Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award
from the and-away-we-go... dept
As we speculated earlier this week, given the silence from the Jammie Thomas camp since the $1.92 million verdict against her, we assumed she was gearing up for an appeal -- and that's now been confirmed. Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point. It will be interesting to see who gets involved in actually managing the appeal.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: appeal, constitution, copyright, jammie thomas, statutory damages
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Sigh
Step 1: Get her financial information together
Step 2: Call the RIAA's lawyers and let them know you're ready to settle for a fair amount
Step 3: Eat lunch
Step 4: Initiate a lawsuit against her lawyers for acting like first year law students, trying fun John Grisham theories instead of giving her good advice
Step 5: Go to City Hall, locate her birth certificate, and put in a request to change her name to something that resembles a properly spelled name
Step 6: Have a margarita. It's been a long day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
Raspberry. Only one man would DARE give me the raspberry....LONESTAR!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sigh
http://www.freejammie.com
And you can tell her all this yourself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sigh
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Advice version 2.0
Step 1: Get smarter lawyers.
Step 2: Make sure not to lie about things this time and make sure not to destroy any more evidence.
Step 3: Eat lunch.
Step 4: Enlist Larry Lessig to the team. Congress hates him and he needs a big show so everyone can see that changes need to be be made with our oh-so-corrupt US Congress.
Step 5: Toke on a nice, fat J because it's been a long day.
Step 6: Download a couple Willie Nelson tracks on her cousin's computer and relax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
if shes attacking the constiutionality...
When you think about it that way, it most likly is not. The court will not talk about her guilt at all and really does not care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: if shes attacking the constiutionality...
In this case, Congress has specifically considered and decided on the range of monetary awards in the statute. This is a different thing. The statute limits the available awards (at a rather ridiculously high amount, but still it's a limit) and the jury didn't award the maximum they could have. While this might seem excessive, whether it violates the constitution may be a difficult argument to make.
I gotta agree with the first post. This is potentially a big mistake. Not to say Jammie shouldn't appeal on this issue, but she should recognize that if she loses, any settlement, if one is still offered, is likely to be far higher than if she negotiated a settlement now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: if shes attacking the constiutionality...
The 1st poster is on crack. And no, not a mistake. Jammie has a big judgment- it matters not what she does. If the judgment stays at the end she'll be declaring bankruptcy. And what can TPTB do - take money from someone who has none?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, but...
2. Worst case, she declares bankruptcy and owes jack.
3. Hunt down her parents and ask them WTF they were on when they NAMED THEIR CHILD, and send me some to smoke after my long day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, but...
2. She may not be able to bankrupt her way out of this judgement
3. agreed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yeah, but...
But she can opt to not pay it. And no judge can force her to work then turn over money from said job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yeah, but...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You have to think there is a lawyer out there trying to puff up his own image with an appearance before the supreme court.
I can understand sort of how Jammie got in trouble to start with, if it is this easy to talk her into doing something stupid over and over again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If not her, then who?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If not her, then who?
When I hear of companies who cave to outlandish copyright claims by settling, I realize that from a practical standpoint, it's cheaper than going to court. But by not fighting back, they allow similar types of extortion to go on. They're basically saying a big fuck you to any other company (or worse) individual out there. "Hey, I settled, so I'm covered. Now you deal with the problem."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So she doesn't actually care what happens. I imagine she sees herself as fighting the good fight with nothing to lose.
I do wish that her team would bring the artists to court and ask them how they feel about it though. I'd think the ones that oppose Jammie tick off their fans. The ones that turn on the RIAA will win fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The more time it drags out the more the RIAA pays it's lawyers. Hell.. Maybe they will end up paying 1.92 million in lawyer bills.
I wouldn't pay the RIAA a single penny.
The RIAA needs to be very aware what humans are capable of when you push them into a corner. 2 million dollar judgments might just piss people off enough to exact severe revenge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
lets tally this up
And all that gave the RIAA their first and only court victory against "piracy". But that's what? A 0.00001% trial success rate? And their own actions after the verdict will be brought up showing that even the RIAA thinks the reward was too much. The way they distanced themselves, they knew they couldn't defend getting a judgement that high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: lets tally this up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about ASCAP?
That the ASCAP agreement "estops" copyright claims, and that she should only be liable for the ADCAP fes, as it is just the "performance" she is downloading?
What the public should do is boycott ALL RIAA artists until the judgment is lifted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]