- Thomas-Rasset is seeking to have the award reduced to zero, on constitutional grounds. She is explicitly forgoing an argument based on common-law remittitur, the means by which the court reduced the second jury's award of $1.92 million down to $54,000. The court's decision on this motion -- which I expect him to grant, at least in part -- will allow one or both sides to appeal immediately to the Eighth Circuit, mercifully sparing all parties a fourth trial.
- The labels are seeking an injunction against further infringement by Thomas-Rasset via peer-to-peer or other means.
- The court told Harvard Law Professor Charles Nesson "thanks, but no thanks," rejecting his proposed amicus brief attacking the jury's award. "The proposed brief would not be of assistance to the Court," ruled Chief Judge Michael Davis of the District of Minnesota. " "Not so much as a thank you for the effort," lamented Nesson, adding, ":<("
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
Thomas-Rasset: I owe nothing; labels seek injunction; court to Nesson: you're no amicus of mine
Several developments in the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset following the third jury's award of $1.5 million to the major record labels in their copyright infringement suit:
3 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
Charlie's latest "Hail Mary" pass has, once again, failed to connect.
ReplyDeleteBut don't count him out. Justice Alito, no less, would have put the Harper game into overtime.
Thankyou Jammie for not giving up, and for facing these bullying companies. They deserve to be brought to task for the sheer contempt they show for individuals. These companies should be using technology to generate new income streams instead of suing their own customers and potential customers and expecting their pre-internet business models to be upheld forever in the courts.
ReplyDeleteAnon 12/11/10 -
ReplyDelete"They deserve to be brought to task for the sheer contempt they show for individuals. "
And when the individual who is the subject of this case shows open contempt for the law by illicitly copying and distributing the work of others without paying for it, destroying evidence, and then lying on the stand about it, do you feel that she should be brought to task also?
"and expecting their pre-internet business models to be upheld forever in the courts"
Oh yeah, that tired old pre-internet business model of making people pay for the content they consume...God forbid.