Jammie Thomas Rejects Offer From RIAA To Settle For $25k Plus Request For Judge To Vacate Last Week's Decision
from the and-so-it-goes dept
After the judge in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case decided to reduce the amount awarded to the record labels by the jury, we had hoped that both sides would figure out a way to just end this lawsuit. However, it looks like that's not happening. As we noted, the RIAA was extremely reluctant to accept the new, greatly reduced, award, not because of the amount, but because they're afraid to set precedent that a judge can lower the award in chosen by a jury using statutory damages in a copyright case. So, instead, the RIAA tried to offer Jammie a deal: pay $25,000 (donated to a musician's charity) and ask the judge to vacate the reduction in the award, and the case would be settled. This isn't surprising. The RIAA would just like the case to be over, but doesn't want to set the precedent, so they ask Thomass-Rasset to pay less, but the "trade" is to get the decision deleted. Thomas-Rasset quickly rejected the offer, and now it seems likely that the RIAA will reject the reduced amount and everyone will go back to trial over just the damage amount. In an interesting bit of spin, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers are claiming that this shows that the RIAA just wants to use this case as a "bogeyman" in order "to scare people into doing what they want," rather than as an attempt to actually recover any real damages.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, jammie thomas-rasset, settlement, statutory damages
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Good for her.
Let's see what the real damages are decided to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RIAA says they don't need the money
so they don't need the money ....I see...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No, we had not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I like that gal.
Have more balls than some guy's LoL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You would think the RIAA was a mortgage company.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: I like that gal.
I smell some fail here, I doubt the numbers are going to get better for her.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I like that gal.
"Gee, they are being so kind to accept less money. And all they want is immunity from legal precedents that weaken their thuggish behavior! I sure am lucky!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Good for her
Some of you people don't know what poor is. This person doesn't have $25K -- she can't borrow $25K. The offer might as well have been $25B. I really hope that this can be appealed to a level where they base the judgment on actual damages and make the RIAA prove what those damages are and award no more than treble damages. That would end this RIAA extortion. The punishment in these cases can't be to take everything you have or ever hope to make over what should be a petty theft charge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Good for her
let's adjust all prices to the amount you can afford. I'm not rich enough to pay full price for the condo I want in Hong Kong (50+ million), but I think I might have maybe 10% of that. I wonder if they would let me have it because it's a pretty good deal for them, right?
Maybe we can adjust prison sentences too. The older you are, the less time you get. So when you are 20, dealing drugs gets you 20 years, when you are 30, it's only 10, and when you are 60, it's community service. That sounds fair.
Yeah, good idea!
If you can't do the time (or pay the price) don't do the crime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good for her
The fact is that the sums that the statute lists are for commercial infringement. The unfortunate thing is that you'll keep banging your head against the wall, tossing off numbers that have no basis in reality, and frothing at the mouth about how 'fair is fair,' and 'the law is the law.' No no, don't bother responding. Your backtalk ticket for the day is punched. Thank you, yes I'd like fries with that, and keep your damn finger out of your nose.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I like that gal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Good for her
As for the rest, let's just say we long since stopped debating if she illegal shared files (found guilty and unlikely to change) and now it is down to numbers. This is the third set of numbers, and the next set could be up or down depending on the leanings of a given judge on a given day. She can get out cheap now (about the price of a good car) or she can spin the legal wheel of fortune and come up with a $10 cost or a million dollars plus again. I am just thinking that she appears to be getting some pretty bad legal advice if she isn't willing to settle at some point, considering she has been found guilty.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Good for her
Do you seriously find equivalence between $50m condos in Hong-Kong and $0.99 mp3 tracks?
Like the previous poster said, if she had shoplifted the actual CD's out of a music store, what would you imagine the judgement to have been? How about 1 to 2 years unsupervised probation and *maybe* a $500 to $1500 fine plus court-costs and the cost of the merchandise? Compare that to the extreme judgement she was given. There is no way a reasonable and prudent person can reconcile the differences without resorting to fantastically theoretical "what-if" arguments and over-the-top theatrics.
Opinions may vary, but I doubt reasonable opinions will vary much...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
try RIAA Radar
or for labels RIAA Member Labels
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A bootlegger gets away with nothing
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for her
You honestly think she's going to pay $25000? That sum is exactly the same as $1.92 million to her, because she's just going to declare bankruptcy.
She's getting free legal representation, while the Record Labels are squandering huge bucks on a single petty case. The only thing that matters to her is "how much time do I want to spend dragging this out".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: I like that gal.
I wouldn't settle either, were I in her position. I would rather troll and grief the RIAA - force them to expend endless resources - let them deploy thousands of lawyers, and until they got some sort of finality...
Then I'd file bankruptcy, and let them eat it. As I don't have any assets, YOU LOSE!
So, Anti-Mike - those who screw with the people deserve to get what they pay for.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Good for her
Then they declare bankruptcy...and you get one gigantic serving of NOTHING with those fries.
While, everyone with assets, they just make a rational decision to settle, if they can afford to. Not many 20-30 year olds have assets that aren't exempt under the bankruptcy laws.
Failtroll.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
2. The damages provisions of copyright law do not draw a distinction between commercial and non-commercial actions.
3. This case will likely move forward to an appeal for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that Sibley and Camara, the firm representing JRT, is using this case as an advertisement for the firm. It's focus deals with class action litigation, and I have little doubt it sees this type of case as a potential, future money maker.
4. For those who "like this girl", I suggest you be wary. In an effort to try and point fingers elsewhere she tried to throw her then fiancee and kids under the bus. You could be next.
5. A fedral district court opinion is not binding precedent. It is merely the opinion of the one judge deciding the case. Only appellate decisions are subject to stare decisis.
6. There is a significant question of law presented, namely, does a district court judge have the authority to summarily reduce a jury award in instances where the award was based upon statutorily prescribed limits? This question involves the Seventh Amendment, and its answer is by no means clear.
[ link to this | view in thread ]