gfxgfx
 
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
 
gfx gfx
gfx
76620 Posts in 13450 Topics by 2077 Members - Latest Member: Kitkat May 08, 2021, 05:18:29 am
*
gfx*gfx
gfx
WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
gfx
gfxgfx
 

Author Topic: Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict  (Read 581 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DaBees-Knees

  • WMW Team
  • *****
Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
« on: September 02, 2009, 06:48:56 am »
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86935/jammie-thomas-challenges-arbitrary-80000-psong-verdict/

Quote
Jammie Thomas is appealing her sickening $80,000 per song file-sharing judgment this time making the argument that her due process rights were violated because the statutory damages awarded in the case “are punitive in purpose or effect.”

“The concerns that trigger the due process inquiry — arbitrariness, variability, and unpredictability in awards — are here in spades; of this, the nearly order-of-magnitude difference between the verdicts in the first and second trials of Mrs. Thomas is unquestionable evidence,” reads the brief filed with the court. “An arbitrary award imposed pursuant to a statute is still arbitrary.”

Her lawyer cites the wide disparity between the $9,250 originally awarded for each of the 24 illegally shared songs and the $80,000 later awarded in a retrial of the case after Judge Michael Davis said he erred in instructing the jury that simply making music available in KaZaA’s “shared folder” was the same as copyright infringement. Also taken to task is the fact that the music industry believes Congress intended for statutory damages to have a deterrence effect on others being that when it enacted the statutory-damages provision of the Copyright Act there’s no way it could have foreseen illegal, but noncommercial downloading of copyrighted material.

It continues:
The plaintiffs were not able to offer testimony about any actual damage one to them by Mrs. Thomas’s conduct beyond perhaps $1.29 per song or $15 per album in lost sales. In fact, under cross examination, Mr. Leak testified that he could not identify the particular harm, if any, caused by Mrs. Thomas’s conduct in particular. The testimony that the plaintiffs describe in their response relates to harm to the music industry from illegal music downloading in general, not from Mrs. Thomas’s conduct in particular. It would be unconstitutional to punish Mrs. Thomas for the generalized and widespread conduct of others, whatever the effect of that conduct might be on the plaintiffs.

Statutory damages were intended to seize any profits from commercial piracy not the sort of noncommercial activity seen here.
In fact, he Supreme Court has previously ruled that “compensatory damages are intended to redress a plaintiff’s concrete loss” which in this case is a mere 35 cents – 70 cents minus 35 saved for not having to distribute it – per each illegally downloaded song. A ratio of at most 10:1 makes $3.50 for each song for a grand total of $84 dollars and not $1.92 million.

For in 2003, in State Farm v. Campbell, the court ruled that a single-digit ratio (that is, no more than 9 to 1) was appropriate as a matter of due process in all but the most exceptional cases. Anything greater is excessive and violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The RIAA seems mostly unconcerned with her arguments and instead focuses mainly on barring Thomas from engaging in any future file-sharing as though her tiny 24 song, perhaps 200MB at most, music folder was the single cause of its deteriorating profits.

“Two separate juries have now found that Defendant engaged in willful copyright infringement of Plaintiffs’ sound recordings. The evidence at trial showed that Defendant knew what she was doing was wrong and that she did it anyway. The evidence also demonstrated that, after Defendant was caught, she tried to conceal her infringing conduct and provided false evidence to Plaintiffs and to her own expert in an effort to avoid liability. Since the second jury verdict against her, Defendant has remained unrepentant and obstinate, and has avowed that Plaintiffs will never recover any monetary relief from her. These circumstances demonstrate that Defendant’s illegal conduct will not be restrained by mere monetary damages, and that a permanent injunction in necessary to require that Defendant simply comply with the law under the Copyright Act,” it writes in its opposing brief.

All of this wasted time and effort for what? Making sure a suburban housewife from Minnesota locks up her 24 MP3s for good? I know guys running full-time servers sporting in excess of 2TB worth of music 24/7. At the end of the day the verdict won’t have the deterrence effect the RIAA seeks because the award is so obscenely high. It’s an amount beyond the comprehension of the majority of folks out there who probably earn an average of $40-50,000 per year.

If the damages awarded had been around $10 or 20,000 people would have taken notice and perhaps deterred them from engaging in illegal file-sharing, but $1.92 million might as well have been $1.92 billion or trillion

Let the punishment fit the crime is something that I often hear people say. Certainly in some of the copyright cases this hasn't been the case.  8)

Offline Forested665

  • Forum Member
  • Linux:2003 FreeBSD:2004 Debian/BSD developer:2006
Re: Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
« Reply #1 on: September 02, 2009, 09:41:43 pm »
unfortunately that isnt grounds here for a retrial however true it is that punishments should be befitting..
shes darn lucky her lawyer come up with using the constitution as a defense... if its found true the previous judge will prolly be on the news for making unconstitutional rulings

then again in ye olden days we put them in a headstock , nailed there ears to it, urinated on them and some other unsightly things as punishment for stealing a loaf of bread...
BSD -  The Daemons Are No Longer Just Inside My Head.

Offline GhostShip

  • Ret. WinMX Special Forces
  • WMW Team
  • *****
Re: Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
« Reply #2 on: September 02, 2009, 10:31:26 pm »
I hate to disagree Forester but there are plenty of grounds for a retrail or an appeal, the ones outlined above are just a few of the obvious ones, howver I for one know who the real criminals are in this case and their payments to attackers of this network constitute an illegal criminal conspiracy something they wont be mentioning to any court along with the fact that these criminals and their cronies fabricate fake files and "spoof" fake IP's this is something the defence lawyer probably does not know but we do.

The law is plain, criminals must not gain financially or otherwise from their actions, so when can we expect the crackdown on these criminals by the FBI or are they still listening to so many domestic phone calls they dont have time to investigate lawbreaking ?

Offline Forested665

  • Forum Member
  • Linux:2003 FreeBSD:2004 Debian/BSD developer:2006
Re: Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
« Reply #3 on: September 03, 2009, 08:11:11 pm »
thats a good question i havent heard anything about the bush administrations wire tapping in a couple months maybe years but my phone does still have like.. i would best describe it as an inverse beep (short second of silence)

one thing i happened to think about in class today that might throw some people off was this...
 "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages, to a significant degree, will satisfy due process."
unfortunately its still up to the judge to interpret this and political parties can easily sway the interpretation

Its not that the mpaa and riaa are their own party but more or less all their buddies in the senate and congress that are still allowing our government to support such bullshit.

BSD -  The Daemons Are No Longer Just Inside My Head.

Offline Cobra

  • Forum Member
  • I'm not me.
Re: Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
« Reply #4 on: September 12, 2009, 03:56:22 am »
I (as I am sure many of us did) thought it was crazy as soon as we heard about the cost of this verdict.

I can understand the need for a "sizable" penalty otherwise anyone that gets caught will pay out the cost of what might be a week's pay, and then go right back doing it because there is no real reason not to. However the punishment is also supposed to fit the crime.

If the same standards were used in all situations, you would have to pay about $5,700 for taking a small pack of gum if your case went through the courts.
Downloading is an addiction I do not want to give up.

WinMX World :: Forum  |  Discussion  |  WinMx World News  |  Jammie Thomas Challenges “Arbitrary” $80,000 p/song Verdict
 

gfxgfx
gfx
©2005-2021 WinMXWorld.com. All Rights Reserved.
SMF 2.0.18 | SMF © 2021, Simple Machines | Terms and Policies
Page created in 0.037 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi © Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!