Karaoke Forums

Not sure what to make of this - after a judge reduced the jury-awarded damages in the second trial, a third jury trial returns damages almost as high.

The guilt is stipulated, so either the juries are right, or the judge is, as regards damages. This is destined to continue playing out, but the theme is pretty clear.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/in_3rd_music-download_trial_replay_minn._woman_hit_with_1.5m_verdict_62500_/

From the American Bar Association website.

Like the majority of thieves, Ms. Thomas-Rasset is an imbecile. The judge cut her a break, and she appealed again anyway - against an overwhelming preponderance of evidence that she's guilty. I say jail her.

_________________
Dave's not here.

Wow... For 24 tracks.
Don't need to ask what a loaded hard drive gets.

Death or 102487 years in jail.

Did she "just" download these 24 tracks, or was she "hosting" these tracks, allowing the "internet" to download them from her hard drive, as they please?

From what reserach I've done, they really go after people who host files, much more than the "download and dash" type user.

Just wondering.

Well, she could have originally settled for $5000.
She chose to fight.
She was found guilty and fined $200,000.
The RIAA offered - AFTER THE JUDGEMENT - to settle for $25,000 and a statement of guilt. (12.5% of the award)
She appealed the judgement to a jury.
The jury of her peers discovered she'd tampered with evidence, perjured herself, and discovered even MORE evidence of her guilt. The jury of her peers determined she should pay damages of $1.9 million dollars.
The judge felt that was extreme and reduced it to $54,000 (2.8% of the award) and the guilty verdict.
After being given a break twice, and only having to pay pennies on the dollar for damages, Ms. Thomas-Rasset . . .
Appeals to another jury of her peers, who confirmed every single finding of the previous two trials. They apparently did feel that the $1.9 mil might have been too high though. They decided she only need pay $1.5 million.

I'm perfectly comfortable with throwing her under the bus at this point.

Royalties are a small part of my retirement income. Idiot bints like this steal from ME.

Enzoab, she was hosting and sharing the files.

_________________
Dave's not here.

I assumed that, that was the case. I remember these coming down years ago as well and most of those were hosting busts as well. Interesting. Thx Moonrider.

I don't understand why this is being brought up. This is COPYRIGHT infringement for MP3 and not TRADEMARK infringement, which is what KJ are being hit for. One being served by the RIAA on behalf of the 24 song writers whose intellectual property was being distributed and the other being served by independent companies for using their logo without permission.

This does affect rulings against the fly-by-night "z" companies that don't bother to get licensing at all.

it also helps set a standard for fining all those sorry <epithet> that sell loaded hard drives - which is the same thing Ms. Thomas-Rasset was doing. They're just doing it with a different medium and charging for it.

_________________
Dave's not here.