ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz
Home / News & Blogs / ZDNet Government

Wow! Jury verdict in Capitol v Thomas-Rasset: $2 million

By | June 18, 2009, 3:29pm PDT

Summary: Via Recording Industry v The People: In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the jury has returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $1,920,000.00, or $80,000.00 per song file. Ray Beckerman notes that’s 228,571 times the actual damages. Well I guess there is going to be a third trial. I hope that during the next [...]

Via Recording Industry v The People:

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the jury has returned a verdict in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of $1,920,000.00, or $80,000.00 per song file.

Ray Beckerman notes that’s 228,571 times the actual damages.

Well I guess there is going to be a third trial. I hope that during the next trial the technical evidence will be challenged, that the issue of recoverability of statutory damages will be tested, and that the plaintiffs will be required to prove (a) dissemination of copies (b) to the public, (c) by a sale or other transfer of ownership, or by lease, rental, or lending, before being deemed to have shown an infringement of the distribution right. The nonsensical exorbitancy of the verdict actually enhances the constitutionality argument, demonstrating how open ended the statute is if the RIAA’s wild eyed interpretation of it is allowed to survive.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

Topics

Verdict, Richard Koman

Disclosure

Richard Koman

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=3731

Biography

Richard Koman

Richard Koman is an attorney admitted to practice in California. As a technology writer since the mid-1980s, Richard Koman has documented the role of computing in the transformation of the graphic arts, the growth of the Web and the birth of the peer-to-peer phenomenon. He worked as a book and web editor for O'Reilly Media throughout the 1990s, editing several influential websites and numerous best-sellers. As a lawyer, as well as a tech writer, he brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology.
90
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

A Song is Worth More than a Life
trentreviso 25th Jun 2009
Air France will pay $24,500 to the families of each of the victims of Flight 447.

Jammie Thomas was fined $ 80,000 for each of the songs she downloaded.

I guess downloading a song is worth more a life.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
Was Thomas-Rasset hurting the RIAA, the recording artists, or both?
HypnoToad72 18th Jun 2009
I use iTunes Plus so I couldn't care less, but I agree - that verdict seems extreme...
0 Votes
+ -
RIAA, Sony, EMI, Warner, Universal - the evil quartet
BillDem 18th Jun 2009
Everyone also take a special moment to wish Mitch Bainwol and Cary Sherman the worst possible luck in the world. May their futures be short and anxiety-ridden. May they get every skin fungus and parasitic infection known to man. May their cars never run for more than a week before a major breakdown. May they both die widely despised, alone, and penniless. May they burn for the incredible levels of evil they inflict on the poor, the innocent, and guilty alike.

It's about time people started screaming at their lawmakers to stop this retarded practice of damages awarded being hundreds of thousands of times greater than the actual damage. There is no way this is justified in any of the nearest trillion parallel universes.

ALSO - Everyone stop buying the products of Big Four RIAA member companies. That's EMI, Sony, Warner, and Universal. They all suck and I hope they all go bankrupt in a fiery ball of public humiliation.

www.boycott-riaa.com
0 Votes
+ -
228,571 times the actual damages
snafu_77 18th Jun 2009
damn
I bet I won't hear any politicos talking about that unfair amount of damages.
That's nuts. I won't be buying any music or movies for a while. They don't need my money if they're getting judgements like that.
0 Votes
+ -
I did not buy any music for a very long time...
Grayson Peddie 18th Jun 2009
...except that I listen to music through Live365.com.

Besides, that'd just make my head spin when that verdict is very extreme.
0 Votes
+ -
Nonsensical exorbitancy
johnfenjackson@... 19th Jun 2009
One suspects TPB got off lightly: the 4 Swedes should each have been fined 1000x the global economy.

Such disproportionate actions alienate the law-abiding population and fuel the anger of the anti-copyright supporters.
0 Votes
+ -
I find the jury guilty of stupidity!
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
Where did they buy 12 people this stupid to sit on the jury?
0 Votes
+ -
Are you OK, fella?
Hallowed are the Ori 19th Jun 2009
I ask because you're usually the one to take the side of the RIAA in these legal actions against pirates.
0 Votes
+ -
Yes I support copyright
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
But there is no way any thinking person (jury) could think this is "justice".
0 Votes
+ -
Why not?
Wintel BSOD 19th Jun 2009
They're your friends, aren't they?

Unless we've been right about their unadulterated greed all along.

Either way, it doesn't look good for the RIAA
0 Votes
+ -
Why? Because they did their job.
pmcgrath@... Updated - 19th Jun 2009
They looked at the evidence, found her guilty, and applied a punishment in accordance with the law. If you don't like the law, you have two choices, challenge it in court and prove it is unconstitutional, or convince the legislature to change it. Don't blame the jury for coming down hard a on someone who did something she knew was wrong and then tried to get away with it.
0 Votes
+ -
Jury deserves blame.
Zyloch 19th Jun 2009
I agree with the majority of your post. However, I do blame the jury for handing down what I feel to be excessive punishment unbefitting the extent and circumstances of the incident. While perhaps not the fault of any single juror, the final ruling of $80k/song seems a drastic failure of the spirit of the law.
0 Votes
+ -
No, its far more than that.
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
Make no mistake, the award is not about being fair or just and has zero to do with the defendant. It's about intimidating the entire population in the US and driving the concept of "fair use" and "public domain" into the ground.

Try this, give me the name of even one song that the RIAA has placed into the public domain since the RIAA was formed. When you can't do it, you should understnd something is very, very lop sided in the tacit agreement of what copyright is supposed to be. Beleive it or not, copyright is supposed to PROMOTE the general welfare of US citizens as well as the copyright holder. I see nothing like that at all in the current laws.
0 Votes
+ -
Copyright and Patent Law
Dr_Zinj 19th Jun 2009
"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

- limited times

- authors and inventors (not their assigns!)
0 Votes
+ -
To Promote Progress
rkoman@... 19th Jun 2009
copyright is a monopoly granted for a public interest, not because 'creation' deserves greater protection from the free market than other industries.
0 Votes
+ -
Well, that's what its supposed to be... (nt)
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
.
0 Votes
+ -
Right. But...
mejohnsn 20th Jun 2009
some of us are having a hard time seeing how such a high penalty to protect a dying IP technology could be in the public interest.
0 Votes
+ -
A court has one role, to hand out "justice".
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
The jury is also charged with the responsibility to hand out a verdict that is "just" and any award/punsihment "fits the crime". That has not happened here.

And as an FYI: Ask anyone here, I am a huge supporter of copyright. When someone such as myself starts saying wait a minute, this is way over the top, something is very wrong...
0 Votes
+ -
The RIAA has been a loose cannon for a long, long time....
Wintel BSOD 19th Jun 2009
...I'm glad No_Ax finally woke up to this fact.
0 Votes
+ -
No, RIAA did nothing wrong, the law makers and courts
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
RIAA simply used the law to their advantage which any one will do. The real problem is the law itself and the courts unwillingness to stand up and say no, this is not a just law nor so the penalties fit the crime.


(Of course RIAA and the MPAA had a lot to do with this law making it on the books but they were far from alone.)
0 Votes
+ -
Point at the legislature not the courts
Tekman Updated - 20th Jun 2009
If the law is truly part of the problem in verdicts like this one, then the recourse is to petition members of the US Congress. Unless the lawsuit is a direct challenge to a standing law, it is not within the charge of any court to judge the law itself only those charged and brought before said court. What you are proposing is judicial activism and that is certainly NOT constitutional.
0 Votes
+ -
Puh-leease....
Wintel BSOD 21st Jun 2009
No, RIAA did nothing wrong, the law makers and courts

Oh sure, they did nothing wrong, but that's really a semantics point at this late juncture.

RIAA simply used the law to their advantage which any one will do. The real problem is the law itself and the courts unwillingness to stand up and say no, this is not a just law nor so the penalties fit the crime.

Gee, isn't that what you want? I thought you were a real Inspector Javert when it came to these sorts of things.

The RIAA doesn't even really distribute the money to artists, anyway and they've admitted as much. They aren't even paying the artists they alleged say they protect, their royal due.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/02272008/business/infringement__99428.htm

http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-keeps-settlement-money-080228/

They've even petitioned the courts to reduce whatever royalties the artists are getting, so they can hold on to the greed by themselves, even now...

http://gear.ign.com/articles/749/749883p1.html

How can you in any way defend these parasites. These legalized Mafia thugs.

0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so....
James Quinn 21st Jun 2009
I think or system of law is far more concerned with social control rather
than actual "JUSTICE". "IF" justice is had its a by product and or accident
for the very most part.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
I don't know...
scripter 19th Jun 2009
I think the law allows for up to $150K per *wilful* infringement and for a range of $750-$30K per infringement otherwise. Seems to me the defendants must have really ticked off the jury for them to think $80K was a reasonable verdict. Or the defending lawyer was incompetent and failed to explain the range of potential awards. Or the jury was incompetent in understanding that rounding $150K/2 to the nearest $10K is reasonable.
0 Votes
+ -
"Seems to me the defendants must have really ticked off the jury"
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
Exactly! Here is a woman, who was clearly in willful violation of the spirit of the law, trying to get off on any technicality her defense team could find. I think the jury knew this. Most fair minded people get pretty upset when others try to take advantage. She thumbed her nose at the RIAA and the law, and the jury brought the hammer, plain and simple.
0 Votes
+ -
They're not going to get blood out of a stone
Wintel BSOD 19th Jun 2009
She has limited means and no way to pay it back.

Best thing for her to do is declare bankruptcy and take that monkey off her back.
0 Votes
+ -
Good luck.
Tekman Updated - 20th Jun 2009
It is possible to bankrupt federal legal judgements; however, it is not easy and specific points and technicalities are usually the reason for voiding said judgements! RIAA and others will likely have much more informed counsel than someone like this woman could ever afford especially if her current counsel was the ones leading her to believe should could beat this rap in the first place.
0 Votes
+ -
And what makes you think that won't happen
Wintel BSOD 21st Jun 2009
Her financial situation is not up for debate. There's no way in hell she's going to pay it back and she has said so. Try as you might, you can't get blood out of a stone.

But let's see the RIAA push it. Hopefully this will embolden Congress and the Supreme Court to change the law as it currently stands and backfire on these Mafia thugs.
0 Votes
+ -
Jury Nullification
Dr_Zinj 19th Jun 2009
The jury, had they been fully informed, which evidently they were not, has the authority to nullify the law on a case by case basis, regardless of whether there is evidence that the person actually broke the law in question. And in the instance of multiple nullifications, and render that legislative statue invalid.

Judges and lawyers almost never tell juries of this power they have, and if they do, they probably never advise them on how they can use it.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would they?
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
Even if ?briefed? on this option, what would make you thing this jury would have implemented it? See post below on ticking of the jury.
0 Votes
+ -
Question good Dr.
Tekman 20th Jun 2009
Dr. Z,
I know this exists for local, municipal, and state courts. I was not aware of it being valid for federal case law. Where would one find further information regarding this? Do you know?
0 Votes
+ -
It's exceptional, that's why.
Timpraetor 19th Jun 2009
Imagine if you were given a ticket for speeding, and because you insulted the officer your ticket was raised from $185 to $250,000. That's what has happened here. The award has no basis in reality, regardless of how flagrant the act and how obnoxious the defendant was.
0 Votes
+ -
No, thats not what happened here.
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
A better analogy is I had the option to pay the $185 speeding ticket but choose not and took it to trial. At trial I was clearly guilty, despite all my attempts to find a loop hole. The jury finds me guilty and hits me $250,000 fine, which is ALLOWED by the law I violated.

Guess I should have paid the $185.
0 Votes
+ -
This is a great example
rkoman@... 19th Jun 2009
Imagine a law that says the proper penalty is $185 but that if you assert your right to a day in court your fine will be $250K. Do you think that would violate due process? Basically the cop who gives you the ticket is judge and jury. You have NO chance to exonerate yourself because the risk is so outrageously high.

That's exactly what is happening here. Only the lesson is not shoulda paid the fine. The lesson is: the proper fine is $185 and if you're guilty (either because you dont contest or youre actually found guilty) that should be the price. There might be additional court costs you could be stuck with, but that's it.
0 Votes
+ -
Good point, however...
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
If I knew I was guilty, I would pay the $185. If I knew I was innocent, thought I had a good chance of proving I was innocent, and had good counsel (which seemed to be missing from this case) that though I could win the case, I would fight it.

In the future I would make sure I was going 5 mph under the speed limit.

It seems to me that this case was more about trying to convince the jury that speeding was ok, rather than trying to convince them she wasn?t speeding.
0 Votes
+ -
Two words that strike fear . . .
brian ansorge 19th Jun 2009
. . . into the hearts of those who use the law [usually in the name of "justice"] to oppress and --- in the process --- make *attorneys* (or other so-called "experts") even necessary in the first place:

Jury Nullification.

It's potential is real. It *is* real. It works. It's powerful. It's dangerous.

Hi, I'm Brian; I smoke pakalolo.



0 Votes
+ -
Jury selection
raelalt 19th Jun 2009
"Where did they buy 12 people this stupid to sit on the jury?"
.
At the Palin family reunion.
0 Votes
+ -
zing! nt
midenginedrift 19th Jun 2009
nt
0 Votes
+ -
RE: "Palin" comment
brian ansorge 19th Jun 2009
You're the sort of neanderthal that makes the whole theory of "evolution" [term to be used loosely, at least in this case] look exactly *one* "missing link" more credible and, at the same time, all the more disconcerting.

Evolving? Huh, OK. Maybe. But into *what?*

You make an very easy target for anyone brandishing a spray-can --- with which to logically and correctly "tag" you as the "frigtard" that you so graphically portrayed yourself as being with that ignorant and partisan comment.
0 Votes
+ -
Nope
Tekman 20th Jun 2009
Obama/Biden ACORN rally.
0 Votes
+ -
You have to wonder...
wolf_z 19th Jun 2009
...if this was a deliberate ploy on the part of the *defense*.

Look at the appeal aspects:

1) Fair use defense denied on a technicality.

2) Jury had a skunk thrown in with them (RIAA expert gave testimony the defense was never given)

3) Defense's tech expert evidence refused.

And the icing on the cake:

4) 228,271 times damages!

Not to mention had the judge thrown out the RIAA evidence like he threatened to over the skunking RIAA would have *lost*.

Not to mention this is going to rev up the blogosphere, Congress is going to hear about it, blah, blah, blah.

I doubt this is over...
0 Votes
+ -
Illegaly obtained evidence is Illegal and therefore not valid
news_reader 19th Jun 2009
Riaa claims, as every music file downloaded from internet without paying for it is illegal. Mediacentry didn?t pay to Jamie Thomas-Rasset for files they downloaded, and therefore this illegally obtained evidence is not valid. Case closed.
0 Votes
+ -
Single mother of four
Kaiwai 19th Jun 2009
What the hell is wrong with the system in the US; we're
talking about a single mother of four. Who the heck was
chosen for the jury? are these people morons? if this was in
any other country it would be the RIAA paying the mother
$80,000 per song just through the hatred of the general
populace of big business.
0 Votes
+ -
Well...
Hallowed are the Ori Updated - 19th Jun 2009
I hate to play devil's advocate, but we're
talking about a single mother of four who broke the law.

Not to mention that whole "Thou shalt not steal." thing.

And please, don't accuse me of bing a shill for the RIAA. If they disappeared yesterday it wouldn't be fast enough for me.
0 Votes
+ -
Well................
Stuka 19th Jun 2009
Yes, she did break the law. However, the punishment should fit the crime. Paying 80k per song is laughable. If you steal a case of beer from a store, you don't have to pay 80k dollars per beer to the manufacturer.

Copyright infringement should only be used if somebody is trying to make a profit off of somebody elses works. Otherwise, it should be basic theft with a regular sentance applied to it.
0 Votes
+ -
No theft involved. It doesn't meet the definition.
Cayble 19th Jun 2009
Trust me. I know.

The RIAA is in trouble and this decision isn't going to help them one little bit.

Lets see if in next weeks news reports that the bottom has fallen out of the online file sharing community due to some kind of chilling effect this decision will have had. PREDICTION: It's never going to happen.

For the purposes of society in general, and for the stated purposes of the RIAA this is a non event and will change nothing. Although it will certainly bolster the efforts of those clever hacks who are always looking for new and inventive ways to thwart the investigations of the RIAA.

This kind of garbage will go on for sometime until the RIAA realizes that the legal costs just are not worth it.
0 Votes
+ -
She knew what she was doing was wrong!
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
She had the chance to settle, but instead thumbed her nose at the RIAA. She got spanked, twice. I have no sympathy for this woman. You want someone to blame for this? Try the people who led her into believing she could win.
0 Votes
+ -
Is that really true?
No_Ax_to_Grind 19th Jun 2009
She may have known she was breaking the current laws, but does that automaticaly make someone "wrong"? There are such things as bad laws and applying them incorrectly.
0 Votes
+ -
Would it really make you feel better if I used the term illegal?
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
As most things illegal are considered wrong, it does not change my message. And for what it?s worth, I do consider what she did as both illegal and wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
People have died...
Wintel BSOD 19th Jun 2009
...for a hell of a lot less than what this woman is supposed to pay out...
0 Votes
+ -
Sad, but true. So what's your point? nt
pmcgrath@... 19th Jun 2009
...
0 Votes
+ -
A Song is Worth More than a Life
trentreviso 25th Jun 2009
Air France will pay $24,500 to the families of each of the victims of Flight 447.

Jammie Thomas was fined $ 80,000 for each of the songs she downloaded.

I guess downloading a song is worth more a life.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix