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

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...

[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.)

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.

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.