The third trial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, whom two separate juries have found liable for using the KazAa peer-to-peer network to download and "share" music, has been set for October 4, 2010, in Minneapolis. Per Judge Michael Davis' January 22 order, the third trial will concern only damages; the fact of Thomas-Rasset's willful infringement of 24 of the major labels' songs has already been established.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset Trial Notice
As I've pointed out, there remain many questions about just what the third trial will look like, including whether the parties will be able to add additional witnesses on damages, and whether the court will instruct the jury that the maximum allowable award in the case is $2,250 per work, which Judge Davis found "constitutes the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award to both compensate Plaintiffs and address the deterrence aspect of the Copyright Act." Judge Davis reduced the second jury's award of $80,000 per work -- a total of $1.92 million -- under the common law doctrine of remittitur, finding that the verdict was "monstrous and shocking." The first jury awarded $9,250 per work, totaling $222,000, but that verdict was thrown out on grounds unrelated to the size of the award.
In January of this year, the labels offered to settle the case for $25,000, to be donated to a music charity, but Thomas-Rasset declined the offer; her attorney said, "Jammie will not accept anything offer that requires her to pay money to or on behalf of the Plaintiffs."
Monday, March 1, 2010
6 comments:
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
RE:
ReplyDeleteIn January of this year, the labels offered to settle the case for $25,000, to be donated to a music charity, but Thomas-Rasset declined the offer; her attorney said, "Jammie will not accept anything offer that requires her to pay money to or on behalf of the Plaintiffs."
---
To end the above entry with that paragraph is disingenuous. The Plantiffs, likewise, could have "settled" the case by accepting Davis' 54G remittitur.
Anonymous 7:25 -
ReplyDeleteWhy is it disingenuous? 24 jurors have found her liable for copyright infringement. The continued notion that she should not have to pay anything for her wrongs is simply shameful.
And why should the plaintiffs have to settle for anything? They obtained to legitimate jury verdicts, both of which were within the boundaries set by the copyright law. To settle for the remitted amount allows the precedent to be set that no more than $2250 per infringement is available in a statutory damages case, essentially allowing a district court judge to rewrite the copyright law without any due process or Congressional input on the matter. Additionally, accepting the remitted amount would preclude the plaintiffs from receiving any appellate review of the lower courts antics.
"The continued notion that she should not have to pay anything for her wrongs is simply shameful."
ReplyDeleteIf they offered her a settlement for 24$ dollars then she'd probably consider it even though she spoke harsh words in the document stating otherwise.
I can't imagine a third jury finding her not guilty of copyright infringment... but here's to the lawyer who has put her into the situation for that possibility.
ReplyDelete@Disability Insurance:
ReplyDeleteThe jury in the new trial will NOT have the option of letting her off the hook completely. Liability is already established. The new trial will be only on damages. The only issue is where within the statutory damages range of $750-$150,000 per work their award will fall.
I can't think of any other situation where the plaintiff would be hoping for a lower award and the defendant would be hoping for a higher award.
ReplyDelete