But it isn’t.
The most famous victim in the Big 4 labels Sues Their Own Customers travesty, she’s “filed a motion for reconsideration requesting the Court to now reach the constitutional due process issue which it had declined to reach in its prior decision setting aside the verdict on the ground of remittitur, but not on the basis of due process”, says Recording Industry vs The People.
A ‘remittitur’ is procedural process through which an excessive verdict of the jury is reduced.
She points to judge Nancy Gertner’s decision in SONY v Tenenbaum, suggesting a third trial “would likely reach the same result as the first two trials”, says the post.
What does this latest move mean? – p2pnet asked Jammie.
It was made “due to the Judge showing a strong inclination, at the pretrial hearing to address the constitutional issue to prevent a ‘Groundhog Day’ scenario from happening (the jury award being outrageous, the judge reduces the award on remitter, the plaintiffs refuse to accept the remitted amount so a new trial on damages is scheduled and held, rinse and repeat)”, she said.
“I have very competent attorneys … and I no longer have any worries about what needs to be done and when.”
A cartel of foreign record companies
Boston student Joel Tenenbaum was ordered to pay the labels $675,000 for downloading 30 copyrighted songs.
- Statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages; and,
- The usual statutory damages award in even more egregious commercial cases is from 2 to 6 times the actual damages.
Even then, after concluding the actual damages in the Tenenbaums case were ~ $1 per infringed work, “she entered a judgment for 2,250 times that amount”, said Recording Industry vs The People.
Owned by Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by Canadian Edgar Bronfman jr), ‘RIAA’ is short for Recording Industry Association of America.
This ‘trade’ association, working for a cartel of foreign record companies, has been chasing Jammie from pillar to post ever since it was wrongly awarded almost two million dollars after calling her a criminal and thief, a, ‘massive online distributor’ of copyrighted corporate music.
But she’s not alone. The RIAA has for years been extorting ‘Pay us and we’ll go away’ money from innocent American families with impunity, falsely claiming its owners are being “devastated” by people who share music with each other online.
They say files shared equal sales lost. But a number of authoritative academic and other studies say otherwise; that file sharing is in fact an invaluable form of viral advertising.
Because the truth is: the RIAA Sue ‘Em All lawsuits aren’t about copyright infringements. They’re part of a continuing bid to gain control of the internet as an exclusive corporate sales, distribution and marketing vehicle.
A long haul
In June, 2009, “The RIAA lawyers say she’s a thief”, said p2pnet, going on >>>
But she’s nothing of the kind. Rather, she’s a hard-working mother who during the day is the Brownfield coordinator of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians in Minnesota. She’s responsible for administering a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency for her tribe to redevelop contaminated properties.
She’s also in charge of housing and land acquisitions for the Band’s Department of Natural Resources and Environment
“I try to focus on the day to day of life instead of the potential outcomes,” she says. “I know, win lose or draw, it won’t be over for a long time. So I just hunker down for the long haul and hold on for the ride.”
And a long haul it’s been.
“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 said judge Michael J. Davis in a decision which ordered Jammie to payes Big Music $2,250 instead of $80,000 for each of 24 songs she’s said to have downloaded without permission.
She was originally ordered to pay $1.92 million.
But he didn’t reach the constitutional due process issue raised by Jammie’s counsel, instead deciding the motion based on standard principles of ‘remittitur’, said 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.
Recording Industry vs The People – Jammie Thomas moves for Court to consider constitutional due process issue, October 20, 2010
two million dollars – Jammie Thomas-Rasset: file sharing thief, June 10, 2010
p2pnet - Jammie Thomas-Rasset: file sharing thief, June 10, 2009
reduced to $67,500 -Award slashed in RIAA vs Tenenbaum, July 10, 2010
Recording Industry vs The People -$675,000 verdict reduced to $67,500 in SONY v Tenenbaum, July 9, 2010
Recording Industry vs The People -Jammie Thomas verdict reduced from $1.92M to $54,000, January 22, 2010
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
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.