tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post1155340283217245096..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Court reduces award in Jammie Thomas-Rasset case to $2,250 per song; avoids constitutional issue; enjoins further infringementBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-42861409146967309992010-10-04T20:32:01.838-07:002010-10-04T20:32:01.838-07:00Theft is theft, the record industry should be enti...Theft is theft, the record industry should be entitled to collect not only the price of the songs, but the cost of investigation and prosecution. Why should they be punished for suing a thief?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-20161373051611291632010-01-27T06:51:24.783-08:002010-01-27T06:51:24.783-08:00"People keep expressing indignation because &..."People keep expressing indignation because "only" 24 songs were determined to be infringed. Perhaps it would help for them to appreciate that 1,702 songs were actually involved."<br /><br />So she was found to have infringed the copyright of 24 songs and only 24 songs, but because of this you believe it is appropriate to set a punishment for 1702 songs?<br /><br />If the RIAA meant to extract compensation for 1702 songs perhaps it would have sued over 1702 instead of 24. Had Jamie been found to have infringed the copyright in that case, the amount awarded would have been much higher than this.<br /><br />At the end of the day the fact remains that this is $54,000 for 24 songs, and an amount that is crushingly and retardedly harsh for something that retails for perhaps $12.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-79466733376634383932010-01-23T12:52:57.476-08:002010-01-23T12:52:57.476-08:00I don't envy anyone making a decision on chall...I don't envy anyone making a decision on challenging this. Judge Davis is right that the reduced award is still significant and harsh and I would imagine the labels want to get away from the bad PR. And it's not really fair if the jury went for a signficantly higher award because of, for example, disgust at the 11th hour attempt to shift blame. But there's so many people willing to see this as victory, vindication etc. etc. that you might worry about a sort of moral hazard arising from it.CS Clarknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-51998665462609207852010-01-23T08:59:39.788-08:002010-01-23T08:59:39.788-08:00In a non-digital, non-online world, it could be ar...In a non-digital, non-online world, it could be argued that Thomas-Rasset's actions were akin to visiting a (bricks & mortar) music store and slipping two albums into her pocket, then leaving without paying, She would go on to assist others with the same action - her reward from the others; a share of the goods they were able to pocket. Her motive - to achieve the goal of acquiring music without paying. In such a scenario Thomas Rasset would have been arrested, fingerprinted and subject to a criminal prosecution. I doubt whether any judge would have shown sympathy as she was only trying to obtain free music. Thomas-Rasset's actions of acquiring free music has deprived many people; there are plenty of people employed directly and indirectly by the music industry; loss of industry revenue translates to lay-offs. Some of the laid off are single mothers, raising four children.....Alistair Thomsonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-40742902004003419672010-01-23T08:38:56.329-08:002010-01-23T08:38:56.329-08:00People keep expressing indignation because "o...People keep expressing indignation because "only" 24 songs were determined to be infringed. Perhaps it would help for them to appreciate that 1,702 songs were actually involved (though precisely how many of these were actually subject to copyright held by the plaintiffs has not, to my knowledge, been expressed in any court filings...but it seems rather doubtful that a mere 24 songs would have been sufficient for JTR to have even caused a ripple on the plaintiffs' radar scope as it has been focused in its campaign against clearly egregious downloaders and distributors). <br /><br />Assuming plaintiffs had chosen to assert all pertinent copyrights, which almost certainly would have far, far exceeded merely 24 songs, it is well nigh possible that even the statutory minimum prescribed by Section 504 would have yielded an award of a very sizeable amount, perhaps even as high as just short of $1.3M. Being statutorily prescribed, remittitur would have never even entered the picture. Moreover, it is my opinion that arguments attempting to rely on Gore would fall on deaf ears before the courts.<br /><br />This is just an observation, but one I believe does merit being mentioned.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-26962606622545430392010-01-22T19:06:49.346-08:002010-01-22T19:06:49.346-08:0054G for distributing 24 songs is still excessive, ...54G for distributing 24 songs is still excessive, Davis himself explained he felt that was the *maximum* amount that could be awarded given the circumstances.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-43905210961028696002010-01-22T12:37:00.027-08:002010-01-22T12:37:00.027-08:00All I can say is "WOW!"
I'm not sur...All I can say is "WOW!"<br /><br />I'm not surprised that the award was lowered, but this is less than 3% of the original.<br /><br />But even this much smaller amount can bankrupt many families.<br /><br />Let's wait and see what the RIAA does now.<br /><br />RandyRandyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02041892308592857971noreply@blogger.com