tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post5954465146175196829..comments2024-01-23T07:34:52.253-08:00Comments on Copyrights & Campaigns: Capitol v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset: Awaiting the verdictBen Sheffnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-87509511195216879912009-06-18T16:51:49.868-07:002009-06-18T16:51:49.868-07:00Wow, $1.9 million. I bet that makes the original ...Wow, $1.9 million. I bet that makes the original settlement letter, and even the previous $220,000 initial verdict, seem like a good deal in comparison. So much for the Harvard counsel. Are you listening Joel?<br /><br />Now we'll get to hear the arguments about the award being unconstitutionally excessive, which I believe is also a losing argument for the defense because the State Farm/BMW line of cases simply don't apply in a statutory damages framework, especially one owed the particular type of deference given to Congressional decisions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-16699081985329606752009-06-18T16:04:16.079-07:002009-06-18T16:04:16.079-07:00After reading through your summary of the closing ...After reading through your summary of the closing argument's, I find it hard to believe that any rational person would rule that she was not guilty--unless they voted "Not Guilty" as a protest against the record labels. The evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me.themaskedanalysthttp://www.themaskedanalyst.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-39199840001912077282009-06-18T14:40:40.498-07:002009-06-18T14:40:40.498-07:00Following your twitter and asking a question/makin...Following your twitter and asking a question/making a statement before the post-verdict motions come (feel free to move it to your verdict update if appropriate)...<br />Even if the judge were to grant a motion that the damages are unconstitutional, I would think that victory would be short-lived for defendants. A trial was completed and a jury verdict reached. No chance the circuit court (or Supremes) would uphold a constitutional ruling, so when reversing the district court (unless I am wrong), it would just go right back to the jury decision.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-61670387660713882802009-06-18T12:26:32.663-07:002009-06-18T12:26:32.663-07:00I honestly have no idea what the jury will do. I w...I honestly have no idea what the jury will do. I watched the jurors closely during Thomas-Rasset's testimony and closing arguments, and if their faces betrayed their leanings, I couldn't detect it.<br /><br />I think a verdict for plaintiffs in *any* amount would be a victory for them. Even an award of minimum statutory damages ($750/work) would send the message they want: that using p2p networks to get music without paying for it is illegal, and carries real, painful consequences.<br /><br />I don't know whether the labels will seek attorneys' fees. I do know that Judge Davis will be extremely reluctant to grant them.Ben Sheffnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06477793715765992689noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5383512304639632735.post-67987423739364656062009-06-18T12:19:09.848-07:002009-06-18T12:19:09.848-07:00Ben, I guess the $220,000 question is... do you se...Ben, I guess the $220,000 question is... do you see any chance that the jury actually hits her with a bigger verdict than last time? Or are the plaintiffs' so focused on: just find her liable and give us something, that its going to be a lot less this time if she is found liable? Also, my guess is based on this Judge's prior statements and lack of fondness for RIAA, he would never grant attys fees for the labels, but my goodness, after all the wasted motions and time, to simply have no witnesses other than the defendant, is pretty preposterous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com