NewYorkCountryLawyer's Journal: Motion filed to set aside RIAA's $222k verdict

Jammie Thomas has filed a motion to set aside the $222,000 verdict obtained against her by the RIAA, based on allegations she infringed $23.76 worth of song files. Her motion papers (pdf) argue that the verdict is excessive and in violation of the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution, and should be reduced to $150 or less, or a new trial ordered. (See, e.g. UMG v. Lindor). It has been reported that the RIAA issued a statement that "Thomas [is] not taking responsibility for her actions, and .... they want to resolve the case in a "fair and reasonable" fashion. It is unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions....". In my experience that is RIAA-speak for "after the verdict we have tried to make a settlement with her, but she wouldn't meet our terms".

Odds?

[Shadow Wrought]

If the District Court doesn't rule in her favor, what kind of chance do you expect her to have on appeal? IANAL, but it seems that if she gets a good ruling from an appeal, that could seriously hurt the RIAA nationwide in terms of what they can expect in recovery.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I expect her to get a reversal on appeal. As to why, see my letter to Judge Karas here [blogger.com]

Re:

[Reziac]

[reads letter]

Did I understand correctly that essentially the plaintiff got away with instructing the jury? Since when does the fox get to say how the henhouse should be managed?? How is this not prejudicial against the defendant??

Also, interesting points re what constitutes willful distribution.

On that note: Bittorrent clients typically limit uploads, often to only 4 slots. I wonder if that could be used to point out the *lack* of widespread distribution (per what you cite).

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Not at all, Reziac. That's an issue for the appeal, not for the remittitur motion. If a new trial is ordered, there won't need to be an appeal. If the verdict is reduced to $151.20, the defendant might choose not to take an appeal.

Re:

[Reziac]

Just curious, what do you think would be most beneficial to the world at large, and why -- new trial, appeal, or reduced judgment?

Re:

[slcdb]

None of the above. Dissolution of the RIAA is the correct answer :P

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Naaaahhhhh...... those scenarios would be much better.

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

That's a fascinating and provocative question. It's difficult to say.

1. A reduction of the judgment to somewhere between 0 and $151.20 would be good.

2. An appeal overturning the verdict and establishing that the "making available" theory is bunk, would be good.

3. A new trial, with proper jury instructions, with Jacobson properly excluded, with the RIAA spending another half million dollars or so on their ridiculous legal team, with Ms. Thomas's lawyers getting paid from the Jammie Thomas Legal Defense [blogspot.com]

Re:

[Reziac]

#3, as delightfully presented by yourself, encompasses all the goodness from #1 and #2 as well :)

Best of all would be to establish that you can't assume NN-many infringements just from "making available". The way it works now is the same as "since the candy bin was open, and you stole one piece, you COULD have stolen ALL the pieces, so we'll fine you for each and every piece even tho we can't demonstrate that you stole more than one. And they are valued at one complete candy factory each."

Re:

[deftcoder]

Stealing is a bad anology, since it implies loss on the part of the owner of said item.

'Cloning' a free copy for personal use is probably a better anology.

I've been trying to be more articulate in my speech and writing, too. No offense. :)

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Sorry, I gave you the wrong link, the right one is here [blogspot.com]

Hurrah!

[slcdb]

This is most excellent news! Regardless of how any of us might feel about copyright, patents, intellectual property, and the RIAA, there is an aspect of this case that transcends all of that. It is a cornerstone of our way of life in the USA. It is the way we treat people.

We don't cut off hands as punishment for stealing. We don't execute people because they've spoken something offensive. We don't put people in jail for life for running a red light.

Likewise, we should not take away someone's house, or put t

Re:

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

slcbd....are you talking about human decency? that has no place in riaa litigation....