p2pnet news view Freedom | P2P | RIAA News:- A single mother of two from Minnesota is once again about to face Capitol, Sony BMG, Arista, Interscope, Warner Bros and UMG — the multi-billion-dollar Big 4 record companies, in other words — in a new trial on a date yet to be set.

Jammie Thomas has already suffered the harrowing experience of facing Big 4 heavyweight lawyers in a civil court trial after which she was ordered to pay the corporate music industry almost a quarter of  a million dollars.

If Tanya Andersen is an example of what a couple of brave and determined people can achieve against the labels and their RIAA, Thomas, “epitomises just how far the Big 4 record labels are willing to go, and just how low they’re prepared to sink,  in their efforts to gain complete and total control of the Net as the online distribution vehicle of the 21st digital century,” says the intro to the p2pnet Jammie Thomas digest, going on:

“Thomas was vilified by the mainstream media online and off.

“But when Michael Davis, the judge who oversaw the case, admitted he’d made a mistake in law, the corporate press was equally conspicuous by the absence of its reporting on the shocking revelation.”

Now it’s Round II of the effort by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America)  to paint Thomas as an unconscionable thief –  a brazen criminal who, by sharing music online, has deprived the hard-pressed labels of sales.

Concludes judge Davis in Civil File No. 06‐1497 »»»

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs – the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer-to-peer networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits.

This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of deterrence.

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive.

1. The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the ury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be et by the Court after consultation with the parties.

2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is
VACATED.

3. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for Remittitur [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED on the grounds set forth in this Memorandum of Law & Order.

4. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment [Docket No. 116] is DENIED.

s/Michael J. Davis
Michael J. Davis
Chief Judge
United States District Court

September 24, 2008

Amicus briefs

Lined up against her are Donald B. Verrilli, Jr, Jenner & Block; Andrew B. Mohraz, David A. Tonini, and Timothy M. Reynolds, Holme Roberts & Owen; and Felicia J. Boyd, Kara L. B. Barrow, and Mary Andreleita Walker, Faegre & Benson.

Standing in the shadows with amicus briefs are Hollywood’s  MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), the United States Department of Justice, and the Counsel for Intervenor United States of America.

For her are Brian N. Toder and Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut & Cambronne.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, counsel for amicus, the EFF, are in her corner with  Prentiss E. Cox, University of Minnesota Law School, counsel for amicus copyright law professors; Carl E. Christensen, Christensen Law Office,  counsel for amicus The Intellectual Property Institute at William Mitchell College of Law; and, Tracey Holmes Donesky, Leonard Street and Deinard, counsel for amicus, the Progress & Freedom Foundation.

Click here for the court document.

Stay tuned.

(Thanks, James T)

Jon Newton – p2pnet

---

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 details.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, September 24th, 2008 at 8:56 pm and is filed under Freedom, P2P, RIAA News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

HOME

Viewed 7040 times