And The Beat Goes On, File-Sharing Goes to Court, Again
Minnesota federal judge Michael Davis has reduced the fine imposed on Jammie Thomas-Rasset for illegally sharing music on the Internet from $1.92 million to $54,000.
Davis said that the original calculations to determine Thomas-Rasset’s penalty, more than $83,000 per song, indeed were “monstrous and shocking.”
Thomas-Rasset has made statements to the media saying she can’t afford the $54,000, and that she intends to continue her appeal of the original verdict.
Davis’ motion is a setback for the RIAA, which had reason to believe it was leaving this particular battlefield as the winner. The RIAA signaled about a year ago that it would cease prosecuting individuals for illegally downloading songs from the Internet without copyright holders’ permission. Their approach will consist of working with Internet service providers to warn violators and then restrict their service.
The RIAA’s legal strategy drew even more criticism when it became clear that its accusations were sometimes wide of the mark, not to mention aimed at minors, single parents, senior citizens and, otherwise good, college students. There was one reported case of a deceased person being accused by the RIAA of illegally infringing music. She was an 83-year-old grandmother who had allegedly traded hundreds of rock music tracks under the name “smittenedkitten.” Her family said she had never even owned a computer.
Thomas-Rasset first went to trial over the matter in 2007. In that case, the jury rejected the defense arguments and found her liable for damages of $222,000. Her case was overturned when Davis concluded he had erred in instructing the jury that the record companies did not have to prove that someone actually had downloaded the music.
That decision undermined a key RIAA argument: merely making copyrighted music available online was unlawful.
In the second trial, however, Thomas-Rasset was once again found liable.
She appealed the decision, arguing in part that the penalty was excessive and out of proportion to the offense. Davis agreed.
Davis said that the original calculations to determine Thomas-Rasset’s penalty, more than $83,000 per song, indeed were “monstrous and shocking.”
Thomas-Rasset has made statements to the media saying she can’t afford the $54,000, and that she intends to continue her appeal of the original verdict.
Davis’ motion is a setback for the RIAA, which had reason to believe it was leaving this particular battlefield as the winner. The RIAA signaled about a year ago that it would cease prosecuting individuals for illegally downloading songs from the Internet without copyright holders’ permission. Their approach will consist of working with Internet service providers to warn violators and then restrict their service.
The RIAA’s legal strategy drew even more criticism when it became clear that its accusations were sometimes wide of the mark, not to mention aimed at minors, single parents, senior citizens and, otherwise good, college students. There was one reported case of a deceased person being accused by the RIAA of illegally infringing music. She was an 83-year-old grandmother who had allegedly traded hundreds of rock music tracks under the name “smittenedkitten.” Her family said she had never even owned a computer.
Thomas-Rasset first went to trial over the matter in 2007. In that case, the jury rejected the defense arguments and found her liable for damages of $222,000. Her case was overturned when Davis concluded he had erred in instructing the jury that the record companies did not have to prove that someone actually had downloaded the music.
That decision undermined a key RIAA argument: merely making copyrighted music available online was unlawful.
In the second trial, however, Thomas-Rasset was once again found liable.
She appealed the decision, arguing in part that the penalty was excessive and out of proportion to the offense. Davis agreed.
