backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by Samus.. on Aug 26 at 3:34 AM


Jammie Thomas-Rasset  (Source: wired.com)
The RIAA believes that the court failed to classify Thomas-Rasset's filesharing as a "distribution" under 106(3) of the Copyright Act

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has spent a lot of time and effort trying to nab file sharers in an effort to deter piracy and put more money back into their own pockets. Ironically, the cost of legal fees to go after those who pirate music seems to outweigh what it wins in these cases. Just last month, DailyTech estimated that the RIAA has paid over $3 million in legal fees to sue file sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset, and now, she may only have to pay the RIAA $54,000 in the end. 

Now, the RIAA is fighting back by appealing the judge's decision to slash the damages award according to Ars Technica. It believes that the court failed to classify Thomas-Rasset's filesharing as a "distribution" under 106(3) of the Copyright Act, and that a small price tag of $54,000 would not prevent others from committing the same act. 

The case is being appealed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in St. Louis, Missouri.

The RIAA's first jury trial with Jammie Thomas-Rasset occurred in 2007, after Thomas-Rasset had shared over 1,700 files on Kazaa 2005. Only 24 of the files were named, including music tracks by AFI, Green Day and Aerosmith. She damages originally came to $222,000, but the case was declared a mistrial since the judge told the jury that "making available" was the same as copyright infringement. 

In 2009, Thomas-Rasset was back in court for another round before the jury. This time, the amount she was ordered to pay rose to $1.92 million, which is $80,000 per song. Shocked and frustrated, all Thomas-Rasset could say was, "Good luck trying to get it, because you can't get blood out of a turnip."

In 2010, the total was cut from 1.92 million to $1.5 million, which is $62,500 per song. Then, the total was cut yet again last month when U.S. District Judge Michael Davis slashed the award from $1.92 million to $54,000, saying that the previous award was "appalling" and disproportionate to the offense. At the same time, he said the new award was still substantial enough to prevent Thomas-Rasset and others from illegally sharing music and other files over the Internet.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: so...
By Uncle on 8/23/2011 1:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
Thats the problem,all these execs hobnob together, they don't see the real world, ah screw it, this is a pointless subject. Just do what you have to do to to make up for the inequities of the system. If what you do seems fair in your mind and you don't hurt anyone by your actions, go for it. I use these execs as an example, they don't try to find a balance, their out to suck you dry until you have nothing else to give. They derive pleasure out of how far they can destroy you, a notch in their belt you might say. Well, they have given me the example I need by their selfish actions and pointed me in a direction that I consider fair. Ever since they changed the copyright act in 1978, they lifted the guilt off of my shoulders. That was the year they destroyed what was considered fair for everyone.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki