RIAA demands 3rd trial for Jammie
p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- The RIAA is reportedly now demanding a third trial for Jammie Thomas-Rasset.
The Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music extortion unit “made the decision after attorneys for Jammie Thomas-Rasset rejected an offer from RIAA attorneys to settle,” says NewsChannel 8.
“Having seen their award against Jammie Rasset-Thomas slashed from a staggering $1.92 million dollars to $54,000, the RIAA now wants to settle for half even that amount,” said p2pnet on Wednesday, continuing >>>
But Jammie is having none of it.
“They want me to take a settlement of $25,000 without me knowing what I’m agreeing to,” she told p2pnet.
“The offer has been made without any kind of explanation what the settlement would involve.
“But I’m still not caving in. If they want to settle, they can do it on my terms.”
Michael Davis, the judge who’s presided since the first trial, reduced the award from $1.92 million to $54,000, giving the RIAA until February 8 to accept or reject the new amount.
But, says NewsChannel 8, in the face of Jammie’s refusal to accept a final settlement offer of $25,000, they now want to put her through a third trial.
However, she won’t “agree to pay any amount of money to them”, Joe Sibley, one of Jammie’s pro bono lawyers, is quoted as saying.
Confirming what Jammie told p2pnet on Wednesday, “For her, it’s all the same”, Sibley has her declaring. “She just doesn’t have the money to pay any of those, and it would be financially ruinous,” Sibley said.
He said his client will “continue fighting on principle, saying the statutes that allow for such hefty damages in these types of cases are wrong,” says the story, adding:
“Once damages are finalized, he said, he intends to take the constitutionality of the damages to the appellate level.”
“In my opinion, the Court erred in (a) failing to decide the constitutional question, and decide that even the minimum statutory damages of $750 would be unconstitutionally excessive under the due process clause as against actual damages of 35 cents, and (b) permitting a new trial at all,” says Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People, adding:
“Even if the Court could find a permissible rationale for declining to decide the constitutional question, which it can’t, there is still no way under existing copyright law any award of more than $750 could be legally sustainable,”
“So even under that scenario the judge should be directing judgment for $18,000, not setting himself up for another circus.”
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
p2pnet – ‘We’ll settle for $25,000′ RIAA tells Jammie, January 27, 2010
$1.92 million dollars to $54,000 – Jammie Thomas-Rasset award reduced …, January 22, 2010
NewsChannel 8 – Minnesota song-sharing case heads for 3rd trial, January 28, 2010
Recording Industry vs The People – Reported that RIAA will ask for a 3rd trial in Capitol Records v Thomas, January 29, 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 29th, 2010 at 11:53 pm
And them once and if the court decide for $18,000 you go BK chapter 7 and these pigs does not get a dime!
Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!
January 30th, 2010 at 12:18 am
Keep digging your own graves, you fools. It will only make it that much sweeter when your whole empire goes under.
January 30th, 2010 at 12:35 am
Corporations are the crrraziest “people”.
January 30th, 2010 at 9:48 am
$ 54 K… would that not be the fee for the lawyers?
i doubt it would be thAt low…
because after all…. lawyers are like piggs…. the more food in the bucket the more they eat
be smart : start shooting the lawyer first.
January 30th, 2010 at 12:56 pm
I’m still glad to see she’s taking this stance. Most of that money would still go to the RIAA and again, they would still use it to persecute their consumers.
“Even if the Court could find a permissible rationale for declining to decide the constitutional question, which it can’t, there is still no way under existing copyright law any award of more than $750 could be legally sustainable,”
Of course it’s not, stupid! What made these people think that a single mom could afford to pay $1 million?
January 30th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
We have to remember all these big crappy corporations Banks, Health Insurance, Cell phone, and entertainment companies who is the boss. If we have to kill few of these to make our point so be it.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:48 am
‘reduced the award from $1.92 million to $54,000′
Maybe the judge was trying to do the right thing, but just doesn’t know the value of a dollar.
He might just be looking at it as being a 97%+ reduction.
What I can’t fathom is why $1.92 million was ever arrived at?
Thanks p2pnet, just found the site and will be reading more.
February 1st, 2010 at 2:45 pm
Jammie my Hero!
She is fighting these pigs like no one else!
Thanks you Jammie! You are kicking their butt!
February 1st, 2010 at 2:55 pm
There are the cowards who paid $4000 more like those in the pass who gave in their Jewish neighbors to the Gestapo. Unfortunately this is most of them.
And then there is Jammie and Joel who courageously stand their ground and will be recognized as heroes in the near future Just like Rosa Park has been.
I salute all off these heroes who fight for our freedom and for justice!
Thank you! Thank you! I really mean this.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Yup! These guys deserve gold medals for what they’re doing. Suddenly the big bad corporations aren’t so big and bad after Jammie got her hooks into them.