Duluth, Minn. - Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman ordered by a jury to pay $220,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs on a file-sharing network, on Monday asked the judge in the case to set aside the verdict.
Submitted by Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, the petition challenges the constitutionality of the $750 to $150,000 in fines per infringement set forth in 1976 Copyright Act.
Wired News postulated that the minimum $750 fine is 750 times the actual injury, based on the industry standard 99-cent cost of a song download -- and added that the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts have found financial punishments that exceed a 9-to-1 radio are unconstitutional.
"Whether the Court recognizes actual damages of zero dollars, $20 or whatever figure plaintiffs suggest is a fair measure of their actual damages for the 24 subject recordings, the ratio of actual damages to the award is not only astronomical, it is offensive to our Constitution and offensive generally," Toder writes in the petition.
The same argument has also been made in other pending file-sharing cases, including UMG v. Lindor, Ars Technica reported.
For its part, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has in court documents called such claims "baseless," and said it would make it "economically unsound for any copyright owner to seek to protect its copyright interests."
Interestingly, based on previous statements from Thomas and her attorney, the appeal was expected to be based on a jury instruction that stated that the "making available" of copyrighted material constitutes infringement, even if no evidence that anyone ever downloaded the material is provided.
The court in Duluth, Minnesota has not yet set a hearing date to address Thomas' petition.
Related Links:
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/10/copyright
http://tinyurl.com/yvcrse (Ars Technica)
http://tinyurl.com/2n9gjc (PDF of complaint via Wired)
http://tinyurl.com/ynukgn (DMW previous coverage)
Comments
FTRIAA
i second that notion.
Post new comment