A federal judge on Friday drastically reduced a nearly $2 million verdict against a Minnesota woman found guilty last year of sharing 24 songs over the Internet, calling the jury’s penalty “monstrous and shocking.”
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis reduced the $1.92 million penalty a jury imposed against Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd to $2,250 per song, or about $54,000.
“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,” Davis wrote.
Davis also denied Thomas-Rasset’s request for a new trial. He gave the Recording Industry Association of America seven days to either accept the smaller penalty or to ask for another trial to set new damages.
Cara Duckworth, spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the group’s attorneys were still analyzing the ruling and would have no immediate comment. Reached on her cell phone, Thomas-Rasset said the ruling was positive but that her attorneys are planning an attempt to get it lowered further. “Whether it’s $2 million or $54,000, I’m a mom with four kids and one income and we’re not exactly rolling in that kind of dough right now,” she said.
Thomas-Rasset’s two principle attorneys did not immediately return phone messages seeking comment.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits and is instead working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
Under federal law, the recording companies are entitled to $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song — but the law allows the jury to raise that to as much as $150,000 per track if it finds the infringements were willful.
That’s led to other large verdicts, including one against Rhode Island graduate student Joel Tenenbaum, who last year was fined $675,000 for downloading and distributing 30 songs. His lawyers are seeking a new trial or reduced damages. Davis wrote that he arrived at the $54,000 figure by tripling the $750 minimum, thus arriving at $2,250 per song. He wrote that were it his decision, he might have reduced it even further.
“It was the jury’s province to determine the award … and this Court has merely reduced that award to the maximum amount that is no longer monstrous and shocking,” he wrote.
Ken Port, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, said it could take a bit of steam out of recording industry’s efforts to discourage illegal file-sharing.
“They don’t have as heavy as a stick to wave around anymore,” Port said. “But like Jammie, most people don’t have $54,000 any more than they have $2 million — so I’m not sure what the direct impact is going to be.”
The whole story, I guess, is the consequence of pure FEAR.fear of not making as much profit, fear of dealing with a situation that can not be (and will never be) controlled.This isn't justice, it's just setting an example.
Well, the problem with $2 is it is not much of a deterrent. This whole mess happens not just because she downloaded the songs, but mainly because she shared them out.In any case, I do think there should some kind of deterrent, just one that makes sense and is reasonable.This poor lady could never pay back a $2M judgment. And are those songs really worth $2M in damages? I don't think so.
I think many people think Artists are rich, but really many of them pretend to look well off. It's part of the image. Most artist don't make much off their music alone. Just look at TLC as an example.
Who's complaining? Merely making an observation based on the posts saying the artists get rich and should allow people to download their songs for free.
The music biz has been this way for a while though, why complain now? If the artist is any good, and truly wants to make money, they need to promote themselves, get distribution etc just like any other business out there. No one is going to “discover them” like most artists think.
As someone who writes daily about the music biz I can assure you most artists do NOT make much money on their albums after the record company, distributors, book stores, publicists, graphic designers, recording studios, session players and everyone else gets their piece of the income.
Yes the level of punishment should fit the crime,i think $2 is too high….
There has to be some sense of punishment.otherwise, when caught shoplifting, just offer to pay, and all will be right. And the times you weren't caught, you're home free!However, the level of punishment should fit the crime. How did the judge decide to treble the minimum value? What justification is there for that? And what (financial) benefit did the woman gain?Penalties reflecting her benefit (for example 2x market cost of her benefit) might seem suitable; if she downloaded 100 songs based on her offer of the 20 songs, she has directly benefitted approx 100 USD, and so a fine of 200 USD would seem a suitable penalty. The penalty ratio could be a sliding scale; the level of damage to the injured party might be a factor. But getting the money might still be a different thing; a drug dealer would only have one set of high-value assets to seize, so a multiple level penalty would not be efective.Just taking back the “goods” or the cost of the “goods” has no penalty effect.
You also left out most of the spaces after periods and commas. You know that makes it harder to read and makes you seem illiterate?
This is ridiculous. The woman downloaded 20 songs, her penalty should be 20.00.
And the RIAA is wondering why music sales are slumping… It's very simple you sue your customers they'll stop being your customers, sure you can stop and punish them for downloading “free” music, but you have no power when they refuse to buy. So long mega-million dollar contracts, so long.
A few of my friends are “amateur” artists–mostly make music for their own enjoyment–have supplemented their incomes by selling and marketing their own music. I don't think the industry has a real future.
I wonder what the penalty would be if she had been caught stealing a couple CDs from a local store? Certainly not $1.92 million and certainly nowhere near $54,000. I don't condone either action but the penalties towards her and the countless others reamed by the RIAA do not ever fit the crime.
Artists can ABSOLUTELY rent space in a studio, and record and distribute their own works. There is nothing stopping them. NOTHING AT ALL.Do you know why they do not do this?Because the music industry has made it impossible to make a living doing this.This is why bands starting out will have home-burned CDs, hand-assembled cases, wrapped in blow-dried shrinkwrap; these discs are homemade, and sold directly to record stores. But the kicker is, record stores won't buy music that hasn't already been guaranteed to sell, because of persistent marketing and design-by-committee 'artists', who can't write, play, OR sing. Everybody wants Nickleback, because Nickleback is put on the TV and the Radio by the Corporations that own their 'music'. Nobody wants to hear new music these days, because nobody tells them they want to.Don't forget about your precious amazon and itunes stores! The ones that charge you to upload, AND to keep your music in the database…AND that take percentages of sales. Which, if you aren't paying attention, IS JUST WHAT RECORD COMPANIES DO. Except you're expected to promote yourself. Out of your own pocket. Which means, you're paying to get famous, AND you're paying for people to POTENTIALLY access your works! If they know who you are!
Sorry I left out “not”,in definately NOT a jury of her peers.