Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Ars] Judge calls $1.5M file-sharing judgment "appalling," slashes to $54,000
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Ars] Judge calls $1.5M file-sharing judgment "appalling," slashes to $54,000

post #1 of 19
Thread Starter 



Quote:
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first US resident to have the file-sharing lawsuits against her go all the way to trial and verdict back in 2007, “lied in her trial testimony," said federal judge Michael Davis today. And her “past refusal to accept responsibility for her actions raises the need for strong deterrence."

But that deterrence won't come courtesy of a jury, which last year found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.5 million dollars—$62,500 for each song she was accused of sharing on the KaZaA peer-to-peer network. That case was her third time through a trial; the first two trials had ended with Thomas-Rasset on the hook for $222,000 and $1.92 million, respectively. In each case, Judge Thomas has altered or set aside the jury's verdict, and he did so again this morning.

Davis has found that the $1.5 million award was unconstitutional; he slashed it to $54,000—$2,250 per song. And even then, the amount was "a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its sole discretion.â€

Davis has done this before. After the second trial and its $1.92 million verdict, he also reduced the award to $54,000, but he elected not to do so on constitutional grounds. That decision led to Thomas-Rasset's third trial, but today's constitutionally based decision should end the matter at the District Court level. If this case is pursued—and we suspect it will be—the trial phase will end and a federal Appeals Court will take over.

Sections of the verdict are worth quoting in full; they illustrate Judge Davis' deep common sense about the case and provide a worthwhile framework for thinking about similar P2P cases.

The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first-time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file-sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

This reduced award is punitive and substantial. It acts as a potent deterrent. It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its sole discretion, but the decision was not for this Court to make. The Court has merely reduced the jury’s award to the maximum amount permitted under our Constitution.

Davis had nothing positive to say about Thomas-Rasset, who he faulted for lying and for denying responsibility by “casting possible blame on her children and ex-boyfriend.†As for her argument that she caused no harm to the music industry, Davis “rejects her suggestion" and calls for a penalty in order to enforce copyright law, compensate the record labels, and “deter future copyright infringement.â€

But Davis was at his most Old Testament when blasting the huge damage awards handed down.

There is no doubt that a multimillion dollar penalty is overkill to deter a private individual from obtaining free songs online… Although Thomas-Rasset played a role in the web of online piracy, she played a minuscule role… It cannot be that she must pay the damages caused by millions of individuals because she was one of two users caught, sued, and subjected to a jury trial… [Joel Tenenbaum in Massachusetts was the other.] This award constitutes the maximum amount a jury could award, consistent with the due process clause.
His $2,250 per song figure is three times the minimum statutory damages of $750, though Davis does acknowledge the difficulty of drawing exact lines between fair and unfair judgments. “Any specific dollar amount will appear to be somewhat arbitrary,†he wrote. “Why is an award of $2,251 per song oppressive while an award of $2,250 is not?" The "3x" multiplier seemed to him a fair one, as such multipliers are routinely used to punish willful offenses (the same amount was chosen in the Tenenbaum case when the judge likewise gutted that verdict).
source


she still wont pay though, and they already offered to settle with her for less.
post #2 of 19
Judge: and how much is prosecution seeking in damages for using Kazaa?

Prosecution: aaa hum

*camera zooms in*

*puts pinkie in side of mouth*

Prosecution:1 MILLION DOLLARS!!!
post #3 of 19
I long for the day when bands say screw the record companys, distribute the music themselves online, for free, basically as an advertisement for their fans to come see them play live, which is where they should be making their money.
Whitey
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-4670k Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H Geforce GTX 660 Corsair Vengence 2x4GB 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
1TB WD Caviar Dell S2340M Logitech G710+ EVGA 650W 
CaseMouse
Corsaid 600T White  Mionix Avior7000 
  hide details  
Reply
Whitey
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-4670k Gigabyte Z87X-UD4H Geforce GTX 660 Corsair Vengence 2x4GB 
Hard DriveMonitorKeyboardPower
1TB WD Caviar Dell S2340M Logitech G710+ EVGA 650W 
CaseMouse
Corsaid 600T White  Mionix Avior7000 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joephis19 View Post
I long for the day when bands say screw the record companys, distribute the music themselves online, for free, basically as an advertisement for their fans to come see them play live, which is where they should be making their money.
That's basically where they do make their money regardless.
My giant
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6600 lapped Asus P5n32-E 680i GeForce 9800GT 512MB 2x1GB (unused ATM) & 2x2Gb Corsair XMS2 PC6400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WDJS SATA-II 160GB + WD80GB + WDAAKS Raid0 320GB Aperature FSII 19" LCD Apevia DarkSide 600W 
Case
NZXT Zero 
  hide details  
Reply
My giant
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
E6600 lapped Asus P5n32-E 680i GeForce 9800GT 512MB 2x1GB (unused ATM) & 2x2Gb Corsair XMS2 PC6400 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
WDJS SATA-II 160GB + WD80GB + WDAAKS Raid0 320GB Aperature FSII 19" LCD Apevia DarkSide 600W 
Case
NZXT Zero 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirmie View Post
That's basically where they do make their money regardless.
Yup. Jackson Browne made probably $0.20 when I bought his $20 "Greatest Hits" collection. He probably made $40.00 when I bought a $70 ticket to his concert earlier this year.

The vast majority of artists are not significantly hurt by lost CD/digital sales, only the very biggest super stars and bands are.
post #6 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joephis19 View Post
I long for the day when bands say screw the record companys, distribute the music themselves online, for free, basically as an advertisement for their fans to come see them play live, which is where they should be making their money.
Not all musicians' strengths are in their live performances. They should have a royalty fee in their contracts, if they had a decent manager.
post #7 of 19


I detect a win here, at least they are starting to act like judges & not paid for legislators, though 1.5 million is very absurd, even $54,000 is still asinine and obnoxious to me still, after all they aren't really losing the song, that's different!

I say, make it like how many states have maximum benefit from losing body parts, for insurance claims, there needs to be statues of limitations on law suits not just against corporations, but corporations against people.

So if you lost your hand, you maximum benefit is $5,000 from an insurance company in some states. Though I could say, "Hey I'm an artist, and that hand could have made me $40,000,000", the courts will say, not important, $5,000, that's what you get...

So, for those seeking to sue the public, there needs to be a limit set, and $5,000 seems fair to me... After all a hand is worth a lot more than a piece of plastic or a lot of pieces of plastic... ($5,000 max benefit would be more than fair!)
Edited by _GTech - 7/22/11 at 1:07pm
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
The Rock
(15 items)
 
  
Reply
post #8 of 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joephis19 View Post
I long for the day when bands say screw the record companys, distribute the music themselves online, for free, basically as an advertisement for their fans to come see them play live, which is where they should be making their money.
Yeah, out of my whole music collection, only one artist does this.
Might as well promote him for it too

http://www.nomy.nu/
Webcrawler
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k ASRock Z75 Pro3 Sapphire 7870 XT Boost Corsair Vengeance, DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SpinPoint F1 1TB 64GB M4 SSD Windows 8.1 SyncMaster P2050 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2312HM Sidewinder X4 Be Quiet! Pure Power CM L8 430w Zowie FK 
AudioAudio
Xonar DG Sennheiser HD 555 
  hide details  
Reply
Webcrawler
(17 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5 3570k ASRock Z75 Pro3 Sapphire 7870 XT Boost Corsair Vengeance, DDR3 1600Mhz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOSMonitor
SpinPoint F1 1TB 64GB M4 SSD Windows 8.1 SyncMaster P2050 
MonitorKeyboardPowerMouse
Dell U2312HM Sidewinder X4 Be Quiet! Pure Power CM L8 430w Zowie FK 
AudioAudio
Xonar DG Sennheiser HD 555 
  hide details  
Reply
post #9 of 19
I think its funny how they are wasting SO MUCH of our tax money on 20 songs when MOST of this generation will never EVERY buy a CD anyway due to Torrents and Pandora. If your music (or the people you represent) is good then shouldn't you want other people exposed to it?

Tards.
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500k P8P67 Pro 2x GTX 460 SLI 8 GB Ripx 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40GB SSD OCZ2/1 TB Windows 7 64bit 1080p LED G15 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
850 Watts Crap :( G5 X Trac 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500k P8P67 Pro 2x GTX 460 SLI 8 GB Ripx 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
40GB SSD OCZ2/1 TB Windows 7 64bit 1080p LED G15 
PowerCaseMouseMouse Pad
850 Watts Crap :( G5 X Trac 
  hide details  
Reply
post #10 of 19
Kazaa? What is this, 2003?
Intel Junk
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E4500 @ 2.75GHz GIGABYTE 965P-S3 PNY 8800GT 512MB Crucial Ballistix Tracer DDR2 1000MHz 2GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 750GB AALS, Hitachi 160GB laptop none Windows 7 Ulitmate 32bit 22" Acer LCD AL2216W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 350 Internet ASUS OEM 300W none Logitech RX300 
Mouse Pad
pads pads pads 
  hide details  
Reply
Intel Junk
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
C2D E4500 @ 2.75GHz GIGABYTE 965P-S3 PNY 8800GT 512MB Crucial Ballistix Tracer DDR2 1000MHz 2GB 
Hard DriveOptical DriveOSMonitor
WD 750GB AALS, Hitachi 160GB laptop none Windows 7 Ulitmate 32bit 22" Acer LCD AL2216W 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Logitech 350 Internet ASUS OEM 300W none Logitech RX300 
Mouse Pad
pads pads pads 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Ars] Judge calls $1.5M file-sharing judgment "appalling," slashes to $54,000