Jammie Thomas Moves To Strike RIAA $1.92M Verdict 392
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Jammie Thomas-Rasset has made a motion for a new trial, seeking to vacate the $1.92 million judgment entered against her for infringement of 24 MP3 files, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. Her attorneys' brief (PDF) argues, among other things, that the 'monstrous' sized verdict violates the Due Process Clause, consistent with 100 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence, since it is grossly disproportionate to any actual damages sustained. It further argues that, since the RIAA elected to offer no evidence of actual damages, either as an alternative to statutory damages, or to buttress the fairness of a statutory damages award, the verdict, if it is to be reduced, must be reduced to zero."
Re:Statutory Damages (Score:5, Informative)
Standard, I am not a lawyer, I do not intend to create a legal relationship with any reader. This is merely my opinion and should not be relied upon under any situation. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney in your jurisdiction
.
Sorry parent, but that is not how statutory damages work in copyright. In copyright cases, the holder gets to elect to take statutory damages instead of actual damages. There is no requirement that they show an inability to prove actual damages in that case. The only limitation is that the work must be registered with the Copyright office in order to be eligible for statutory damages.
The statutory damages range from $750 - $30,000 per infringed work. That $750 is why the RIAA is willing to go only that low, since they will recover atleast that amount at trial--unless the defendant can show that she was not aware and had no reason to know she was infringing. Damages jump to $150,000 per work when the infringement is willful.
17 USC 412 explains registration
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000412----000-.html
17 USC 504 explains statutory damages
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html
(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was:
Standard, IANAL disclaimer. If in need of legal advice go get competent legal advice from a bar certified attorney.
Re:So like where is the rest of the stuff? The goo (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Turned Around (Score:5, Informative)
Since copyright has nothing to do with the free market, and is completely a government-created monopoly, I see nothing wrong with what the GP stated. If these people want to so badly abuse a system this way, they should be forced to live with their made-up prices. Otherwise, we'll just going to remain stuck with the current system of hypocrisy, and it's only going to get worse until we finally wake up and abolish the whole thing.
Then, we can have a free market.
Re:Can't pay the fine? (Score:5, Informative)
2) The "victim" was attempting to cross a 6 lane divided highway with wall barriers and concrete center dividers in the dark and was nowhere near a crosswalk or streetlight.
3) Stallworth should have done more time for the DUI.
4) Manslaughter is a huge stretch in this case which is why the DA settled.
Re:Can't pay the fine? (Score:5, Informative)
5) Other drivers in the area noted that it would have been impossible for even a non-impaired driver to have avoided hitting the victim.
Was it stupid for the guy to drive while impaired? Yes. Would it have made a difference if he had been completely sober? Probably not.
Re:Some people should realize that... (Score:5, Informative)
Remember, you don't change laws in court, you change them in Congress.
If only more Americans understood this.
Please no. That will only do more harm.
You are apparently failing to understand the concept of the US Government check and balance system with the division of power. While in general congress has the power to make law, the executive the power to enforce law, and the judicial to judge a case based on law, each branch has the ability to effect the law in different ways. The executive has the ability to make law by signing of treaty with foreign powers, or to render a law useless by failing to enforce it. The judicial branch has the ability to make and remove laws as well in the form of rulings on the law or the result of jury nullification in the later case.
Unfortunately many people, for whatever reason, fail to understand exactly how the US government is organized, and what powers each branch of government really have over the others. A good read can be had at : http://www.enotes.com/government-checks-balances/legislative-judicial-checks-balances [enotes.com] for more detailed information on this.
Re:Statutory Damages (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the "intent to make profits" should matter at all.
It's relevant; it's just not dispositive. There is a long line of cases -- all of them commercial cases in which the defendant "intended to make profits" -- in which the Courts have held that statutory damages are permissible within the range of 2 to 4 times the actual damages.
It is a factor for the Court to consider. But its presence would not authorize just allowing a jury to do any crazy thing it feels like, like this runaway jury did.
Re:Statutory Damages (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Some people should realize that... (Score:4, Informative)
I think most Americans DO understand this, but there is a partisan fiction that they don't. At a high level, though, judges get to change laws, IF (IFF, in theory) they are unconstitutional, or unjust. The whole "legislating from the bench" thing is generally a silly post-hoc argument we use when a judge doesn't rule in a way we (based on our political ideals) want.
As someone who has been reviewing Supreme Court opinions for the last couple years, I can tell you that's bullshit. There most certainly is a history of legislating from the bench and it comes from more than just untoward decisions.
The courts have used the due process [wikipedia.org] clauses of the 5th and 14th amendments to outright make up constitutional bases for decisions they're trying to reach (the dissent in Third Judicial District v. Osborne, decided THIS YEAR, is a great example, if you care to engage in the topic).
-SC Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Re:Some people should realize that... (Score:2, Informative)
I doubt things are different in the US from Canada in that respect...
The judge doesn't change the law. The judge sets precedent saying that the law is unjust or illegal. The judge then directs the government to change the laws to suit, and refuses to hear any cases under the law that has been struck down until the laws have been changed.
A perfect example would be gay marriage... in Canada, we've got it. And the reason we have it is not because it was changed in parliament, the reason we have it is that some people decided to sue the government, arguing that paragraph 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees equal treatment of all citizens regardless of race, colour, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation, guarantees that homosexual couples have the same rights to marriage under law as heterosexual couples.The supreme court agreed, and directed the government to make changes to the law to reflect this.
Now, a civil suit that argues damages for copyright infringement is a different playing field, but the consequences are the same. Somebody has to challenge the law in order to get it changed. Sometimes that's done by a representative in government, sometimes it's done by somebody volunteering to go to the slaughter in order to force the courts to rethink the legitimacy of the law. This is the latter. Perhaps not as important to many of us, but in the same league as the Scopes Monkey Trial [wikipedia.org].