11-25-2010, 07:56 AM
|
|
|
It's 42
Industry Role:
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Global
Posts: 18,083
|
Quote:
RIAA trial verdict is in: jury finds Thomas liable for infringement
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...dict-is-in.ars
"[D]uluth, Minnesota ? After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages. ...
... Defense closing arguments
Before the deliberations began, counsel for both parties presented their closing arguments. Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, went first (per court rules). Speaking forcefully and only referring to his notes rarely, he took 15 minutes to make his points. He started off by repeating his assertion from the opening arguments that the defendant was in a "tough role" given what the jurors had heard and seen in the courtroom. "There are certainly alternative explanations, because my client didn't do it," he told the jury. "Someone used her name and IP address?it's not impossible." ..."
|
Plaintiff won ? the verdict has been retried and a similar verdict reached with some modification in the jury's award. Maybe, an appeal of the latest verdict ...
Quote:
The RIAA's latest victory over Jammie Thomas-Rasset
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...as-rasset.html
"[November 5, 2010 | 6:14 pm
RIAA, file-sharing, piracy, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, Joel Tenenbaum Having been ordered by successive juries to pay the major record labels $222,000, $1.92 million and now $1.5 million for illegally sharing 24 songs, Jammie Thomas-Rasset exemplifies how both extreme and random these damage awards are. That's a consequence of Congress providing statutory damages that range from $200 (for an "innocent infringer") to $150,000 per infringement. As Ars Technica's Nate Anderson observed, jurors have no experience with damage awards, and thus have no clue what's reasonable in the grand scheme of things. ..."
|
This is in the US Courts and is a well known and argued case from moral viewpoint. It is important to note a few things;
1.) Her defense was that she was not the person using the IP ? she lost on that one.
2.)"[T]hat's a consequence of Congress providing statutory damages that range from $200 (for an "innocent infringer") to $150,000 per infringement. ..." She was accused of file sharing so she (her IP) was greater than an "innocent infringer."
3.) Her activities were not for some commercial gain (for some profit).
The traffic camera ticket issue cited above is still in motion;
Note the name in the URL, civil_district_court_judge_rem i.e., in rem = against property (a vehicle in this case) but the Courts can identify the vehicle's owner so the owner is fined and the vehicle is not "arrested (read seized)." I am not arguing this as right or wrong and in some cases, I think this is excessive or even possibly unconstitutional.
The most important statement in all of this is;
"[T]hat's a consequence of Congress providing statutory damages that range from $200 (for an "innocent infringer") to $150,000 per infringement. ..."
Users that are downloading for their own personal use and not "file sharing" might end up with a judgment of $200 (for an "innocent infringer",) per title proven as downloaded.
Since for about $29.95 they could have had legal access and the right to download, if I were the "Emperor," I would treble the damages to 89.85 per claimant. Remember, this is for an "innocent infringer."
|
|
|