Jammie Thomas demands a new trial
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas, ordered to pay the corporate music industry almost a quarter of a million dollars, says she wants a new trial.
“In what has to be one of the most outrageous verdicts ever recorded in America, without a shred of hard evidence,” judge Michael J. Davis virtually instructed the jury to find her guilty of copyright infringement, p2pnet said recently.
Now, Thomas, known online as Tereastarr, and her lawyer, Brian Toder, say they want another hearing, “on the issue of damages” to determine the extent of the actual damages or harm suffered because of Thomas’ alleged music uploads.
In a court document, they say any award above and beyond the value of the tunes, “is purely punitive, and as such must be scrutinized by the Court to insure that it is not grossly excessive, thereby violating the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution”.
Alternatively, the document goes on, “the Court is urged to order remittitur.”
A remittitur is a, “ruling by a judge (usually upon motion to reduce or throw out a jury verdict) lowering the amount of damages granted by a jury in a civil case,” explains the Wikipedia, adding:
Usually, this is because the amount awarded exceeded the amount demanded; however, the term is sometimes used for a reduction in awarded damages even when the amount awarded did not exceed the amount demanded, but is otherwise considered excessive.
If the motion is granted, the plaintiff may either accept the reduced verdict or appeal.
“Song recordings are typically purchased over the internet for about one dollar,” says Thomas in her court paper, continuing:
Assuming plaintiffs receive 70 cents per song, and pretending that defendant’s downloading went to someone other than plaintiffs’ agents, plaintiffs’ damages would be $16.80.2 Multiplied by the maximum Constitutional limits suggested in BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559, 116 S. Ct. 1589, 134 L. Ed. 2d 809 (1996) and in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 123 S. Ct. 1513, 155 L. Ed. 2d 585 (2003), a proper remittitur would be in the amount of zero dollars to $151.20.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
outrageous verdicts – Hit the RIAA and Big Music where it hurts!, October 5, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
October 15th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
About 3 Million dollars would have been more effect as a deterrent.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:15 pm
” About 3 Million dollars would have been more effect as a deterrent. ”
And just as unconstitutionally excessive.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
If she shop lifted 2 CD’s would she be fined this much? If someone steals your car they don’t get in this much trouble. This is beyond retarded.
My view is against the RIAA in every way and I hate them so much because they sue on assumptions and attack the poor. I also hate them because they are still screwing over customers yet again by making them pay 99 cents for a 128 bit download, in some cases with DRM which limits use. Serious music lovers don’t file share with crappy programs like Kazza etc… The 128 bit tracks are not even worth 5 cents. Also you have to download multiple files to get one that is half decent. People use these sites to listen to music on their crappy PC speakers. To me this is not even stealing and is more like listening to the radio.
Listen to a 128 bit song on a good stereo, it sounds horrible.
Customers will eventually win and we are winning, there are more and more people everyday who are refusing to buy CD’s and crappy downloads.
I hope David buys enough CD’s and 99 cent singles to support the RIAA because people like him are the minority now, let alone in a few months with more of these news stories. He is just a troll though, so his troll statement does not mean much.
October 15th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
At this level of insanity of injustice the amont does not matter she is not going to pay anything either 200K 1 Million 1 billion or 1 trillion she can not pay and will not pay.
Personally I will keep appealing as long as I can afford it and if I lose finally I will hit my credit card to pay my attorney then go BK chapter 7 and the RIAA will have. . . . .
NOTHING! Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Fuck you RIAA and videndi/universal and Sony/BMG and Time Warner!
NOITHING!
Yes the RIAA give us a good lesson about what a pack of parasitites in the music industry and that a total boycott to death is needed. This one is in progress! Ha!
October 15th, 2007 at 10:15 pm
Having an opinion different than yours does not make me a troll.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:08 am
“Having an opinion different than yours does not make me a troll.”
A. No one called you a troll.
B. We respect your opinion.
C. Opinion does not equal fact.
D. Your original statement may have some truth to it, but is untested and it is not very probable that it will get tested anytime soon. Dreddsnik’s statement is verifiably true based on previously established case law regarding the awarding of damages in the USA.
In essence, you called yourself a troll, David, and you didn’t say anything to refute the fact that awarding $3M in damages for songs that retail around the $150 mark is unconstitutionally excessive punitive damages, and egregiously so. The real problem is that your statement doesn’t seem to fit here at all. What inspired you to say “$3M would be a better deterrent?” What does that have to do with the topic on which you were the very first commentator, which is the topic of unconstitutionality of the punitive damages awarded?
October 16th, 2007 at 4:40 am
IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, A BERSERK DAMAGE AWARS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
This whole issue of copyright infringement damages only shows that the law-judicial combo has gone berserk ( mentally or emotionally upset; deranged).
Not too long ago a small black owned record company went bankrupt when a jury awardad an $7.7 million award for the infringement (use w/o license) of a song on a record/video where about 50 thousand units had been sold. The actual damages were less than $10 thousand in royalties not paid. The damages awarded were thus over 700 times actual damages. All of this in spite of the american copyright law that allows only up to a $150 thousand award in damages or actual damages.
I have asked several lawyer friends how this $7.7 million award was possible, as I was plaintiff in several copyright infringement cases and the issue of damages was of interest. The explanation is that judges and juries have total freedom and that judges do favors (in exchange for what?) and that juries are sometimes racially prejudiced. When these are bersek or corrupt, anything can happen.
No doubt the copyright law is senseless (the legislators were berserk too) in allowing up to $150 thousand in damages when actual damages could be as low a zero or at least not worth going after before filing a lawsuit. For example, why write a letter to someone who downloaded 24 songs (to Jammie Thomas, for example) to collect the download price of 24 songs if the cost of writing the letter is higher?
Yes, the record companies have gone berserk too.
A berserk damage award must be unconstitutional.
Good luck, Jammie Thomas
October 16th, 2007 at 4:50 am
Re $7.7 million award on above post, read about it here:
http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/miscellaneous-retail-retail-stores-not/4603982-1.html
http://www.puertorico-herald.org/issues/2001/vol5n24/4SaleLatinMusic-en.html
October 16th, 2007 at 6:56 am
“I hope David buys enough CD’s and 99 cent singles to support the RIAA because people like him are the minority now, let alone in a few months with more of these news stories. He is just a troll though, so his troll statement does not mean much.”
It seems I “misunderstood” my being called a troll.
October 16th, 2007 at 7:52 am
” What inspired you to say “$3M would be a better deterrent?” What does that have to do with the topic on which you were the very first commentator, which is the topic of unconstitutionality of the punitive damages awarded? ”
Yet David, you still haven’t responded to this.
” It seems I “misunderstood” my being called a troll. ”
Troll is likely to be the wrong word.
” Shill ” is closer to the truth.
Ususally my memory is better, but maybe you can help , David.
I visited your website a while back, to listen to what you were trying desperately
to get the labels attention with.
You know, your music site with samples of you and your wife’s ‘musical’ offerings.
It’s been a while though, and I have forgotten that link.
You wouldn’t mind posting that link so others can listen to wha you are so intent on
selling the labels .. would you ?
Yup ” shill ” would be more accurate.
By showing so much support for the labels failing actions, perhaps you hope that
one of those labels might ‘pick you up ‘ ?
October 16th, 2007 at 8:17 am
“Pick me up” not even close. I /we are stricltly amateur. A “shill’ meaning I secretly work for the labels? No. I just want P2P declared in no uncertain terms legal in Canada, and not have to rely on controversial interpertation and wishful thinking. As soon as the copyright board and or the .gov say in clear language P2P is LEGAL in Canada and there is no doubt I will be all over Frostwire once again.
October 16th, 2007 at 8:59 am
” copyright board and or the .gov say in clear language P2P is LEGAL ”
Make no mistake, P2P is legal, always was.
Certain USES of P2P are possibly copyright Infringement.
To say P2P is, in itself, illegal is very misleading, possibly deliberately so.
P2P is legal.
Copyright infringement isn’t.
The grey area is what constitutes infringement
This is not wishful thinking or controversial interpretation.
P2P is legal.
copyright infringement is not.
kind of like owning a butterknife is legal, but sticking it between someones ribs is not.
P2P is a tool with many legal uses.
P2P is legal.
using it for copyright infringement isn’t.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:06 am
when i say p2p i mean content that most peoplke download like big name artists, i don’t mean creative commons, indies, etc
October 16th, 2007 at 9:09 am
” when i say p2p i mean content that most peoplke download like big name artists, i don’t mean creative commons, indies, etc ”
Good.
Then don’t say .. ‘P2P is illegal’ , because that simply is not true, and is a
completely misleading statement.
VCR’s CD burners etc are all legal, but can be used illegaly.
A more correct statement might be , ‘ sharing copywrighted works without permission is
illegal ‘ .. that would be correct, and not misleading.
October 16th, 2007 at 9:22 am
I never believed p2p was not legal for no infringing use. sometimes when people say kleenex they mean facial tissue. in common use sometimes p2p when they refer to copyright infringement and when p2p is not nessecairily so. i want all music to be legal to download with p2p very badly but i want it to be done right before i use it again. i used to use it all the time but i just want the issue settled in canada, one way or the other. personally i would prefer a voluntary isp tax. this blank cd levy (canada) shouldn’t apply to people who use cd’s for other music use.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:29 am
If the RIAA really wages this war, they will soon become an unprofitable enity. The soaring legal costs of there appeals which the consumers are eventually going to start winning, will put them out of business. They are running scared, and this is all a front. They will not suceed.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:34 am
” in common use sometimes p2p when they refer to copyright infringement and when p2p is not nessecairily so. ”
And many deliberately interchange the terms to foster confusion, or to hide
personal or political agendas .. ie saying Copyright infringement = Theft
( an absolute falsehood ) to deceive lawmakers and the public.
Also like the RIAA constantly saying ‘ illegal P2P ‘ in order to convince the
public that P2P is in itself illegal. Since they control the mass media
such a propoganda flood is pretty effective. Eventually too many people
interchange incorrect terms ‘ in common use ‘ without even realizing that
they are working for the industry in propogating a deliberate falsehood.
Take the time and the care to call something what it IS, and not what it
isn’t, or what you wish it would be, otherwise you are doing their job for
them.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:40 am
” i would prefer a voluntary isp tax ”
So, are artists that are not label affiliated going to benefit from this ?
I realize you don’t have all the answers for this, neither do I,
but ANY tax on everybody will only do exactly the same as the blank CD levy.
Labels ( not the artists themselves, mind you ) will get money for nothing, ALL
of the public will pay the labels, even if they NEVER support a label act, and non-
label artists will see NONE of the benefits.
And THAT is what this is all REALLY about.
Full label control of all media, with those that do not wish to be signed into
indentured servitude locked out, with no way in.
October 16th, 2007 at 11:46 am
voluntary meaning if you chose not to pay it and they catch you with copyright infringement you can be held liable. if you chose to pay it you can downlaod as much of what ever you want. music anyway
October 16th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
‘ if you chose to pay it you can downlaod as much of what ever you want. music anyway ‘
You still haven’t addressed this …
‘ So, are artists that are not label affiliated going to benefit from this ? ‘
Do you HONESTLY think that the Label cartels will leave a way for non-affiliated
artists to be paid in this scheme ?
All this levy amounts to is ‘ Download Insurance ‘, and the actual artists will not see a
dime, or SoundExchange won’t be able to ‘find’ them to pay them.
A download levey is just a way of allowing business as usual for the cartels.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
hmm, Download insurance ….
6 million p2p users.
If some ‘enterprising’ person could get only 1 dollar, bimonthly from EVERY p2p user,
that person could pay RIAA fines easily for them
Lawsuits with no teeth.
What a fascinating idea.
October 16th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
non label artists can sell directly from their website
October 16th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Edit: David, no one *legitimately* called you a troll. “Coconut” was rambling and not making heaps of sense, so got auto-ignored by my WTFever filtration system I just installed in my brain (pirated off “kazza” of course).
October 16th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
Let’s not forget the doublespeak deception that is “intellectual property” and how they use that term instead of “copyrighted material” to apply REAL TANGIBLE property rights to that which is not tangible and those rules should not apply.