$1.92 Million RIAA Fine Reduced To $54,000 For Single Mother

[admin]

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, infamous for being penalized $1.92 million in a judgement for the RIAA, has finally received some good news. Instead of paying $1.92 million, the single mother will now "only" have to pay $54,000, or $2,250 for each of the 24 songs she shared online.

Michael Davis, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, is the one that lowered the damages. According to Davis, "The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.'

The RIAA has yet to comment and will have a week to decide whether to accept these new damages or seek a new trial.

This new development brings hope to student Joel Tenenbaum, who was fined $675,000 for sharing 30 songs. Tenenbaum's lawyers are calling for the fine to be reduced to the minimum or $750 per song, or $22,500 in total.

More:

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2010/01/23/judge-lowers-2-million-music-piracy-fine-against-jammie-thomas-rasset/

[admin]

Even with the reduction, Rasset's lawyers will challenge the ruling and seek for the damages to be further reduced, closer to the $750 per song minimum as opposed to the $2,250 reduced fine (or the $150,000 maximum):

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/lawyers-challenge-filesharing-verdict/

[admin]

The RIAA has rejected the reduced damages and will seek a new trial:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minnesota-songsharing-case-apf-1313904743.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

[dr_ml422]

The RIAA has rejected the reduced damages and will seek a new trial:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Minnes...&asset=&ccode=

Who's financing the trial for this nonsense? You mean the DA's office is actually paying for their part in these stupid hearings? Or are they going to get their money back somehow?

[doctorhardware]

It is the same tactic's that Direct TV used when hackers were getting free satellite. They sent out letters demanding like 4 grand was the minimum and all the way up to 100 grand. I know because I got a letter but it was not sent registered through the mail. I did not worry about it. Never did see another one either.

[dr_ml422]

aside from the threats etc... when they actually decide to try these stupid lawsuits how does the DA"s office justify the money spent on all this? nowadays they really investigate and find something damaging to put you away for a while. too much to just have someone walk away w/a fine or probation. at least the Feds do that now.

[doctorhardware]

Yes I know that a couple of people were sent up and also were fined 1 mil. I have lost track of them and thought it would be better that way.

[dr_ml422]

that's why i don't see how any judge would even bother w/these moronic cases involving some music downloads. waste of money. unless the RIAA agrees to pay the court's fees for the prosecution i wouldn't even bother.

[admin]

It's a civil suit, so both sides pay for themselves, unless somebody loses, in which case they might have to pay the other side's fees. The RIAA has unlimited funds at their disposal, and Rasset is being represented pro bono basis I think.

The problem with the RIAA not asking for a new trial and accepting the judge's lowered damages is that this effectively means any judge can alter the damages for their future cases. Also, the multi-million dollar award was supposed to be a deterrent, and $54,000 (or even lower on appeal) is not what the RIAA was looking for.

Of course, the down side of asking for another trial is that it gives the RIAA bad publicity, that they would go after someone like this even when the judge has said that the fine was not appropriate. But I don't think the RIAA cares about bad publicity.

[doctorhardware]

That is a good point, that the judge can reduce the fines as he see fit.

[dr_ml422]

I thought the RIAA was a government agency? So it's just some organization representing copyright owners? Someone has to be backing them big time as I don't see musicians couhing up all that dough for pirate trials. Especially as not all music artists are losing sleep over their songs being pirated.

[admin]

The RIAA is just a trade group, backed by the largest music labels (Sony, EMI, Universal Music, Warner Music) in the same way the MPAA is backed by the largest movie studios (Sony, Warner, Fox, Paramount, Universal ...).

[dr_ml422]

What a waste of time, and what a bunch of petty cry babies. Me a judge I would read the 1st line of any case and asa I even see this would shred it. It is silly to just imagine a Big Player like Sony etc... going after some single mom for some songs. Nothing ever more surprises me in this life.

[admin]

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is going back to court, for the third time, this time to decide how much in damages she needs to pay, the last figure still the $54,000 set in January (see first post):

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/10/judge-third-trial-against-p2p-user-jammie-thomas-will-go-ahead.ars

[admin]

Bad news for Thomas-Rasset, as a new jury has ordered her to pay $1.5m in damages, down from the original $1.92m, but still "unconstitutional", says Thomas-Rasset's lawyer, and they plan to appeal the decision (again).

http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/mother-refuses-to-pay-147-million-for-pirating-music-online-20101105-17g7j.html