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

Mispleling in summory

[CorporateSuit]

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.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[mariushm]

RIAA offered to settle for 25 grand, with some conditions that would make the lawsuit results not apply to other trials, if I understood correctly. I believe they feared this would cause a precedent and as a consequence they'd get such small fines.

Now of course they play the good guys

Re:Mispleling in summory

[Anonymous Coward]

> Why? She illegally shared a huge number of songs.

Even assuming she did, illegally sharing songs is not wrong, it's just illegal. Lots of stuff is illegal but not wrong. Other stuff is extremely wrong but apparently not illegal (at least, if you're rich enough). We should admire her for not caving in to an unjust law, even if she's a bit unhinged.

Copyright law should be abolished.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[Hognoxious]

The precedent that in a civil society, we respect the law, and that the copyright system is part of the law?

On the other hand, what about the principle that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime?

Ah, to be judgement proof...

[nweaver]

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.

Re:Ah, to be judgement proof...

[GasparGMSwordsman]

I disagree. This whole set of statues is vague, badly worded and unethical. What do you do when a law is bad, vague and unethical? You either change the statute or you have a series of court cases where case law puts a more definite explanation of the law.

I am very much hoping that this will end up in at the SCOUTS so we can have a clear answer on many of these ambiguous legal issues.

Re:Ah, to be judgement proof...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

When they began their bullying 10+ years ago I committed myself to stop buying CDs until they stopped. If you walk into my place-- right there against the wall is a rack piled full of CDs, frozen in time. I was a fairly heavy buyer, but one day it was enough is enough and I stopped cold. No more CDs, no iTunes Store, nothing. I didn't even buy them as gifts any more.

I can't imagine how many thousands of dollars the RIAA member companies lost from me alone. Ten years of regular music purchases stopped. And I've missed out on quite a bit too, no doubt (not the band), but I've learned to enjoy my collection and listen to non-label music now and see bands live. I don't pirate music at all, although I do listen to the radio.

My money went elsewhere.

Maybe I've outgrown a lot of the crap too that I might have otherwise bought, but I have to say, y'know, I've just quietly stopped being their customers, and I'm certainly able to hold out for decades more if necessary. It's a lot easier to not buy music than to buy it.

(Movies are harder. I haven't made that commitment yet. Damn you, MPAA.)

Re:Ah, to be judgement proof...

[linuxrocks123]

You're wrong. Judgments from a civil lawsuit are dischargeable. You may be confused because fines that are punishment for a crime are sometimes not dischargeable. This case, however, was not a criminal case.

---linuxrocks123

My sentiments exactly

[Locke2005]

...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.

Re:My sentiments exactly

[AK Marc]

In these tough economic times, it's irresponsible to yourself and your family not to have at least 6 months of money in an easy to liquidate form.

But $50k for someone making $100k a year isn't 6 months. That's closer to 18 months. For $100k a year, I'd put away $15k+ in 401(k), $5k in Roth, $15k in taxes, and half of what's left discretionary. I'd need something like $30k to live a whole year. $15k would last someone making $100k a year for 6 months. So yes, someone may be able to write a check for $54k. But not being able to doesn't mean they are irresponsible.

Re:My sentiments exactly

[nabsltd]

First, on $100K income in most states, you'll end up with about $65K take-home (with no pre-tax deductions), but you seem to be allocating only $15K instead of $35K to the government. Even with $20K pre-tax, the $80K remaining will end up as about $50K take-home.

Second, I did say "at least". There are a lot of people who are having problems finding equivalent employment in 12 months.

Third, $30K/year expenses is less than $3K/month. Many of those people making $100K are what I like to call "house poor" in that they are paying $2-3K/month in mortgage. Then, there's the $500/month car payment. Add in other required bills (utilities, food, etc.), plus the many not required but much cheaper to not break the contract bills like cell phone, cable, Internet (at least some of which really are required if you are looking for a job today), and $4K/month with no money spent on things like Starbucks, movies, etc., isn't out of the realm of reality. So, that $50-65K take-home doesn't look too good when you have $35-45K in standard expenses.

Of course, most people have the plan that they will get a new job in few months so living on credit for everything they can (i.e., not the mortgage and car payment) seems viable to them. Until their job search stretches out a few more months and the interest payments on the cards are about all they can make.

I've been in job hunts both as the dummy without the cushion and the smarter guy with one, and it's a whole lot less stress when you don't have to take the first job that comes along.

Re:The real question is, what's the goal here?

[Locke2005]

The real question is what the goal of copyright law is. My take would be that one the original artist is dead, further extensions of the copyright on their work do very little to encourage them to produce more. The copyright on Micky Mouse should have died with Walt, not been extended to 75 years.

Interesting side question: J.D. Salinger just died after writing profusely (and profanely) for over 50 years. Much of that will now presumably be published. Does the copyright start on the date he finished writing it, or on the date it is originally published? In this case, copyright law has done absolutely nothing to encourage him to produce more... why should his works still be under copyright 50 years from now?

its not 'greed'.

[unity100]

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.