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."

Comments

It's not an appeal

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

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.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[EzInKy]

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.