Is it constitutional to fine someone $1.9 Million for sharing 24 songs? Is it copyright infringement to merely place songs in a shared folder? That and many more questions might be answered in the Jammie Thomas case where she recently said that she would be appealing.
The Jammie Thomas case has been going on since 2007. Back then, she was originally fined $222,000 for sharing 24 songs. It looked like it would be all over back then, but that was when a new twist in the case happened – Judge Davis threw out the case citing a manifest error in law by instructing the jury that merely making songs available via a shared point is copyright infringement. The RIAA appealed the decision to throw out the case, but the judge denied that appeal – paving the way for the re-trial. Unfortunately, right before the re-trial, it started to look like it would be very possible that she wouldn’t get legal counsel, but she did get new legal council before the case would continue.
Things started to look like it would go her way, but in June, she lost the re-trial and was fined $1.92 million. Serious questions were raised by many over whether or not that fine is unconstitutional as there seems to be a huge discrepancy between the fine itself and actual damage it caused. It is true that one can go to iTunes and pay $24 for the same number of songs. Many argue that the fine is grossly excessive. Not only this, but Richard Marx, an artist whose music appeared in the lawsuit, said that Jammie Thomas “got a raw deal”.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has said that they are willing to settle the case, but there’s new details that have emerged that says that the Jammie Thomas case will continue it’s long, now close to 3 year saga. CNet is reporting that Jammie Thomas is appealing the ruling of the re-trial. There’s citation of what many legal experts have figured about the case, that the appeal is based on the argument that the fine is excessive and unconstitutional.
“She’s not interested in settling,” attorney Joe Sibley said in a brief phone interview with CNet. “She wants to take the issue up on appeal on the constitutionality of the damages. That’s one of the main arguments–that the damages are disproportionate to any actual harm.”
The RIAA seems to be trying to dump any and every bit of blame onto Thomas though.
“The defendant can, of course, exercise her legal rights,” said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. “But what’s increasingly clear, now more than ever, is that she is the one responsible for needlessly prolonging this case and refusing to accept any responsibility for the illegal activity that two juries decisively found her liable for. From day one, we’ve been fair and reasonable in exercising our rights and attempting to resolve this case.”
Further in the report, there was comments by Thomas’ lawyers that the RIAA did contact her to settle the case, but wouldn’t offer any dollar values. During the trial where she was originally fine $222,000, apparently the RIAA offered to settle the case for $25,000.
It’s unclear on what other grounds Thomas is appealing the case, but one thing is certain, the case will be continuing and addressing the constitutionality of the latest fine. It will be interesting to see where this goes from here.
Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.
Related Posts
- RIAA Loses Ability to Appeal in Jammie Thomas Case
- Jammie Thomas Fined $1.92 Million for Sharing 24 Songs
- RIAA Objects to Jammie Thomas Having Legal Council During Re-trial
- Jammie Thomas Case Transcript Posted Online
- Jammie Thomas Re-Trial Starts Tomorrow
Loading ...
Bring on the appeal process..
Well looks like soon this is going to be settled one way or the other.
IMO, Ms. Thomas will be relatively fine no matter what the outcome. If she wins, she owes nothing (or at least a more reasonable amount). If she looses she declares bankruptcy and owes nothing (screws up her credit for the next decade though).
This will however finally answer the question about the constitutionality of damages. The industry can’t prove anything beyond 1 unauthorized transaction per file (the one she had initiated to get the .mp3s in the first place). With market value established at $0.99 per song compensatory damages could not exceed $24.00
If the judge finds that the punitive amount awarded is illegal than this would make any future litigation too expensive. Even if its upheld people declare bankruptcy and wipe the award, the industry gets nothing except bad press and a huge legal bill.
The industry is in big trouble if the appeals proceed. If they can’t get a settlement they will lose.
“legal council” should be “legal counsel”
http://emend.appspot.com/sites/www.zeropaid.com/edits/0
counsel, I believe, is American spelling. Since I’m Canadian and, thus, trained grammatically to use Canadian spelling (much closer to British spelling) then I spell it “council”. It also mainly depends on which spellchecker you use (I had it spelled that way prior to the checker anyway, so it didn’t pick it up)
…just in case you’re wondering.
Ack! That’s not the Canadian (or British for that matter) spelling – council and counsel are two different words. Yes, council is a valid word, but they are not the same:
Council – administrative body, or meeting for consultation
Counsel – formal advice or legal representation
It’ not about spellings, it’s about different meanings. In both British and American, counsel and council mean totally different things.
That said, thanks for the well-researched article.
As a Canadian, that’s usually my favourite
argument when spelling is incorrect. However, in this case, council and counsel hold two different meanings.
Jonathan Lamy’s a fag and he sucks the bag.
Thanks you for that pithy and informative summation of the extremely complicated trial process.
Next time you have nothing to contribute, why not just shut up?
I wonder if the music industry how decisively they’ve screwed themselves in the eyes of the public. I don’t, but I’ve considered pirating just to spite them.
riaa saks
Good thing I live in Canada. Copyright law here gives me the right to share the music that I bought with others. Many loop-holes that let P2P go unchecked, too.
This is some really great journalism Drew, I really enjoyed reading the article. I’ve not been following the case but it was fascinating to read all of the supporting details etc.
Thanks!
Wow, cant say as I blame him!
RT
http://www.anonymize.tk
“Council” is spelled correctly, and is the way we would spell it in America as well.
“Counsel” or “counselor” are also commonly used words, though I’ve never seen legal council spelled that way. Only “school counselor” or “health counselor”.
Apparently both are correct though, as I read “Privy Counsellor, a member of a Privy Council” was also considered spelled correctly – and used in Canada, England, Denmark, etc?
I imagine the words simply have different origins, and I don’t have the time nor desire to trace the words to their roots.
“If she looses she declares bankruptcy and owes nothing…”
Incorrect. In the United States, bankrupcty does not erase court fines, neither criminal nor civil. Trust me, I know. My husband still owes $6,000 in civil fines AFTER we were both forced into filing bankruptcy.
She will be required to make payments, for the rest of her life (most likely), and missing a payment will result in collections, and wage garnishment.
It depends, Norm. Most of the time, if you file bankruptcy it creates a “stay” on all parties trying to collect debt. That means that they cannot collect.
Only an experienced bankruptcy lawyer can comment on this, and I’m certainly not one. But from what I’ve gathered, it is possible to stop civil suit debts with bankruptcy.
@Norm
“Incorrect. In the United States, bankrupcty does not erase court fines, neither criminal nor civil. ”
AFAIK, It depends on the case and the judgment. What can happen in a bankruptcy depends on the type of bankruptcy filed for (Chapter 7, Chapter 11, chapter 13, etc.) and in the end what the judge rules which debts can and cannot be discharged.
In a case like Ms. Thomas’ the industry would need to prove “malice” during a bankruptcy hearing to prevent the debt from being wiped. Something that may be very difficult to do from sharing 24 songs.
I don’t know what happened with your bankruptcy, or the conditions surrounding it, but in the Thomas case it looks like the defendant may have a complete out though chapter 7 bankruptcy.
Well, if it makes you guys feel any better, I changed the word from one technically spelled variation to the other.
So if I share songs by the British group “Style Counsil” will I need to seek counsel, or council? But wait, shouldn’t it be “Style Counsel” since presumably they “advise” people on style? Or is that “advice” people? I think the RIAA is f•••ing us.
I would ask the judge where all these lawsuits were back when it was VERY easy for people to copy music and movies. Shit my porny uncle can operate his VCR, but needs help resizing a photo.
People who made hundreds or thousands of copies available to others got sued. If they made tapes and distributed them without compensating the owners of the content, they got sued. Sharing a file on BT is like making a copy for anyone who asks – a hundred, a thousand, a million. If your uncle made copies like that back in the day, he got sued, and actually, the police used to arrest people for that as well.
Now don’t start speculating what happened a few decades ago.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10280531-93.html
This is ridiculous. Crucifying a person for this is just the RIAA trying to make an example and scare (terrorize) others from doing the same thing.
You are making mountains out of molehills, you realize that. It’s one bloody word in an entire article. Calm down.