Thomas-Rasset/RIAA $1.92m filesharing case may continue
The reduction of Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s filesharing fine from $1.92 million to $54,000 may have been a stunning result, but the case might not be over. It appears neither side is happy with the result and either or both might appeal yet again.
As we reported at the weekend, an appeal judge rejected Thomas-Rasset’s request to reduce the fine to the legal minimum of $18,000, but did cut the award by 97 percent. What’s significant is that the decision did not make any ruling on points of law, but rather adjusted the amount to what the judge considered an appropriate penalty.
Judge Michael Davis said the original fine was “monstrous and shocking” and that the new amount was more appropriate, being “significant and harsh” but at an appropriate level to act as both punishment and deterrent. The verdict used a legal measure titled remittur, in which a judge declared that a jury acted irrationally in deciding upon the size of an award; it’s thought this is the first time this has happened in a copyright case.
Thomas-Rasset’s lawyers don’t seem too impressed with the verdict, with one telling Wired the reduced amount was like “the difference between Joseph Stalin and the Khmer Rouge.” They are still considering a constitutional challenge using the argument that the law itself is unfair. That’s based on the theory that the wide gulf between the highest and lowest penalties a jury can award for copyright cases means larger fines are unconstitutionally harsh.
The Recording Industry Association of America, which brought the case, is itself considering its legal options. It may challenge whether or not a judge has the right to use remittur in such cases. The RIAA’s dilemma is that challenging the verdict would look greedy, but not doing so would mean Davis’s actions would set a precedent for future cases.
There’s also still some dispute from the series of trials and appeals about whether or not merely putting copyrighted music on a filesharing service is an offense, or if the files must actually be downloaded by someone else (not including the rights holder themselves).
Related Posts:
