Skip to main content

$1.92 Million to RIAA P2P Verdict Challenged

Last month we found out about the new verdict handed to Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was tangled up with the RIAA for file sharing with Kazaa.

A federal jury found Jammie Thomas-Rasset guilty for willful infringement of 24 copyrights held by four major record labels, ultimately awarding the RIAA with $1.92 million over the 24 songs infringed upon, working out to be $80,000 per song. This was the outcome of the retrial of the original decision to award the RIAA with $9,250 per song.

Ars Technica reports that Thomas-Rasset is now asking the federal judge to either reduce the reward to $18,000 or to grant another new trial. The motion filed by Thomas-Rasset's legal team read, "The verdict in this case was shocking. For 24 songs, available for $1.29 on iTunes, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per song—a ratio of 1:62,015. For 24 albums, available for no more than $15 at the store, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per album—a ratio of 1:5,333. For a single mother's noncommercial use of KaZaA, and upon neither finding nor evidence of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the judgment fines Jammie Thomas $1.92 million. Such a judgment is grossly excessive and, therefore, subject to remittitur as a matter of federal common law."

Clearly this isn't the last that we'll hear from this long-running saga. We'll keep you posted.

  • gorehound
    I just want to remind folks to never buy any music from any artist and/or label who has signed with the RIAA.They are assholes and in more than one way and to stop them we must hurt them in their wallets.

    THere are thousands of independent artists like myself who are perfectly willing to give you free music and who will never sign with a corporate label or the RIAA.
    I have a ton of free 320k mp3 of my art at
    www.bigmeathammer.com go to the archives page.
    Reply
  • elel
    Excessive??!!! I think so!!
    Reply
  • brendano257
    Again I have to say this; Rich Industrial Assholes of America. It's not like they need the 1.92M,care about it, or need the compensation, they just want to scare people away from file sharing, because with fillers, and a very outdated and flimsy marketing model they can't keep up with digital distribution and instead of updating their business model, all they do is up the copyright protection until what they sell becomes useless.
    Like the statement from the lawyer, the plaintiff (RIAA) failed to prove that the damages were significant to the company, considering she was neither commercially using it (selling what she downloaded) or doing something like running a server to upload it millions of times again.
    Reply
  • tenor77
    How about $1? She might just pay that one.
    Reply
  • descendency
    They claim she shared 1708 songs. at $1.50 (more than iTunes value of the songs likely) * 1708 = $2,562.

    So if she bought every song she illegally downloaded and redistributed, the verdict wouldn't come near what they are asking. This is absurd. The judgment should be reduced 500x. Plain and simple.

    My question is why is she responsible for the actions of others? What happens when the other people get caught who downloaded the 1,700 songs??? Do they get more money? It doesn't seem to fair to get both the uploader and the downloader.

    Maybe you consider the legal fees, but I wouldn't because I think these guys are as close to crooks as you can get.
    Reply
  • tipmen
    Poor unlucky guy! Unlike us he got caught . 1.92 mill for 24 songs is just outrageous. I don't see any song that could be worth 80,000 with the crap artist have been making lately. If i were to buy a disc i might listen to 1 or 2 songs max the rest i could care less about.
    Reply
  • brendano257
    tipmenPoor unlucky guy! Unlike us he got caught . 1.92 mill for 24 songs is just outrageous. I don't see any song that could be worth 80,000 with the crap artist have been making lately. If i were to buy a disc i might listen to 1 or 2 songs max the rest i could care less about.
    That's the problem, their business model **WORKED** like this. If we put 5 low quality songs on an album, 2 good ones, and 3 decent ones we have a full album. And JUST so they can listen to those good songs they'll pay us the full ammount for the album. And now no one pays for albums, we filter out the crap and pay per song (99c-129c whatever) and they blame their money loss on piracy, which although it does cost them, but not nearly as much as their cheap marketing. They made a lot of money the cheap way, and now they are getting F*'d for it, so they use all the money they have to blame it on someone else and hire good prosecution so they can get these big cases settled their way. It's not right.
    Reply
  • tipmen
    Curnel_DReading comprehension for the win.True, but its been one hell of a day for me.
    Reply
  • JTR is a moron. She was offered a settlement for $5,000 by the RIAA at least twice, possibly three times. Now she's asking a judge to reduce the 1.92m to $18,000?

    Good job, crack legal team.
    Reply
  • kyeana
    ^seriously now, isn't 5000$ for 24 songs still insanely excessive? Tell me if that happened to you that you wouldn't try to fight it.
    Reply