The jury in the third copyright trial of the Brainerd, Minnesota woman has just returned a verdict of $1.5 million in statutory damages, or $62,500 for each of the 24 songs that she downloaded and "shared" over the KaZaA peer-to-peer network.
The award is significantly higher than the $222,000 award in her first trial (which was thrown out when the judge determined the jury instructions to be flawed), and a bit lower than the $1.92 million award in the second, which was reduced by the judge to $54,000 under the common-law doctrine of remittitur. After the second trial, Thomas-Rasset -- who denied downloading any music over peer-to-peer networks -- rejected a settlement offer of $25,000 from the record label plaintiffs, who said they would donate the amount to a music-related charity.
The RIAA said in a statement after the verdict:
We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions.This is far from the end of the road in this case. Thomas-Rasset is expected to challenge the size of the award again, and the judge has already determined that $54,000 is the maximum acceptable size for an award given the evidence in the case.
I'll update as more information becomes available.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset Verdict
Posts
Why am I not surprised?
ReplyDeletewho is on these juries?!
ReplyDeleteJudge Davis wrote himself into a corner with his previous opinion. He supported remittitur because:
ReplyDelete"This [reduced] award constitutes the maximum amount a jury could reasonable award ...."
Two juries have now come up with a similar award. Therefore, one of two things, according to the court's logic, must be true:
1) Two independent juries are completely unreasonable, to almost identical degrees, or
2) Two juries coming to similar damage awards is de facto reasonable, and by definition of being reasonable it cannot be "monstrous and shocking," therefore the Court remitting it again will go against the prohibition of "substitut[ing] its own judgment for the judgment of the jury."
"who is on these juries?!"
ReplyDeletePeople that don't buy into the idea that engaging in massive infringement via p2p sharing is some jape.
As the jury instructions made clear, Thomas-Rasset had already been determined to be a willful infringer. The jury was properly instructed to determine where within the range between $750 and $150,000 per work the damages should fall. While Judges Gertner and Davis obviously don't like it, the four juries in their two cases have awarded $220,000, $1,920,000, $675,000 and now $1,500,000. It appears that these 48 people thought file sharing was pretty bad.
ReplyDeleteIt is also possible that the judge was correct in that $54,000 is the maximum a jury could reasonably award which means that the law should be changed. Instead of between $750 -> $150,000 it should only be the $750 (or less preferably) if you cannot prove damages.
ReplyDelete"People that don't buy into the idea that engaging in massive infringement via p2p sharing is some jape."
ReplyDeleteI.e. "old people"?
Old people? Nah.
ReplyDeleteRegular people, y'know, those who work hard, play fair, fulfill their civic duty, raise their kids, understand that unlawful behavior has consequence, they respect the law and actually bring morals and ethics and unbiased, common sense judgement into the courtroom. Regular people.
And Jammie is now three times the poster pig of online bad behavior. I love it.
There is just something very unnatural about copyright laws. I understand their purpose, which is to provide an artificial monopoly to an individual over making money from their ideas, giving them incentive to develop their ideas further. And I guess that's the problem. It's artificial. We freely share ideas all the time. They're not intrinsically worth anything. And no idea is truly original really. We're all inspired by previous thinkers/artists/musicians. And yet here we are. Forcing people to pay.
ReplyDeleteAs remittitur is supposed to be based on what juries have historically given for like cases, Judge Davis has essentially conducted the first sociological experiment to determine an EXACT range for what the proper amount of damages is for similar cases. He orders two or three more of these and no copyright case should ever be allowed outside the range established here. :-p
ReplyDeleteJudge Davis...when 36 (48 incl. Tenenbaum) people consistently decide something, maybe they are not the unreasonable ones.
I have to say I am very surprised by the consistently high damage awards, even given clear and seemingly willful infringement. These awards are more than a lot of personal injury plaintiffs receive, whose injuries are far worse.
ReplyDeleteIt's astonishing how little the copyleft people know about copyright. To Anonymous who said that ideas are/should be shared freely is a textbook example of the lack of understanding of basic copyright principles. That is, you do not, and cannot copyright an idea. It's the expression of an idea, not the idea itself, that's copyrighted.
ReplyDeleteI imagine that all the juries come up with the same numbers because that's what they are instructed to award.
ReplyDeleteI'll agree to these outrageous awards when they also raise traffic fines to a similar level.
There was no proven damage. Heck, there wasn't even suggested damages. It's time for the RIAA to stop like they said they were going to.
Randy
Randy, I'm pretty sure the jury is given no instructions at all on what amount to award, other than that it be somewhere in the range of $750 to $30,000 per work infringed, or up to $150,000 per work if willful.
ReplyDeleteRandy, there is no reasonable comparison of minor traffic fines to the willful and unlawful destruction of an American industry that has harmed the careers and lives of 10’s of thousands of talented, middle class workers. Copylefters have been consistent in their demand that this issue be resolved within a world as they would wish it to be rather than the world as it actually is. Specious arguments like yours continue the copyleft impression that you’d rather lose this so you can whine about it later rather than address this on it’s legal merits so positive change can be the outcome.
ReplyDeleteAs long as Jammie continues to project snotty entitlement through perjury on the stand, then reasonable, thoughtful and well-intended juries of her peers will continue to advise her on what they think of her juvenile, costly and unlawful behavior.
" Randy, there is no reasonable comparison of minor traffic fines to the willful and unlawful destruction of an American industry that has harmed the careers and lives of 10’s of thousands of talented, middle class workers. Copylefters have been consistent in their demand that this issue be resolved within a world as they would wish it to be rather than the world as it actually is. Specious arguments like yours continue the copyleft impression that you’d rather lose this so you can whine about it later rather than address this on it’s legal merits so positive change can be the outcome.
ReplyDelete"
Lulz, so traffic fines, which are supposedly related to people being deprived of their "safety" and perhaps "life", in no way compare to this one lady single handedly destroying an american industry?
lulzlulzlulz.
Also, I'm sorry that the specific industry you're talking about harmed the careers and lives of 10’s of thousands of talented, middle class workers, but that isn't Jamie's fault.
"Copylefters have been consistent in their demand that this issue be resolved within a world as they would wish it to be rather than the world as it actually is."
Yeop. Change is a bitter pill for some of you to swallow.
The woman was offered a very reasonable settlement from the labels. (especially considering lawyer fees alone...)
ReplyDelete" ...rejected a settlement offer of $25,000 from the record label plaintiffs, who said they would donate the amount to a music-related charity..."
She has no one to blame but herself, for her actions that brought her to court in the first place. After turning down the settlement offer, she took the responsibility for any damages awarded by a Jury of Peers.. Again...
Anyone who suggests that these jury awards are remarkably "consistent[]", particularly as proof of their reasonableness, has not truly compared $222,000 to $1.92 million. That's a vast range of results, and quite the opposite of consistency. Consider what these juries are getting from the court: (1) an incredibly wide range of statutory damages to choose from; and (2) essentially no legal guidance about how to assess damages in cases like this. Ultimately, what we're witnessing is a classic behavioral psychology experiment: the jury is primed by the overall statutory range and, without any objective peg or guidance, selects a relatively arbitrary amount somewhere in the middle ($9,250 per song; $22,500 per song, $62,500 per song, and $80,000 per song). The result is jury awards that are fairly high – because the upper bound of the statutory range is VERY high – but also fairly scattershot.
ReplyDeleteAll that was shown in the trials was that the defendant downloaded the songs and made them available (had them in her shared folder), not that anyone actually obtained them from her. That's it. How is this "massive infringement" or "destruction of American industry", as others have hyperbolically commented? There is no justice in making an example of her; that's not what statutory damages are for. If the damage award bears no reasonable relationship to actual damages, the judge is right to reduce it. It's highly unlikely that she made anywhere near $62,500-worth of copies of each song for herself or others. And it's hard to take any starving-artist arguments seriously when the RIAA repeatedly states that they intend to only use settlements and awards to fund more litigation and publicity campaigns. The settlement she was offered is the first time they've ever said they'd donate it to a music-related charity.
ReplyDeleteI hadn't heard this thing about the money going to a charity before. I wonder if the charity is Music Matters or something like that (the anti-piracy campaign). I'm pretty sure that years ago I'd read the original settlement they offered that was refused was $2500 instead of $25000, but it could well have been a typo....
ReplyDelete"All that was shown in the trials was that the defendant downloaded the songs and made them available (had them in her shared folder), not that anyone actually obtained them from her."
ReplyDeleteShe distributed copies to the investigator, thus violating 17 USC 106(3) with actual distribution.
"There is no justice in making an example of her; that's not what statutory damages are for."
The courts disagree with you. There is a deterrent component to statutory damages. Indeed, when Congress raised the statutory damage caps in 1999 specifically to deal with digital piracy like this, it titled the act "Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act."
"If the damage award bears no reasonable relationship to actual damages, the judge is right to reduce it."
Show me where in the language or legislative history of Section 504 history that it has to bear such a relationship.
Yeah I have to admit, the makeup of these juries is starting to become very suspicious. Who the hell would bring down such a stupid verdict?
ReplyDelete