Jammie Thomas-Rasset award reduced …
p2pnet news view P2P | RIAA:- “The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.”
So says judge Michael J. Davis in a decision which states Jammie (seen here with her family) now owes Big Music $2,250 instead of $80,000 for each of 24 songs she’s said to have downloaded without permission.
“With their Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) as a front, sub-units of Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US) have already put Jammie and her family through hell,” said p2pnet last June, going on >>>
First, they used the mainstream media to have her publicly tried, and found guilty, of the non-existent crime of illegal file sharing.
Then, she and her family had to endure another trial, this time before a judge and jury, at the end of which she was ordered to pay the corporate music industry almost a quarter of a million dollars in ‘damages’.
But the only suggestion Jammie had ever downloaded, or shared music on discredited p2p file sharing application Kazaa, came from MediaSentry, an equally discredited company used by the RIAA (and later fired by the RIAA) to collect ‘evidence’.
Soon after the case was over, however, judge Michael Davis, who’d heard it, declared a mistrial, admitting he`d committed a, manifest error of law by telling the jury the, “act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without licensefrom the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners` exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.
“Defendant’s Motion for a New Trial, Remittitur, and to Alter or Amend the Judgment [Docket No. 344] is DENIED IN PART and GRANTED IN PART as follows,” Davis writes.
“The Judgment is amended to remit the damages award to $2,250 per sound recording infringed. Plaintiffs are directed to either accept the remittitur or to schedule a new trial on the issue of damages. Plaintiffs shall file a notification of their decision regarding remittitur no later than seven days from the date of this Order. The Court will defer amending the Judgment pending notification of Plaintiffs’ position with regard to remittitur.”
UPDATE:
“The Judge did not reach the constitutional due process issue raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s counsel, instead deciding the motion based upon standard principles of ‘remittitur’,” says Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People, going on >>>
The judge described the standard for remittitur as follows:
so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court. A verdict is not considered excessive unless there is plain injustice or a monstrous or shocking result
In discussing the factors upon which his decision rested, Judge Davis indicated that he had found that Ms. Thomas-Rasset lied under oath.
Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be “harsh” and that, were he — rather than a jury — deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000. But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
(Cheers, RW)
___________________________________
Click here for p2pnet music downloads
___________________________________
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
January, 2010
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:26 pm
That comes to $54,000 for 24 copies of songs.
That’s still absolutely ridiculous.
January 22nd, 2010 at 3:30 pm
@ Robert:
It’ll be interesting to see what they do about Joel Tenenbaum. He’s still pegged at $675,000.
Cheers!
January 22nd, 2010 at 4:12 pm
Since she is now married (and with small children presumably not working) can they force her husband to pay up, even though he had nothing to do with that incident of several years ago?
January 22nd, 2010 at 8:29 pm
How can it be $54000 in damaged losses, while those same songs are avaliable at itunes for $1 per song. Thus, $2250 means, she had to distribute each song to at least 2250 other persons ( or identical ip adresses ).
Suppose she did shared those songs, then it’s easy math to recover to how many she actually distributed those songs. In fact it should be in the evidence already. So in my opinion it should be:
Fine (fixed amount) + ($1 * #amount shared to identical ipadresses/persons per song( 24 in her case) ). (if pleaded guilty of course)
Have a look at the Neidorf case: Where he was charged for $80k in damages, while the same document was sold for $23, thus they couldn’t charge him for $80k.
http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=102869&dl=GUIDE&coll=GUIDE&CFID=74374392&CFTOKEN=10650125
or http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/SJG/?f=phrack_riggs_neidorf_godwin.article for the story on this case.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:16 pm
So basically, the amount has been reduced from a big one she can’t pay to a much smaller one she still couldn’t possibly pay.
Still, it’s good to see any judge openly stating how off-the-wall the whole thing is.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:31 pm
This is still a partial victory for common sense, we should celebrate it as such.
January 22nd, 2010 at 9:38 pm
Minnesota is not a Community Property State. So they can only come after her earnings and assets held solely or jointly in her name. Unless she and her new husband are dumb enough to move ot a Community Property State it is unlikely they ever could. Plus she could always file bankruptcy. From Wikipedia: “In the United States there are nine community property states: Arizona, California, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin. Puerto Rico allows property to be owned as community property also as do several Indian jurisdictions. Alaska is an opt-in community property state; property is separate property unless both parties agree to make it community property through a community property agreement or a community property trust.”
As we all know, file sharing and libraries are ways for people who have more interest than they can possibly afford to experience specific pieces of intellectual property without the expense of buying it. However these people are often the knowledge holders who share their interest in the books they read and the songs they play with others who do have money and do go and purchase private copies of these works, attend concerts and movies. In end a net gain to the entertainment industries.
January 23rd, 2010 at 2:29 am
The original decision was typical of the American jury system, best described as collective retardism, where the total IQ for the jury rarely exceeds 600. Why is this? Think of jury duty as an IQ test, the smarter you are the more likely it is you will talk your way out of it. “But it’s your civic duty” some say. Here’s the deal. The judge get’s paid 70 – 100+k, the lawyer gets whatever he can squeeze out of the client, I would guess the prosecutor makes between 35-45k(maybe more, I don’t know), and all the court officers get paid too. Do you know how much people get paid for serving on a Minnesota jury? Ten bucks a day, plus round trip mileage for an additional whopping sum of 27 cents a mile.
http://www.courts.mn.gov/?page=1341#WillIBePaid
Most trials are short, but what if you win the shit lottery and get stuck on jury duty for a trial that lasts for months? I think it’s fairly safe to say most people can’t make rent on that, let alone pay other bills, like car payments, insurance, electric, ect… So the reward for being a “good citizen” is to get evicted and have your car repossessed if you win the long trial shit lottery. Yeah, I’d say that pretty much weeds out 99% of the smart people, as they will run screaming from a “civic duty” which could leave them homeless. On the other hand, if you are on welfare, or an alcoholic bum not looking for work, why NOT serve on a jury. So there you have it, that’s why you wind up with idiotic verdicts like $80,000 per song, a decision with no grounding in civil law, criminal law, or any other law, just a bunch of idiots who wanted to punish the big bad pirate.
January 23rd, 2010 at 4:12 am
Monkey, couldn’t have said it better
January 23rd, 2010 at 10:24 am
So if 54 thousand outraged people donate $1.00 each, it’s paid and she’s free!
January 23rd, 2010 at 3:29 pm
“So if 54 thousand outraged people donate $1.00 each, it’s paid and she’s free!”
Maybe.
But, most of us “outraged people” are looking at such a thing as “legal extortion” money, and that not a dime of it should be paid.
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
I will still not pay, exept with bullets.
What about 24,0000 bullets?
January 23rd, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Wait until all the bills are their and BK chapter eleven.
End of story.
January 24th, 2010 at 11:30 am
Monkey D. Luffy says it right.
The only thing I would add is that the unemployed “professional’ juror is also more likely to learn the ins and out of the system and the crooked layers (most are) and that lead to case fixing. That is why so many guilty criminals walk away with minor sentences and innocent persons (who may have mad unintentional mistakes) get heavy sentences.
I guess the politicians want a provoked revolution.
January 25th, 2010 at 1:14 am
Pity only a few are made examples for stealing and distributing intellectual property they havent paid ANY $ for.
January 25th, 2010 at 2:49 am
^^
Pity some people just can’t see that it’s NOT “stealing”.
Just keep drinkin’ the Kool-Aid, Pat!
January 25th, 2010 at 10:58 am
Dear Pat
Yesterday I waited for hours, in a waiting room of a while my wife got a $100 hair cut.
To entertain myself I read (actually looked at the pictures) in every woman’s magazine in the mag rack.
(I m a man but we men don’t count for much in waiting rooms).
While there I also listened to the worthless music played on a cheap radio.
I gues that to you the owner of the waiting room is a thief for sharing the magazines and for entertaining the customers with unpaid for music performances.
And as for me, I must guess that to you I am also a thief because I did not buy (nor will I buy) any of the magazines I “read” nor any of the music I was subjected to and suffered.
No, my question to you is, should I be declared a VICTIM or a criminal?
January 27th, 2010 at 9:06 pm
First of all, she (supposedly) downloaded over a thousand songs, so $54,000 for that isn’t THAT bad (works out to be like $5 a song) because she was also sharing it with others. But she’s only being attacked for 24 of those songs. $54,000 is too much for 24 songs.
I disagree with all of you who claim that EVERYTHING should be free. Artists have to make money, so there must be some way to do it. But the current model is ridiculous. $200 for Windows XP? Seriously? Or anything for that matter. That’s something that the governments need to sort out.
But pirating just because you CAN isn’t a good thing. Pirating because you can’t afford it otherwise, I’d say it’s ok. The artist wouldn’t have made any money if you didn’t pirate, and still won’t make money now that you did. But pirating Photoshop when you’re a professional that uses it for work? Inexcusable. This lady is being attacked too harshly, but she DESERVES a punishment. Pirating over a thousand songs? She could have bought at least SOME of that.
June 8th, 2010 at 8:04 pm
I started pirating software because of DRM. The DRM got to be so bad when I purchased a product that I out of frustration pirated a product I had purchased (is that piracy?). The “Pirated” version worked better without the DRM and let me play the game without a CD in the drive or an Internet Connection which I cannot get on my laptop when I am out and about. So now I just download everything Illegally because the DRM is so draconian that there are not options.
Now give that I used to go out and buy games because I liked getting the manual and the extras and the support, I am getting a lowered experience from my Pirating, but I don’t have to spend hours calling Microsoft because my activation code changed or spend three hours with someone in India to fix a bug caused by the DRM. I don’t have to anymore, my time is now mine. I think I should be able to sue these companies for wasting my time. Oh if such a thing were possible.