And Yet Again

In 2007 RIAA v Jammie Thomas-Rasset (she was just Jammie Thomas then) resulted in a jury verdict and damages of $222,000 in favor of the RIAA.  A few months later the trial judge had second thoughts about his instructions to the jury and ordered a new trial.  In 2009 RIAA v Jammie Thomas-Rasset II:  Oops I Did It Again resulted in a jury verdict and damages of $1.92 million in favor of the RIAA.  A few weeks ago the trial judge reduced the damages to $54,000.  Last week the RIAA rejected the reduced award but offered to settle with Thomas-Rasset for $25,000.   She rejected the settlement, setting the stage for RIAA v Jammie Thomas-Rasset III:  Damages, in which the only issue will be how much the RIAA receives from its suit.  Her attorney has committed already to RIAA v Jammie Thomas-Rasset IV:  Oops the 8th Circuit Affirms the Constitutionality of Copyright Damages, the Supreme Court Denies Cert, and Thomas-Rasset Has Her Legacy.

Who knows. I am Mr. Glass Half-Empty. Maybe this will turn out not to be a disaster for Thomas-Rasset.

8 thoughts on “And Yet Again

  1. It’s awesome to pay a visit this web page and reading the views of
    all friends on the topic of this paragraph, while I am also keen of getting experience.

  2. I have been exploring for a bit for any high quality articles or weblog posts on this
    kind of area . Exploring in Yahoo I at last stumbled upon this
    site. Studying this info So i’m happy to convey that I’ve a very just right uncanny feeling I
    found out exactly what I needed. I most undoubtedly will make
    sure to don?t fail to remember this web site and provides it a glance on a continuing basis.

  3. 1. Yes, it is expensive. It's the state's responsibility to pay for them. Thomas-Rasset's counsel are representing her pro bono, i.e. they are not charging her.

    2. No! Such a system would be unfathomably corrupt.

  4. From what I know about this case, it was the first file-sharing copy right case in the US. Several things I find striking about this case:

    1) Isn't it extremely expensive to hold several trials like this? Who pays for all of these costs? I read that Thomas is a native America mother of four kids. From what I think, she is not able to pay damages that are in the millions or even thousands. Also, to have a lawyer over such a long period of time must be extremely expensive as well. So, why is she being sued in expensive trials? The money of the trials could instead be used to repay the damages.

    2) If a trial judge wants another trial, does he have to pay personally for one?

    Thank you,

    Meikel

Comments are closed.