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."
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.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
No, the summary is correct: The $1.92 fine is in 2008 dollars. The $54,000 is in 2010 dollars.
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 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 :)
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.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.