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."
Giving them even $2 would set a precedent, not that not having precedent or completely ignoring law has stopped the RIAA before.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
The problem with slashdot is that the ADDers see just one typo, which everyone has spotted anyway, and it derails the entire topic.
Not if Thomas-Rasset refuses to settle. Either they will set a precedent that the fines are ridiculously high, or the RIAA will win the appeal and this matter will head to the Supreme Court.
The RIAA will win the appeal, it will head to the Supreme Court, and they will uphold the damages. From FindLaw:
If it wasn't clear before, recent rulings have made it abundantly clear that you should expect no justice of any kind from the Supreme Court.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Interesting idea, but due to Hollywood Accounting it would probably never be feasible in practice. I'd accept a return to reasonable copyright terms as an alternative.
If you read the rest of the article, you would realize that's a reduction from 1.92 MILLION. later on it properly places the decimal point.
Quote -> 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."
God BLESS this woman.
- Dan.
~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
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.
The only problem with being judgment proof is you lose any opportunity to have a career in the future. To remain judgment proof, you can never take a job where the wages can be attached. Therefore you remain a ward of the state on welfare for the rest of your life with only the guarantee of any real job being robbed. Working like deadbeat dads with cash under the table is the only way to raise your ability to purchase a car, insurance, housing, etc.
I don't expect the RIAA's bill collectors to ever let up looking for the money. They have a strong incentive to never let her rise out of poverty.
They seem to think they have the right to be completely inhumane in her treatment and show no attempt at compassion in the least.
This stance will of course come back to haunt them. I and many others have simply stopped supporting the industry in any way. I don't buy from any label involved in this and won't until they change. The change doesn't appear to be any time soon.
The truth shall set you free!
the opposing lawyer should be disbarred.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "
1.92 million dollars for 24 songs downloaded (total price less than $24) is certainly an excessive fine; and considering that most people won't make $2 million total in their lifetimes, is a cruel punishment.
What? Of course it will end. Everybody dies.
What? Of course it will end. Everybody dies.
Are you sure?
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
I think all lawyers should be disbarred, but that's another topic for another time.
God BLESS this woman
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.
Given a chance to settle for a reasonable amount (about $1/song for the number of songs she actually pirated), she refused.
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
The RIAA isn't hiring lawyers; they are lawyers. They really have nothing to lose from dragging this out as long as possible.
Even if the $54k settlement goes to the SCOTUS, it will stand. And $54k is plenty of deterrent for 90% of the US. That's about 10~15 years of garnished wages for most people.
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
They asked for $25,000 in their latest offer, which is about $1 per song as the gp suggested.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Except for Corporations who have all the rights of a person, none of the responsibilities , and are basically immortal.
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
the opposing lawyer should be disbarred.
Not if the opposing lawyer went straight to his client and said "Hey, be sensible here." The lawyer does not tell the lawyers client how they will proceed. It's the other way around. The lawyer interprets the law for the client, and tells them what is reasonable, and what is not. If the lawyer's wages are based on winnings, then the lawyer can also decide that it's not worth his time (i.e., no winnings = no wage). But if a client has the money, and wants to continue to pay despite good advice, a lawyer will happily do your bidding, even if it is futile.
Personally, I'm in favor of imposing reality on people. Lawyers can be assholes for many reasons, but not working for free is not one of them.
God BLESS this woman.
Huh? God bless Gandhi - he refused to bow down to the 'Evil-Ones' of his situation, but didn't try to lie, cheat, or blame his kids for anything.
Seriously, blaming your children of something because they can't be persecuted isn't worthy of any admiration. If a kid blames someone else for something she did, I'd spank her.
Being stubborn in the face of adversity is not admirable when you only do it because all other attempts of squirming away have failed.
You're right. RIAA should respect copyright law. Instead of bribing politicians to pass ever more draconian measures to punish customers, they should accept fair use, and P2P sharing, then build a business model to take advantage of today's technology.
These freaks need to be brought to heel. Whatever happened to "The customer is always right!" ??????
We, the customers worldwide, DEMAND that when we buy something, we can use it as we see fit. And, we demand that copyright rights expire in a timely fashion - 15 years max. We refuse to support the parasites who think that buying up the rights to songs of long dead artists should ensure their luxurious lifestyles into the next century.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I think we can agree that a precedent for a fine of a few cents per song (remember, that would include punitive and statutory fines) would be an outcome we can live with. It would have a similar effect as the complete rejection of fines: Suing someone for copyright infringement would be hugely unprofitable.
USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
Why exactly should we support or admire this moron?
Because the RIAA uses extortion tactics generally seen with mobsters and in banana republics. $1.2 million is obviously a ridiculous amount of money for an individual to pay for any crime related to copyright. $25,000 is also a hell of a lot of money for 90% of us.
I believe the RIAA should not be involved in these lawsuits, no more than automaker be involved in fining speeding drivers. Let the police do the work.
I would say a 2-3 months jail time and a nice criminal record would be enough of a deterrent. I see a big conflict in having the RIAA profit from these lawsuits.
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
The solution is never, ever, ever, ever, ever talk to the police! Martha would have gotten nothing if she'd kept her trap shut.
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
That being said, your point regarding bringing the RIAA to heel is valid, they are abusing and violating the laws just as much themselves. That makes both parties wrong, and both parties subject to legal penalties.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem. You can't have something for free, it costs money to produce and the people doing it need to be paid. The companies that make up the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels need to realize that artists and their fans are changing and adapt, they cannot make money they way they did before and trying to is what causes the conflict.
You cannot enforce a business model yet you need to realize that entertainment IS a business, and an expensive one.
Compromise people :)
The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?
And , is it normal that they sue someone who downloaded that song , for a cost a 1000x higher than the original costs ( i don't know any album that costs $54,000 ).
Plus , in my country , i'm already paying artists , each time i buy cd-r , dvd's , or other equipment. So , when anyone asks , i just have to point them to my stack of linux distro's .
Slipping shoelaces ?
> 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).
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
Whoa, whoa, hold your horses. That's two different kinds of "bogus" that shouldn't get mixed up.
The claim of lost sales is bogus insofar as that it simply isn't true.
The claim that "you wouldn't have bought it anyway", however, most likely IS true (and in fact, if we accept that the claim of lost sales isn't, then this one has to be: after all, if you would otherwise have bought it, that would be a lost sale, right?); it's only bogus insofar as that it's not actually a valid legal defense.
And saying "if you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it" is a value judgement that has no place in legal discourse, anyway. You also "shouldn't" get up and take a pee during commercial breaks on TV, for example, or block advertising on the Internet (non-obnoxious ads, at the very least), but that doesn't have any influence on its legality.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem.
She's being convicted of sharing 2 albums over the internet. That's about $30 worth of goods. If this were a theft case, she might be looking at between 200 to 2,000 dollar fine depending on jurisdiction. She's not. She's looking at paying out 54 thousand dollars for sharing 24 songs. That's an entire student loan! She could have gotten a masters degree with that money, but instead she's being convicted of sharing 24 songs. Even 24,000 is huge, as that's rent for two years, and a punishment that is quite literally a thousand times harsher than the crime. Don't get me started on how silly 1.9 million is: the judge was right to call it "monstrous and shocking."
It's a bit hard to side with goliath on this one. The previously offered $3,000 dollar penalty is a LOT more in scope, though still a bit silly. But that should be codified into law, rather than a compromise that the other side is "willing" to offer instead of the utterly without reality $80,000 per song currently. And if you listen to her lawyers, that's exactly what Thomas-Rasset's lawyers are trying to get passed: a constitutionality ruling on the truly silly financial numbers being thrown around. And good on them for that. Congress obviously isn't going to do it.
The ______ Agenda
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
So on the one hand we have lots and lots and lots and LOTS of people downloading materials of the web, in violation of current laws. On the other hand the elected officials who represent these people pass, modify and enforce laws making what the electorate has accepted as normal illegal.
Apparently there is enormous demand for what is currently being offered by P2P. Whether it's the fact that it's free/cheap, that games where the DRM has been removed by the scene actually work better than the real thing, or just the simple convenience of being able to watch your favorite show whenever it damn well pleases you...apparently there is something so incredibly alluring about these downloads that people persist in doing it, despite being warned at every corner about the illegality of doing so.
The demand side of the market is clamoring for something, so let the invisible hand do its thing, and give all the lawyers a good slapping while it's at it.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
> 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?
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway.
It's not stealing because it's not stealing. Stealing is when you permanently deprive someone of their property. It's also not a whole load of other crimes that have nothing to do with the transfer of digital information, e.g. it's not arson (even though you've "burned up their profits") and it's not assault (even though you've "hit them where it hurts"). Pretending it's a particular crime to make it sound worse just makes debate more difficult and confuses the issue.
"On the other hand the elected officials who represent these people pass, modify and enforce laws making what the electorate has accepted as normal illegal."
And, there is the core problem. Elected officials forget who they work for. Instead of representing voters, they whore themselves out to the highest bidder. If all the facts could be laid out, and the VOTERS were to express their will by way of a series of referendums, we might end up with something that I disagree with, but something that I could live with. So long as a few lobbyists with bottomless pockets are calling the shots in Washington, I can do little more than express my contempt for the representatives.
Again - going back to my earlier post, there MUST be a separation between casual home users, and for-profit business users. Commercial interests were the original target of copyright laws, and private individuals weren't even on the radar. In today's world, maybe private individuals SHOULD be targeted - but no one can justify the penalties being discussed in today's court rooms.
24 songs. Just 24 songs. That doesn't even begin to show up on anyone's radar, if they have any sense. If I'm not sharing several HUNDREDS of songs, at a minimum, it's pretty obvious that I'm not a commercial concern.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
It doesn't necessarily matter what they earned. Remember, the subject here is damages to the copyright holders. So the real issue would be their net (not gross) on the royalties paid. That is a far smaller amount than the retail price.
Jane. As usual, you are correct.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful