Jammie Thomas verdict overturned - Judge reverses himself

[Greg Anos]

Here's the article from Wired - http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/200...r-publica.html

and the decision (in PDF) -
http://government.zdnet.com/images/thomas-ruling-1.pdf

Good reading

[stasys]

And for those who will not be able to read through all this legal stuff - here is the verdict:
*****************
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 times the cost of buying
24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While
the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than
the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less
attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that
are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a
sufficient deterrent.
Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she
sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in
copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for
infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case43
of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to
potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer
networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the
possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits.
This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of
dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of
deterrence.
Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet
users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who
was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her
behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
damages unprecedented and oppressive.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the
jury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be
set by the Court after consultation with the parties.
2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is
VACATED. 44
3. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for
Remittitur [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED on the grounds set forth
in this Memorandum of Law & Order.
4. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment [Docket No. 116]
is DENIED.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by stasys

1. The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the
jury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be
set by the Court after consultation with the parties.
2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is
VACATED. 44
3. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for
Remittitur [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED on the grounds set forth
in this Memorandum of Law & Order.
4. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment [Docket No. 116]
is DENIED.

Why put the court and the parties through the cost of a new trial? Just adjust the judgement to 100 times the cost of the music ($1 a track)... or $2400 and call it a day.

BOb

[NatCh]

Well, without that particular jury instruction, a jury might conceivably find for the defendant.

The two parties are, of course, free to reach a settlement between themselves, and the RIAA might be interested in doing so, even if they have to just drop the case, to avoid the precedent of an unfavorable verdict.

[Greg Anos]

In a sense it's too late. The reversal is now part of the legal record along with the reason why. It, therefore is quotable in futher cases. The RIAA has to now explain why this court was wrong in it's reasoning, rather than working with essentially a clean slate...

This is why the Tobacco industry has fought each case so hard to prevent a plaintiff from winning, no matter how weak the Tobacco industries case; to prevent that future quotable precedent...

The RIAA will retry, they can't afford to leave the precedent as it is. They know know this case is now win or lose for the whole enforcement effort.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Well, without that particular jury instruction, a jury might conceivably find for the defendant.

Exactly. There was more to it than just the penalty being to high. The verdict is also in question because the judge instructed the jury to use the wrong standard for determining guilt.