After the jury returned a verdict finding that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had willfully infringed 30 songs, the record label plaintiffs requested that the court permanently enjoin her from further infringement. Yesterday Thomas-Rasset opposed the plaintiffs' motion, largely on the grounds that irreparable harm is no longer presumed, following the Supreme Court's decision in eBay, Inc. v. MercExhchange LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
This seems an odd issue to be contesting so vigorously (and in a very well-done brief). Why is Thomas-Rasset this concerned about an injunction prohibiting activity (i.e., using KaZaA to download and "share" song files) that she maintains she never engaged in, and which I can only assume she does not now?
Thomas-Rasset Opposition to Motion for Permanent Injunction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments here are moderated. I appreciate substantive comments, whether or not they agree with what I've written. Stay on topic, and be civil. Comments that contain name-calling, personal attacks, or the like will be rejected. If you want to rant about how evil the RIAA and MPAA are, and how entertainment companies' employees and attorneys are bad people, there are plenty of other places for you to go.