Music Pirate Mom deserves new trial

[fusilierb]

Well they really taught this "criminal" a lesson:Attorneys for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota mother of four slapped with a $1.92 million fine by a federal jury last month for illegally downloading 24 songs, have filed a request for a new trial.They're right to request one because the judgment against the music-sharing mom was ridiculous.The award for damages-which comes out to $80,000 per song-"shocks the conscience and must be set aside," Thomas-Rasset's lawyers wrote. They're asking the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to take one of three actions:Toss out the statutory damages, which Thomas-Rasset's team claims are based on an unconstitutional provision of the Copyright Act.If the statutory-damages provision of the Copyright Act is deemed constitutional, the jury's application of it was "excessive, shocking, and monstrous," and the fine should be reduced to $18,000.A third jury could set an even lower fine.Last month's trial was actually a retrial of an October 2007 case in which Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $222,000—or $9,250 per song downloaded and shared via a peer-to-per file sharing network. That verdict was later overturned by a U.S. district judge.In their bid to toss out the most recent judgment, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers accurately point out that the fine doesn't match the crime:"The statutory damages awarded in this case—which are nearly an order of magnitude greater than the statutory damages assessed in the first trial—bear no reasonable relation to the actual injury suffered by the plaintiffs. The damages awarded are grossly in excess of any reasonable estimate of that injury. The plaintiffs did not even attempt to offer evidence of their actual injuries, seeking, instead, an award of statutory damages entirely for purposes of punishment and deterrence."As my PC World colleague J.R. Raphael wrote last month, the damages of $1.92 million are not only disproportionate, they're unconstitutional:"The Supreme Court has previously indicated that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards are a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An award can be considered "grossly excessive" if there's too big of a gap between the actual harm done and the amount of money being named. Courts can also consider the 'degree of reprehensibility' of the defendant's actions, along with how the penalty compares to similar ones issued in the past."Furthermore, the jury was grated too much leeway to determine the appropriate fine, which should range from $750 to $150,000 per violation, according to U.S. copyright law.Digital rights watchdog groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe juries aren't given useful guidelines on how to determine appropriate fines, a problem that leads to absurd damages like in the Thomas-Rasset case.Will the Minnesota pirate mom get a new trial? Let's hope so. But let's also hope the new jury gets better instructions this time around. Or better yet, the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) could simply settle out of court with Thomas-Rasset for a few thousand dollars, the same approach the industry group has taken with other pirates in recent years.

[maceman]

"...a Minnesota mother of four slapped with a $1.92 million fine by a federal jury last month for illegally downloading 24 songs"Thou shall not steal. That's one of the commandements ya know So, the article said it.My point was, whether the woman is/was an idiot or not, that we all break commandments, yet when someone gets caught and openly condemned, we are quite quick to judge(by casting name stones etc...).This is why we should reflect on ourselves first. Why is the woman an idiot btw? Because she downloaded a mere 24 songs? If that was her only lifetime crime, I would gladly make her my role-model. And yes, If I were her, I would certainly be trying to get a reduction in damages. Her argument(or lawyers in this case) is faulty though. She is arguing against the amount she should owe, rather than owning up to the crime. Sounds like she is only doing what people who get caught do.Cheers,Maceman

[maceman]

I'm not sure. Now that she's been charged, I don't know any other way for her to get out. I would imagine she doesn't have that kind of coin to pay for the damages, and also, I can't see any other way than "this" legal system to try to get the charges reduced.Knocking on the doors of the music owners and saying sorry is unlikely In my opinion(and just an opinion) the Law of Moses is sound in this and all cases:Ex 22:9 "For all manner of trespass, [whether it be] for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, [or] for any manner of lost thing, which [another] challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [and] whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour."These days, people want so much money and want to humiliate people to no end. It is unnecessary. These things don't go unnoticed, and I am sure even paying double would be a suitable lesson to those who have any conscience. To those without a conscience, no amount of money would matter.....Maceman

[lboogie77]

80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02

[fusilierb]

Jul 10, 2009, 8:26pm, lboogie77 wrote:80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02My point is that if she broke into a record store and actually stole 24 physical CD's (that just so happened to have one song a piece on them) the fines and penalties wouldn't be anywhere close to this comical. Even she took an axe to the check out counter. And threatened the President while she did it. WTF?B

[maceman]

I think everyone is quite peaceful here, so no worries....Taxi is a good place, and no need for any religious debate in my books. I am just showing some facts from another angle. All are welcome.@Jamie..... That last article tells more to the story. Thanx for posting. Seems to me that this woman is probably insulted that she has got caught and isn't owing up to her crime. In that case(and if that is the case), then I would agree that her decision to walk away from $3500 settlement is idiotic.In fact, I would go further and say that if this is the case, then perhaps the original outrageous $$$ amount is needed to shake her up. Wish we could interview her- that would be most helpful @Bryan- granted. However, the difference here is that not only has she broke into a record store so-to-speak, but after she was arrested and fined, she refused the fine. The record store owner requires retribution, and moreso the owners of the goods she has stolen...Again, I am not sure of the thinking behind why she is walking, but even a criminal who robs and is caught has opportunity to make recourse and if they walk, they go to jail.@southpaw again- My quote from exodus wasn't really far reaching was it? I mean, okay, our legal system is no longer based on the law of moses, but the example of demanding retribution (double in this case) I think is valid. Just because the Law is older doesn't mean it didn't or wouldn't work in times past.In fact, if she indeed is thomas rassat, and it can be proven that she posted 1700 songs, that too is stealing to me. Offering up the goods is just as bad and downloading the goods. 1700 X 2= HEY WHAT DO YOU KNOW Pretty close!!! Cheers all,Maceman

[chriscarter]

Jul 10, 2009, 9:33pm, fusilierb wrote:Jul 10, 2009, 8:26pm, lboogie77 wrote:80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02My point is that if she broke into a record store and actually stole 24 physical CD's (that just so happened to have one song a piece on them) the fines and penalties wouldn't be anywhere close to this comical. Even she took an axe to the check out counter. And threatened the President while she did it. WTF?BThe fine wasn't for downloading the songs. The fine was for filesharing them thousands of times. So it's not akin to shoplifting 24 CDs. It's akin to shoplifting thousands and thousands of copies of the same 24 titles and then giving them all away to other people. This is why it's so hard to battle the piracy - because people (even music people in this case) have a hard time understanding what the actual damages are.

[sgs4u]

I have to laugh when I see people getting all indignant about file sharing being illegal. The time to have done something about it was 20 years ago, or maybe 15. That lawsuit is a joke. Have you heard the one about the kid who was busted by the RIAA for downloading and sharing Avril Lavigne tunes? Avril Lavigne's MANAGER paid the legal fees for the defense. Why would he do that? Because file sharing is impossible to stop. And because it works against the artist, record company and entire music business to try and bust people for sharing files. The RIAA is a very old organization of people with their heads still very firmly lodged where the sun don't shine. They are the useless unnecessary appendix of the music biz, and they're going to atrophy and cease to exist soon. They need a new mandate. We need a world celebrating the sharing of music, NOT trying to hoard it or suck all the money they possibly can.

[davekershaw]

Jul 11, 2009, 1:06am, aimusic wrote:(no1 reason for war guys, so let's keep the peace)No. that would be marriage Brad!Be warned!!

[sgs4u]

Matt & Chuck, This is not an ethics question. You guys also know me well enough that I am not recommending musicians not be paid for their work. Nothing could be further from the truth. The old system is irreparably broken. People are simply never going back to buying CD's from CD stores. It's time for a BIG change. The artists/musicians we all know and love, are not making any money anymore. I don't want them to be broke. I want them to be paid handsomely. AND you know I want that for them.Whether we choose to call it stealing or not, is moot. Even if it's deemed stealing in the eyes of the law, that definition is subject to change. BECAUSE, if it's not enforceable, you have a big problem. When laws can't be enforced, they're rewritten or thrown out. That's just the way it is. And what are you guys be arguing about? You don't write music for stealing... You write focused pieces of music for specific needs. And you're extremely good at it.