Thursday, December 09, 2010

Jammie Thomas-Rasset files motion to reduce judgment

In Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset, defendant has filed a motion to reduce the judgment from $62,500 per song file to zero, due to the absence of any evidence in the record that plaintiffs sustained any actual damage.

Defendant's motion to reduce judgment

In other developments in the case, (a) Prof. Charles Nesson's motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief was denied, and (b) the RIAA filed a motion asking the Court to add an injunction to the judgment.



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 Bookmark and Share

8 comments:

Auto Insurance of Arizona said...

Thanks, Ray. Just found your blog. As a songwriter, I am grateful for this effort.

Anonymous said...

Hey Ray,

The link (http://beckermanlegal.com/pdf/?file=/Lawyer_Copyright_Internet_Law/virgin_thomas_101206DeftsMotion.pdf.pdf) to the "Defendant's Motion to Reduce Judgement" is broken.

Looks like it has an extra '.pdf' on the end.

Ray Beckerman said...

Thanks. I fixed it.

Anonymous said...

Ray, why was the amicus brief refused?

Ray Beckerman said...

I don't know. I doubt the judge gave his reasoning, but I didn't download the order.

Anonymous said...

Do I dream, Ray, or does this motion echo RIAA rhetoric -

RIAA is losing money because people are downloading off the net without paying, so this defendant should pay us $BIGNUM dollars as penalty, as specified by law because we can't quantify our losses to this one defendant

being answered by

RIAA has no right to collect any money at all in this case because they could/did not prove they lost any money as a result of what this defendant did; and they seem to be attempting to punish this defendant for what other people did or did not do

Even if that's not what's going on, I still find it to be an eloquent pleading, in my layman's humble opinion.

--Quiet Lurker

Anonymous said...

Re amicus, court's order:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/44877208/Order-Denying-Nesson-Amicus

Anonymous said...

It appears that, to paraphrase Shakesphere:

"Something is rotten in Minnesota."

Kind of makes you wonder why the turn around after Davis' previous statements of September 24, 2008 and January 22, 2010.

TomasG