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

[Shadow Wrought]

Yeah, I'd give 'em two ones and tell them to keep the change.

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

[TheRaven64]

Just give them photocopies. After all, she's being sued for distributing low-quality (MP3) copies of their songs, she should pay with low-quality copies of money.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[Score Whore]

No, the summary is correct: The $1.92 fine is in 2008 dollars. The $54,000 is in 2010 dollars.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[EzInKy]

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."

Re:Mispleling in summory

[cyber-dragon.net]

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 :)

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.

Re:Mispleling in summory

[kdemetter]

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 .

Re:Mispleling in summory

[uglyduckling]

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.

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...

[Hatta]

The RIAA will win the appeal, it will head to the Supreme Court, and they will uphold the damages. From FindLaw:

the Court has held the Clause inapplicable to civil jury awards of punitive damages in cases between private parties, ''when the government neither has prosecuted the action nor has any right to receive a share of the damages awarded.''

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.

Re:Ah, to be judgement proof...

[Technician]

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.

Re:Ah, to be judgement proof...

[darkmeridian]

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.

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.

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.

boy ....

[unity100]

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.