Federal Judge Michael Davis presided over a case earlier this year where peer-to-peer user Jammie Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages for sharing 24 songs on the Internet.
Davis made no comment on the amount of the award and showed no discernable emotion as the judgment was read out.
Thomas-Rasset appealed the $1.92 million amount on the grounds that it was arbitrary and unconstitutional, and Davis agreed with her. On Jan. 22, Davis reduced the amount of the damages, stating that the jury’s decision led to a “monstrous and shocking” damage award that veered into “the realm of gross injustice.”
Davis used his power of remittitur to slash the damage award by 97.2 percent, from $1.92 million to $54,000, and he suggested that even this lower amount was too much. The difference between the two amounts shows that the initial number must have been pulled out of thin air.
In his decision to reduce the award, Davis did not oppose the guilty verdict or fail to point out the inconsistencies Thomas-Rasset had shown during the trials.
“Despite never implicating others during her depositions or testimony in the previous trial, in this second trial, she suddenly leveled new accusations against her children and ex-boyfriend, asserting that they might have committed the infringement,” Davis wrote in the decision. “Thomas-Rasset’s refusal to accept responsibility for her actions and her decision to concoct a new theory of the infringement, casting possible blame on her children and ex-boyfriend for her actions, demonstrate a refusal to accept responsibility and raise the need for strong deterrence.”
Statutory damage laws were originally written with the intent of stopping commercial infringement.
“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,” Davis wrote.
“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.”
The Recording Industry Association of America was determined to make an example of Thomas-Rasset because it is fighting a losing battle when it comes to prosecuting every individual who illegally downloads music. Now, when record labels find someone stealing music, they try to take them for everything they are worth based on action and not intent.
In this case, there was no malicious intent or any way Thomas-Rasset was reaping any kind of monetary reward other than not having to pay for the songs.
Record labels need to stop prosecuting peer-to-peer users and punishing people for the industry’s faulty business model, and work out a way to succeed in the digital age.
Michael Padon is an engineering sophomore and may be reached at [email protected]
