8th Circuit Upholds $220,000 Verdict In Jammie Thomas Case

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has upheld the initial jury verdict in the case against Jammie Thomas, Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset. This case was the first jury trial for a file-sharing suit brought by the major record labels, and focused on copyright infringement for 24 songs. The Court of Appeals has ruled that the award of $220,000, or $9250 per song, was not an unconstitutional violation of Due Process. The Court, in its 18-page decision (PDF), declined to reach the 'making available' issue, for procedural reasons."

Comments

Good Lord

[Dr. Sheldon Cooper]

Having people who know nothing about technology make case law about technology is like having a Capuchin monkey fix the brakes on your car: cute and funny at first, but ultimately a bad idea that is also highly dangerous.

Re:Good Lord

[man_of_mr_e]

This isn't a case of lack of knowledge of the technology. It's a case of the law being absurd, and the judges hands being tied. It's absurd that sharing a couple dozen songs can carry a greater liability than murdering someone (I'm talking civil law here).

The punishment certainly does not fit the crime, but that law allows these kinds of damages.

If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers.

Re:Good Lord

[hesaigo999ca]

>If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers.
hahahahahahahahaha.......hahahahahahahahahaha.........hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

It will not change anything

[Anonymous Coward]

We will continue to share and the labels will learn their place.

Re:It will not change anything

[PoliTech]

Napster, limewire, bittorrent, ... the next method will once again catch the lawyers and copyright police by surprise and completely off their guard. Then when the new method (whatever it may be) becomes mainstream enough that the lawyers and copyright trolls finally figure it out, the media moguls will pursue trial and conviction of another sacrificial lamb to attempt to staunch the bleeding, and once again it will be much too little and much too late.

Too bad for the sacrificial lamb, but as has been said before, if we want the laws changed, we need to work to change them. If we want the media companies to change we need to buy enough stock in the media corporations to exert some influence with regards to marketing, and IP.

Most downloaders however won't bother to expend any time or energy to change the law, or vote on stocks. They'll simply move on to the next media sharing methodology and happily continue on, (as they always have) while the "Mainstream" eventually catches up.

So the story continues ... Until the media moguls finally figure out that they are stepping over dollars to pick up dimes, there will be one after another file sharing methods, and one after another sacrificial lambs.

Statutory damages are devoid of all meaning

[Missing.Matter]

From the Wikipedia article:

1st civil jury trial Statutory damages of $222,000 ($9,250/song).
2nd civil jury trial Statutory damages of $1,920,000 ($80,000/song).
Remittitur Statutory damages reduced to $54,000 ($2,250/song).
3rd civil jury trial Statutory damages of $1,500,000 ($62,500/song).
Damages reduced Statutory damages reduced to $54,000 ($2,250/song).

Seriously, statutory damages are a joke. The number is completely arbitrary and jumping around, seemingly randomly, from $54k to almost $2m. Isn't this a pretty good sign that things are FUBAR, and "statutory damages" is devoid of all meaning? The $150,000 statutory damages maximum (per infringement) was written into law with a very different context in mind than it's being applied to (industrial scale for-profit copyright infringement). These statutory damages seriously are completely defunct, yet copyright holders are exploiting them to no end. *We* as a society have provided *them* copyright to promote the *useful* arts and sciences. I think it's becoming very clear the art they are producing is no longer useful, but a determent to society. Perhaps *we* as a society should take those rights away, or at the very least severely curb them to avoid this utter nonsense.

Re:Statutory damages are devoid of all meaning

[Archangel Michael]

Part of this, which often escapes /. users is that the law isn't justified by just actual losses, but also also includes punitive recourse as well.

I'm of the opinion that Punitive damages should be awarded, but those should go to the state, not to the victim. I'm all for actual damages, and perhaps 10% (or Treble damages or some other number) of the Punitive damages going to the victim, but most of the punitive damages should be going to the state, into a victims compensation or something like that. This would prevent the idea of "get rich quick, just sue" mentality that is clogging up the courts now. Courts have become Greed Machines.

Piracy = theft?

[OldSport]

Industry shills are constantly trying to convince the public that piracy = theft, but punishments like this make it seem more like piracy = murder. In my home state, anyway, "a person convicted of the offense of retail theft of merchandise having a retail value not in excess of $100.00 shall be punished by a fine of not more than $300.00 or imprisonment for not more than six months, or both." Torrent the same CD, however, and you're out $150,000 ($10,000/song, assuming 15 songs on a CD).

Note to potential downloaders: just steal the goods you want. You'll get off a lot lighter that way.

Due process?

[Hatta]

Due process is guaranteed by the 5th and 14th amendments. The problem with this case is excessive fines, prohibited by the 8th amendment. Why wasn't this an issue in this appeal?

Re:Due process?

[vux984]

Applying the Williams standard, we conclude that an award of $9,250 per each of twenty-four works is not âoeso severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.â

The award of $9,250 is not really the issue. In fact, that would be an arguably reasonable punishment for the alleged infringement.

The issue is counting each file as a separate infringement and multiplying $9,250 by 24.

Using kazaa or whatever it was to infringe and being convicted should be a singular crime, not 24 separate crimes.

When I ripped my 800+ disc CD collection I ended up with upwards of 9000 tracks. When I installed a filesharing app that by default pointed at my music folder I am apparently on the hook for 9000 separate crimes @ $9250 each?

Lets see: this court apparently thinks it would be "reasonable" to fine me 83 million dollars for that.

Re:yikes!

[Bob9113]

So, according to you, because I don't toe the slashdot monoculture line, I must be a troll and a shill.

No. According to me, because of the way you presented your opinion, you are indistinguishable from a shill.

I believe in the benefits of a lively and spirited debate from people who are steeped in the issues.

You were not presenting a spirited debate about the merit of a policy, you were attempting to pursuade people to engage in a particular behavior in response to a threat posed by bad policy. In effect you were telling people to be more obedient or face the wrath of the legal system. That is not spirited debate, it is authoritarianism.

I'm sorry for you that you feel differently.

Awww, that's pretend nice of you to say. I guess I won't slit my wrists now that I know you care.

Re:yikes!

[NormalVisual]

Yes, we all hate the **AA, but remember that nobody held up these artists at gunpoint and forced them to sign

No, but the government *did* hold the rest of the country at gunpoint and continues to steal (as in "taking from us and making unavailable for our use") what rightfully should have gone into the public domain with the stroke of a pen. That's *my* problem with the way things are.