User User name Password  
   
Tuesday 24.11.2009 / 01:14 AM
Search AfterDawn.com:        In English   Suomeksi   På svenska
afterdawn.com > news > jammie rasset-thomas to appeal damage award
Show topics
News
News

Jammie Rasset-Thomas to appeal damage award

2 July 2009 17:08 by Rich "vurbal" Fiscus | 5 comments

Jammie Rasset-Thomas to appeal damage award Jammie Thomas-Rasset will be appealing the $1.92 million judgement against her in the first RIAA file sharing case ever decided by a jury.

At issue will be the constitutionality of awarding $80,000 per song. US copyright sets minimum damages at $750 per song, but allows up to $150,000 for "willful infringement."

Attorney Joe Sibley told CNET News "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."

Although the courts have previously ruled that punitive damages in excess of ten times the actual damage caused are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution, there's no precedent on whether statutory damages are similarly limited.

The Department of Justice has already shown they are willing to defend the damages. Earlier this year a lawyer from the DOJ Federal Programs Branch, which is headed by former RIAA lawyer Ian Gershengorn did exactly that in another case.

Assuming Ms. Thomas-Rasset can afford to continue her defense, this case could go as high as the US Supreme Court. Whether they will agree to hear the case is anybody's guess.

Permalink to this article | Topic:

Get AfterDawn's news to your favourite feed reader! Share this story with your friends!
 

 
Related articles:

  • DOJ calls Jammie Thomas' $1.92 million file sharing fine "constitutional" (15 August 2009)
  • Joel Tenenbaum fined $675,000 over copyright infringement (1 August 2009)
  • Joel Tenenbaum is guilty of copyright infringement (31 July 2009)
  • British ISP offering employees year off in exchange for pay cut (4 July 2009)
  • Usenet.com loses case to RIAA (2 July 2009)
  • Even RIAA witness 'shocked' by Jammie Thomas verdict (23 June 2009)
  • Woman with no computer 'settles' with RIAA over piracy claim (21 June 2009)
  • RIAA needs to be disbanded, says Moby (20 June 2009)
  • Jammie Thomas loses case to RIAA (18 June 2009)
  •  

    « Previous news article
    UK sees strong decline in DVD sales
    Next news article »
    New GTA IV DLC episodes coming in 2010
     Post your comment
    Discuss this article! 
    Mr-Movies (Member) 9 July 2009 15:58 Send private message to this user   
    Judges must go cheap in Duluth, MN this poor lady is getting the shaft and everytime she goes back they hit her with more fines so if she persues this futher will it go to $4 million?

    Maybe they will decide to raise that small limit from $150K to $1.5M, it's only fair as the RIAA is really hurting right now. LOL

    This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9 July 2009 15:59

    Jemborg (Member) 9 July 2009 17:35 Send private message to this user   
    Best of luck Jammie.
    jimsocal (Newbie) 9 July 2009 19:08 Send private message to this user   
    This lawsuit and penalties are, simply put, insane.
    The recording business is grasping at straws and it somehow makes them feel better to hurt some little consumer rather than accept that they screwed consumers for years, and now their business model is bankrupt.

    They need to turn their attention, not towards hurting the consumer, but instead how they can change their business model to give the consumers what they want at a fair price. Making buying CD's WORTH it...

    Back in the old days of Albums, it was a nice deal: nice cover art, nice extras... how about cd's that have bonus tracks unavailable by net? How about cd's with nice packaging that cannot be downloaded? How about if you buy x number of cd's you get a free concert ticket? There are many ways they could help themselves but instead they'd rather eff us, the consumers.

    Eff them.
    Irocz005 (Member) 10 July 2009 7:28 Send private message to this user   
    That is totally stupid. How do they expect one to pay back that kind of amount? I also remember that they were offering warnings to the person and told them if they got rid of all their content and promise to not do it again that there would be no lawsuit. How come they can't do it in this case? It sounds like they are just trying to make an example.
    gnovak1 (Junior Member) 17 August 2009 9:47 Send private message to this user   
    But why would a jury agree to this rediculous amount? It says this case was decided by a jury. Did the RIAA Pay them off?

    To me the Jury is just as bad as the RIAA.
     Post your comment
     

    Subscribe to our newsfeed

    Get the latest headlines delivered directly to your favourite RSS reader or content aggregation service by using the links below.

    AfterDawn.com: News - RSS feed
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Add to MyMSN

    Search for headlines

    Search through our news archive.

    Last week's most popular software downloads

    Digital video: AfterDawn.com | AfterDawn Forums
    Music: MP3Lizard.com
    Gaming: Blasteroids.com | Blasteroids Forums | Compare game prices
    Software: Software downloads
    Blogs: User profile pages
    RSS feeds: AfterDawn.com News | Software updates | AfterDawn Forums
    International: AfterDawn in Finnish | AfterDawn in Swedish | download.fi
    Navigate: Search | Site map
    About us: About AfterDawn Ltd | Advertise on our sites | Rules, Restrictions, Legal disclaimer & Privacy policy
    Contact us: Send feedback | Contact our media sales team
     
      © 1999-2009 by AfterDawn Ltd.