RIAA weeps as Thomas verdict overturned to tune of $222,000
Remember the three day Thomas trial that resulted in a $222,000 verdict in favor of the RIAA’s legal thugs? It seems that the judge has now overturned the verdict of the federal jury in the case, citing that the jury was given an incorrect instruction that led to the erroneous verdict.
The judge wrote a 43 page decision overturning the ruling, which he published last Thursday. In it he admitted that the jury had been given an inaccurate instruction. What was the inaccuracy? It was the definition of “plain meaning” of distribution. From the decision documents:
The Court’s examination of the use of the term ‘distribution’ in other provisions of the Copyright Act, as well as the evolution of liability for offers to sell in the analogous Patent Act, lead to the conclusion that the plain meaning of the term ‘distribution’ does not includ[e] making available and, instead, requires actual dissemination.
The ruling also touches on the right of publication versus distribution, stating “A review of the Copyright Act as a whole also supports the conclusion that publication and distribution remain distinct concepts.” While the judge made several very valid points throughout the decision that should help other plaintiffs against the RIAA’s heavy handed thug tactics, the most interesting part of the document dealt with excessive damages being awarded in these “trials”.
The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit… Thomas’s conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market.
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred [emphasis his] times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs.
I feel like standing up and giving the judge a round of applause for that segment of his extensive and well thought out decision, not to mention the rest of it. The worst part of the useless RIAA trials has always been the excessive damages awarded when the RIAA wins these things. It has been disproportionate to the crime. Worse, the artists themselves never see a dime – these damages and settlements go right back into the RIAA coffers for more law suits.
In the meantime, what happens to Jammie Thomas? She gets to breathe easily, for a short while at least. The case goes to trial again, with a brand spankin’ new set of jury instructions that are bolstered by this decision, and this time you can bet the RIAA will bring out the big guns to fight back against this sane direction. In the previous win they had been given the nod to sue whomever they liked, effectively without burden of proof. This decision makes them accountable for proving their accusations, but how long will it be before they are back at their old antics in front of a less tech savvy court?
Related Posts:
