In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, the opposition briefs in connection with the post-trial motions were filed yesterday. Reply briefs are due Friday, August 21st.
The RIAA defended the $1.92 million verdict based on infringement of 24 mp3 files.
The US Department of Justice, although agreeing with the RIAA that the award was constitutional, urged the Court to avoid the constitutional question by instead addressing the question of whether the verdict merited being set aside on "common law" grounds, as being "shocking to the conscience".
Ms. Thomas-Rasset filed a brief opposing the RIAA's motion to amend the judgment by adding an injunction.
Plaintiffs' Opposition Memorandum
DOJ Opposition Memorandum
Defendant's Opposition Memorandum
1. The US Department of Justice (a) continues to debase itself by misstating the law in its unseemly haste to provide cover for the RIAA, and (b) sinks to a new level of debasement by arguing that an award of 228,000 times the actual damages satisfies due process standards. Its awareness of the frivolousness of its constitutional argument is betrayed by its urging the Judge to reach the same result -- the setting aside of the verdict -- on non-constitutional grounds, the "common law" ground for remittitur that the verdict is "shocking to the conscience". A complete answer to all of the legal points argued by the DOJ's frivolous brief is found in the amicus curiae briefs which we filed in SONY v. Tenenbaum and SONY v. Cloud.
2. The RIAA's brief is another in the long line of frivolous briefs they have filed, arguing that the size of the verdict can be measured against all of the damages the plaintiffs have suffered from all of the copyright infringements since time immemorial, and wallows in speculation -- unsupported by any actual evidence and based solely upon two inhouse lawyers' opinions -- as to how much actual damage Ms. Thomas-Rasset's alleged 24 downloads caused.
3. Both the RIAA and DOJ briefs take the "ostrich" approach to the Supreme Court's jurisprudence regarding due process standards for "punitive awards".
4. The defendant's brief correctly observes that the court was under no obligation to tack on an injunction to its ludicrous $1.92 million money judgment.
Commentary & discussion:
Keywords: lawyer digital copyright law online internet law legal download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie independent label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs intellectual property portable music player