RIAA responds to Jammie Thomas
p2pnet news | RIAA News:-“We seek to resolve this case in a fair and reasonable manner. It is unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions. We will continue to defend our rights.”
Three mis-statements in three sentences and not surprisingly, they’re all from Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
They’re in reference to the Jammie Thomas case and as p2pnet revealed yesterday, Thomas, a mother of two from Minnesota, wants a new trial having been ordered to pay $222,000 for her alleged copyright infringement of song files with an estimated value of less than $17.00.
But, “In a court document, they [the labels] 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’,” we posted.
The RIAA statement, quoted by Associated Press, comes in response to Thomas’ request for a new hearing to, “determine the extent of the actual damages or harm suffered because of Thomas’ alleged music uploads”.
She’s alleged to have shared 24 songs online.
“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,” she and her lawyer, Brian Toder, say in a court document, going on:
“Multiplied by the maximum Constitutional limits … a proper remittitur would be in the amount of zero dollars to $151.20.”
Also See:
p2pnet revealed – Jammie Thomas demands a new trial, October 15, 2007
Associated Press – Judge asked to reconsider $222,000 award, October 15, 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 16th, 2007 at 7:13 am
Says the Copyright Act, Section 504(c)(1):
If the plaintiff elects to recover statutory damages, the jury must then consider what amount of money, between $750 and $30,000 per work, would achieve justice. And, section 504(c)(2) then gives the court the authority to increase the award of statutory damages to $150,000 if the infringement was willful; or, decrease the award of statutory damages to $200 if the “infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.”
Means that damages could and should have been reduced to 200 dollars per song, or a total of 4800 dollars.
Surely, Jammie Thomas could not even have known what is copyright infringemet, a concept that lawyers and judges are not in agreement as to what it is or if sharing and downloading is infringement.
What happened here, I ask?
October 16th, 2007 at 10:03 am
I have no special information on it, but I would wager that that statement they issued is RIAA-speak for
saying that they’re trying to reach a settlement with Jammie but she’s not interested, or that they made a settlement demand
which she was not willing to pay.
This would be consistent with the RIAA’s past conduct, including its violation of a cardinal
rule of all litigation lawyers that settlement discussions are supposed to be confidential.
It would also be consistent with my
expectation that they will try feverishly to reach a settlement with her rather
than let this so-called “precedent” be overturned.
October 16th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Me, I would appeal and apeal and apeal and if I lose at the end a go BK chapter 7 and the RIAA got zip.
Me I will not give them any money at all no matter what.
And as far as “We seek to resolve this case in a fair and reasonable manner.”
Yes I am fair and resonable: Hey! RIAA! BOOOM! This is fair!
October 16th, 2007 at 11:51 am
” Me, I would appeal and apeal and apeal and if I lose at the end a go BK chapter 7 and the RIAA got zip. ”
Except for the fact that corporate amerika got the bankruptcy laws changed in the US
so that this is no longer possible.
October 16th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Is Ray correct? “No comment,” says Brian Toder in an email.
Cheers!
October 16th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Bankruptcy is possible, you just have to go to a credit counselor first. If you’ve got an outstanding $200,000 bill when your yearly income is $30,000 total for everything, there’s no way you’ll ever pay that $200,000 off in your lifetime. You’ll be in debt forever unless something changes.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all those who can afford it. And if I can’t afford it, sucks to be me.”
Sadly this may turn out to be the new Pledge of Allegiance sometime in the future the way things are going in this country. Also notice there is no “under God.”
November 4th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Fuck Cary Sherman maybe I’ll bust a cap in his punk ass for the pleasure of it and then laugh my fucking ass off afterwards because the fact is if he thinks he cannot be gotten to he is a BIGGER F’N FOOL then he thinks. Anyone can be gotten to and permanetely silenced if that is the end goal and it don’t matter if you have a 1000 pig security team or not. Sooner or later someone is going to take that fat faggot Cary Sherman the fuck out and when it happens I will be laughing my fucking ass off and so will everyone else who hates the RIAA. And if you don’t agree with me then you are as much a FOOL as Cary Sherman is whether you admit it or not you ASSCLOWN.