A federal judge cut the $2 million penalty against a Minnesota woman charged with file-sharing.
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.”
Showing 28 comments
RSSfear 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.
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.
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.
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!
But really. You can rape somebody, and be free in five years, and this is almost a sure thing if you play your cards right. While you're in jail, you can still earn money, or collect interest on savings/investments, you could even attend classes for educating yourself. All your meals are paid for, and then you get to leave.
I'd rather do that then get fined 2 million dollars by the corporations. Don't pretend like a jury of her peers gave her that sentence; if they were her peers in any way shape or form, they would have known what utter bullshit that trial was.
But really. You can rape somebody, and be free in five years, and this is almost a sure thing if you play your cards right. While you're in jail, you can still earn money, or collect interest on savings/investments, you could even attend classes for educating yourself. All your meals are paid for, and then you get to leave.
I'd rather do that then get fined 2 million dollars by the corporations. Don't pretend like a jury of her peers gave her that sentence; if they were her peers in any way shape or form, they would have known what utter BS that trial was.
Those copyright laws were first created to not allow other companies to steal music and sell it. It wasn't created to punish individuals. This is something the RIAA has been pushing.
Your "screw them" mentality is not only uncompassionate, it's completely out of touch with modern society. Go grab your own island and live by yourself.
RT
www.total-anonymity.de.tc