire the right lawyer.
Now, any fines the state places on the violator is a different story, but that is up to the people, not the MPAA, or RIAA, etc.
No, but thank you for playing. She was convicted of lying to a federal agent during an investigation even though a) she was not Mirandized, b) she was not under oath and c) what she lied about was not against the law.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
From the article: "Federal law says recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but a jury may raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful."
Huh? So it *is* possible to use the "cat walked on my keyboard" defense and win? How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful? Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law (no matter if if it is a good or bad law).
Rich people are eccentric. Poor people are strange. Me, I'd be happy with odd.
And here I thought it was because most of the recipes in her books and magazine taste like shit.
a) She didn't have to be Mirandized. She wasn't arrested at that point.
b) Doesn't matter. She wasn't in a court of law.
c) Doesn't matter. It's against the law to obstruct justice and lie to the FBI.
Read item 23 and item 26-27
From the article: "Federal law says recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song - but a jury may raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful."
Huh? So it *is* possible to use the "cat walked on my keyboard" defense and win? How can downloading music without adhering to the defined licensing terms not be willful? Ignorance is no defense for breaking the law (no matter if if it is a good or bad law).
It's not about downloading music. It's about sharing music, i.e. making it available for other people to download. If you are somehow not aware of the fact that the music you downloaded or ripped is being made available to the world, and you can make this case, I suppose that would count as not willful infringement. However, good luck proving it, especially against multi-million dollar MAFIAA lawyers.
its distortion of justice, abuse of law, and exploitation of democracy.
private interests are suppressing individual citizens to protect their near monopoly gained profits through legal system. in addition to that, they buy lawmakers and manufacture laws that will protect ill gained profits in expense of freedoms of citizens, as in the acta case.
yet still, a lot of you just label this with a simple, insufficient word, 'greed'. this is not greed. its beyond greed. it has started to become a precise replication of feudal society back in middle ages, albeit, the feudalism has democracy as a storefront. we are supposedly free, yet, as citizens, our relative wealth and liberties compared to those small minority percentage on top of the pyramid didnt change by comparison. neither did the percentages of the wealthy and the ordinary had changed. just, the average standard of living globally has changed. back in middle ages wealthy could afford stone mansions adorned with gold while eating exquisite food whereas the ordinary person would live in thatched roof wooden huts eating gritty bread and cheese, now the wealthy can afford to take private jets halfway over the world on a whim while having hundred thousand dollar champagnes whereas the ordinary person has to work his/her butt off for your average meal. everything is the same in regard to justice in the society.
now, just like everything else that has happened before and had an effect to equalize the situation, empowering the ordinary people and making them less dependent on rich overlords, internet is being suppressed on numerous excuses and grounds, one of which being 'intellectual property rights'. if you put this in a different context with different wording, like into middle ages, you would find that it has no difference from the concept of 'lord's hunting rights in the forest'. and internet is very very detrimental to those 'rights'. it empowers individuals, ordinary people can rise up to noticeable wealth without having to be subservient to any overlord on top with shareholdership or conglomerate ties, and become a threat to existing aristocracy.
no, this is not a matter of simple 'greed'. this is a matter of freedom, and unfortunately, its being fought in the same basic ideals on which it was fought back in middle ages - inequality created due to skewed ownership rights and resulting control scheme. which is unfortunate, because it shows that nothing changed in principle compared to the middle ages, despite the stage and the costumes have changed.
Read radical news here
$1.92? It's $1.92 more than the bastards deserve.
lol.
Disney has balance sheets and accounting books and X number of employees to show what IT'S doing with the IP. What do you have? Other than "but but but feudal system!?"
feudal lords had balance sheets, accounting books, X number of employees, chancellors, stewards, inspectors, taskmasters, sergeant at arms and innumerable other types of offices under them, working for them. even the smaller nobles, 'landholders', or with the term in early middle ages, 'freeholders'.
yea, i say 'but but but but feudal'. because it IS feudal. however, you are quite ignorant on that matter, seeing as how you can show having accounting books and balance sheets as being something differentiating the modern feudal estates from middle age ones.
actually it is worse today. back in feudal times, the lord, estate owner, had an obligation to feed the peasants, who were tied as serfs to his/her estate. it was a double sided oath, a social responsibility. today, the estate owner is even free from that obligation, while retaining all the privileges of being an aristocrat.
and there are people like you too, justifying the system of inequality through various excuses so that you can accept the reality you are living in, and cope up with it.
Read radical news here
There is precedent, fortunately, the law was changed to life after he stopped creating anything, so we are ok unless he makes a return.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah#Departure
its more then what they asked for in the settlement. and its still plenty to drive most into bankruptcy to remove the debt win win. that's what many don't get when you sue someone for amounts they can never pay in realty. it might sound nice to sue someone for million for a slip and fall on paper but your simply never going to see the money, same for most majer auto accdents my gandma won a case fo a good amount of course she never saw a dime of that money being the lady filed chapter 7. even thow the girl was the at fult driver.and nearly crippled my grandma. suieing for large amounts is just a wast of time for everyone invalved.
...and I hate the mechanism of the entire music industry today, but am I alone in being entirely fucking sick of hearing JimmyJimJamJammieJellyJar's constant whining about how she's just an innocent lamb who never ever ever not once did a wrong thing ever in her life? If you're going to pirate shit knowing full well that it's illegal and not give a damn because "everybody's doing it and *they* don't get arrested and it's not like I'm shoplifting and those haxers on Slushdart said I'm just sharing anyway," then you need to man the fuck up and face the music (heh...) when you finally get nailed. Civil disobedience doesn't mean a thing if you try to hide behind the skirt of Lady Justice the moment your hair gets mussed. Either you're a martyr for the cause or you're just some fat cheapskate who wanted free music because it was easy. Pick one, you bloviating sow.
Is that 1.92 cents or 1.92 dollars?
http://outcampaign.org/
Wrong. Unlike on TV, in Real Life(TM) the cops are supposed to read you your rights any time you're considered a suspect.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
That is what she was convicted of, what she actually did was insider trading. If you want to split hairs.
"But this one goes to 11!"
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
She might be a moron, but she's OUR moron. Besides, its either cheer for her or the RIAA...
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The solution is never, ever, ever, ever, ever talk to the police! Martha would have gotten nothing if she'd kept her trap shut.
If she's judgement-proof, what is keeping these appeals and retrial going? Somebody is paying the lawyers on Jamie's side. Or are they doing all this for free. It smells like there's some third party with some hidden motive behind all this. I wonder who and what it might be.
No, that's not true. They are supposed to read you your rights when you have been "detained" as a suspect. That is to say, at any time you are no longer free to leave.
No, if you want to split hairs, the only thing she was found guilty of was lying. They were questioning her about insider trading, but apparently did not have enough evidence to try her for it.
This is the United States, remember? Innocent until proven guilty. The fact that they were questioning her about it does not imply guilt.
The anti-RIAA sentiment is so high these days, I'll bet we could use it against them. How about we start a prize for quality free music. To enter, people would have to release a song under a Creative Commons license. People who are against by the RIAA could chip in to strengthen the prize, and all the entries would help to devalue the junk that they sell. We'd have some celebrities pick a few winning artists, and the artists would actually take home some real money.
Is there a defense fund for these cases? Should we start one?
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
> Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs. When caught, she tried to frame her kids for it. She tried to destroy evidence. She lied repeatedly under oath.
Do you have reliable sources for that, or are you merely engaging in defamation? Because I'm pretty sure she wasn't found guilty of destruction of evidence (and I do know about the hard drive--it broke down and she forgot the date she took it in to get it repaired according to what I read). The other stuff is less clear. The main evidence it was her is a username, but in my family, many of us have shared the same usernames in the past, so I'm not willing to say that she lied because I don't know.
And if she just wanted to settle, she could have gotten out of it for maybe ~$5k before fighting it out legally, based on what I've heard about other settlement offers. $25k still doesn't fit my idea of "reasonable" though. If she sole 2 CDs from a record store (with the 24 songs she was actually convicted of copying), she'd be looking at something like a $500 fine and probation. Even if you make that 4 or 8 or 10 CDs, it wouldn't change much, and Bittorrent shows that multiplying that by anything more than 10 (to give us 20 CDs) is ridiculous. No one has share ratios that high and they have no business collecting for the same losses over and over (which they are, giving that they've filed 30,000 lawsuits or so).
> no one has ever been arrested, charged, or sued for downloading a song.
The whole reason for the second trial in this case was because in the first trial the judge instructed the jury that "making available" was a form of "distribution". In the second trial, he was careful to sidestep that legal question by instructing the jury merely that "downloading or distributing without permission of the rightsholder is in violation of copyright law" (not an exact quotation). Considering that RIAA didn't attempt to prove distribution, only "making available", one must assume that the jury awarded the second trial's damages for the downloading, no?
"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her,"
"There are FOUR lights!"
What she was convicted of is not the same as what actually happened. Just because there isn't enough evidence to go to trial does not imply innocence. Just because a person is not found guilty of a crime does not mean that person did not commit a crime. Unless you are going to try and tell me that O.J. didn't hack up his ex-wife and her boyfriend based on the fact he was found not guilty. See, a court of law and reality are barely on the same plane of existence.
Innocent until proven guilty only is applicable in a court of law - in my own mind I can form whatever opinion I want. This is the United States, remember? I read some of the court documents and followed the story, and it was very clear to anyone with half a brain what was really going on. Insider trading, and then a mad string of lies for the cover up. And usually it is the cover up that gets you busted. Remember Watergate, or President Clinton's blowjob?
"But this one goes to 11!"
I think she has accepted there is no justice in her case and has said to all her family to sell everything she has, and keep the money
for her kids, and that if she goes to jail, they will not get a penny. That is what I would do, until the lawyers can sort out how this
stupid case came to light, or when someone uncovers the judge was paid off by guess who....