Third RIAA trial for Jammie Thomas-Rasset
p2pnet view RIAA:- Since Vivendi Universal, EMI, Warner Music and Sony Music began using their RIAA to sue their own customers in a failed attempt to gain control of music distribution online, they’ve repeatedly demonstrated immense wealth and even ordinary intelligence don’t necessarily go hand-in-hand.
Last month p2pnet reported the RIAA was seeking a new trial against Minnesota mother Jammie Thomas-Rasset, originally ordered to pay almost two million dollars, the amount a literally misguided jury decided was fair after they accepted Big Music claims that she’d improperly shared 24 copyrighted songs online.
Their determination to put Jammie throught the mill for the third time has now been confirmed, says Recording Industry vs The People’s Ray Beckerman.
“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 recently, 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, not satisfied with a judgment for 6,500 times actual damages, the RIAA has decided to waste additional time and attorneys’ fees on a trial that, even if they win, can’t possibly result in an amount higher than the one they’ve already been awarded, says Beckerman, adding:
“Since a third trial in and of itself makes no economic sense, and since the RIAA’s lawyers inappropriately added seven pages of legal argument to their ‘notice’, it can only be assumed that the reason they are opting for a third trial is to hope that they can somehow bait the Judge into making an error that will help them on an appeal.
“Hopefully Judge [Michael] Davis will reach the constitutional issue next time around, and limit the plaintiffs to the constitutional limit, would be around $1.40 per infringed work.
Notice of election for new trial
Stay tuned.
..… and identi.ca
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
p2pnet – RIAA demands 3rd trial for Jammie, January 29, 2010
$1.92 million dollars to $54,000 – Jammie Thomas-Rasset award reduced …, January 22, 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.
February 11th, 2010 at 11:08 am
they already had 2 trials? and she was convicted? how can she possibly have a third trial? a person can’t be tried for the same “crime” twice – even if she is/was found guilty. why is there a retrial being demanded by the riaa? they won already. they can’t sue her again. is this third “trial” actually just a hearing, or are they doing it all over again for the third time, selecting a judge, jury, dates, etc’ ghow is the riaa allowed to re.sue her when they already won their case?
February 11th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
1. This is not a criminal case.
2. This is just a retrial of the damages issue.
3. It is common, and lawful, on remittitur, to lower the amount of the verdict, but give the plaintiff the option of a new trial.
February 11th, 2010 at 6:49 pm
1.40*24=33.60!
All of these for $33.60?
If this is the new judgment that will be funny! This will make the RIAA and their lawyers look like Bozo!
In any case this lady is an Hero!
Continue to kick their Ass Jammie!
February 11th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
In any case she can always go BK chapter 7.
One way or another she is not going to pay.
So, what is the point for this?
February 11th, 2010 at 7:13 pm
Hopefully Judge [Michael] Davis will reach the constitutional issue next time around, and limit the plaintiffs to the constitutional limit, would be around $1.40 per infringed work.
How about the judge reaching a verdict of $0? Because if I were Jammie, I wouldn’t even give them a cent of the money. They don’t deserve any of it.
February 12th, 2010 at 3:17 am
“I wouldn’t even give them a cent of the money. They don’t deserve any of it.”
Agree. This is why I am boycotting them.
No CD, No DVD, no movie theater and not cable TV!
February 12th, 2010 at 10:20 am
THE AMERICAN INQUISITION
Jammie or her lawyer should be given the chance to ask a simple question based on these facts.
-An American while traveling abroad is given a CD full of rare Spanish baroque music, all of which is public domain.
-The disk is labeled “public domain music”.
-The recordings are obviously home made and amateur.
-The recordings were made so that the music is not forever lost because no one ever recorded or performed it because the now unknown Spanish composer was an atheists and was hanged because of it during the Spanish Inquisition.
-The baroque music on the recording cannot be found on any recording anywhere.
-The CD is a great gift that the American would like to share with other baroque music lovers.
-The American consults a copyright lawyer and asks if it all right to share the music with other baroque music lovers and experts. The copyright lawyers says “I have no idea”.
- The American proceeds to make copies of the recording for friends.
The question is:
Can the American be sued successfully by anyone for copyright infringement?
Only an idiot would say yes. That idiot is an American judge or jury.
The same ones who judged Jammie Thomas during the American Inquisition.
February 12th, 2010 at 12:21 pm
“…no one ever recorded or performed it…”
i’d say you are the idiot. that analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. how can it be on a cd if it has never been recorded?
duh.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:49 pm
“…no one ever recorded or performed it…”
I think the story (obviously fictitious made to prove a point) is saying the the music has not been recorded commercially or professionally.
Only an idiot or an undercover RIAA agent would claim not to understand.
February 12th, 2010 at 4:55 pm
Jordan,
You ask “So, what is the point for this?”. The whole point of this legal circus in my opinion is
1. To put the fear of thousands and thousands of dollars worth of so-called damages forefront in the minds of everyone everywhere. Even though the amount of “damages” is bogus.
2. To harass the defendant because she had the temerity to stand up to a bunch of high powered lawyers and corporations by telling them to “prove it”.
Even though she was found guilty twice, they know they will never recoup their expenses. I think now the RIAA just wants to lash out and cause her as much grief as possible no matter the cost (financial/reputation/etc.).