RIAA Burned by Reduction in Damages Against File-Sharer

Image via WikipediaIn his 43-page Memorandum of Law & Order last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Minnesota Michael Davis in Capitol Records, Inc. et al v. Jammie Thomas-Rassett (Case No. 06-cv-01497) slashed a $1.5 million jury verdict against a woman who illegally shared copyrighted songs on KaZaA  to $54,000, the Jurist Website reported.

Judge Davis granted Jammie Thomas-Rassett's Motion to Amend or Alter the Judgment in her epic struggle against the Recording Industry Association of America ("RIAA") which has involved three trials dating back to 2007 over 24 songs that the 34-year-old Minnesota native shared in violation of the The Copyright Act (see "TUOL" posts on 1/26/10 & 1/29/10). Calling the $1.5 million damages award "appalling" and noting that Thomas-Rassett was a "first-time willful consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file-sharing for her own personal use," Judge Davis reduced the damages to $54,000, or $2,250 for each of the 24 songs, equal to three times the statutory minimum.

The $1.5 million verdict awarded in November 2010, violated Thomas-Rassett's due process rights, Judge Davis held. In an earlier trial, a judge assessed RIAA's damages from copyright infringement at $80,000 a song.

UPDATE: Play It Again Sam

Image via Wikipedia

Just as heavyweight champs Muhammad Ali and Smokin' Joe Frazier mixed it up in three historic bouts, Internet music downloader Jammie Thomas-Rasset and the Recording Industry Association of America are ready to have at each other again.

As "TUOL" blogged earlier this week (see "TUOL" post 1/26/10), Chief Judge Michael Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota allowed the RIAA seven days within which either to accept his reduction of the RIAA's judgment against Thomas-Rasset from $1.92 million to $54,000, or to request a new trial on the issue of damages.

Reportedly, the defendant rejected an offer of settlement that would have had her contribute $25,000 to a charity devoted to struggling musicians, so the RIAA has opted for a third trial on the damages issue. Once the dust has settled, defense counsel reportedly will challenge the constitutionality of statutes that provide for significant assessment of damages for file-sharing violations.

So like Frazier v. Ali, Thomas-Rasset v. RIAA will have a trilogy of fights.  The principal difference, in the humble opinion of "TUOL," is that in the music downloading battle, it's hard to root for either fighter.

Court Slashes Judgment Against Internet Song Sharer

Image via CrunchBase

Chief Judge Michael Davis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota has reduced by 97 percent the $1.92 million verdict obtained by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) in June 2009, against a Minnesota woman in the first trial of a P2P infringement case.

In Capitol Records, Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records, LLC, Interscope Records, Warner Bros. Records, Inc., and UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Jammie Thomas-Rasset (Case No. 0:06cv01497-MJD-RLE), Judge Davis deemed "monstrous" the $80,000 per song Thomas-Rasset was assessed for illegally downloading 24 songs, and remitted the sum to $2,250 per tune for a total judgment of $54,000.

Thomas-Rasset was charged with pirating nearly 2,000 tunes, but the RIAA sought damages only for 24 tracks, including those by artists such as Gloria Estefan, Green Day, Def Leppard and Aerosmith. Judge Davis amended the judgment but denied the defendant's motion for a new trial. Judge Davis said that notwithstanding the deterrent effect of a mammoth judgment, "statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages." Under U.S. Copyright law [17 U.S. C. sec.504(c)], statutory damages can range from $750 to $30,000 per illegally downloaded song, which can jump to $150,000 per transgression if deemed "willful."

The RIAA has seven days from Judge Davis' decision to accept the amended verdict or to seek a new trial to set damages. Judge Davis said the amended judgment assessed the defendant remains "significant and harsh."