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."
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
"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."
You misunderstand the precedent. Your cite says that that the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to excessive fines when the government had nothing to do with the fine. That makes sense because the Eighth Amendment bars the government. The Supreme Court has held that excessive punitive damages violate the Constitution, but the Due Process clause, not the Eighth Amendment. I note without further comment that the person getting screwed in that case was BMW.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
I thought they had only proven 24 songs. At least that's what the article says.
"Last year, a federal jury ruled Thomas-Rasset, a mother of four from Brainerd, willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs."
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
She was sharing thousands. Only 24 were involved in the trial. However, since their initial offer was made before they sued, the correct number to use in determining the per song offer is the number of songs actually shared, not the number later used at trial.
Do you often pay for things just because somebody says you owe them money? The correct number was the number they could prove at trial, not the one they pulled out of their ass.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Legally, I think they are obligated to accept it since it's legal currency being used to pay a debt.
The law may actually specify limits precisely so that someone doesn't try to have fun at the creditor's expense that way. I've no idea if US has that in its legal tender laws, but e.g. here in Canada, cent coins are legal tender only for debts not exceeding 25 cents, dollar coins are legal tender only for debts not exceeding 25 dollars, etc (limits are defined for all coin denominations). There are no restrictions on bank notes, though. I also know that Australia and NZ have similar restrictions, and it looks like so does EU.
I betcha that if Thomas-Rasset would agree to a private, sealed settlement for a dollar, the RIAA would jump on it. They simply do not want this decision to stand.
If the case is settled, then this decision will stand. This decision stands for the proposition that even in a case where the plaintiff wilfully infringed, and even lied under oath at the trial, the maximum possible recovery is $2250 per infringed work.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful