Jammie, who has become the poster woman for RIAA abuse, has appealed the recent ruling which said that she was to pay $1.92 million to the RIAA for sharing 24 songs on KaZaa back when people knew what KaZaa was. Her main grounds for appeal is that the judgment is excessive, and ridiculously so. Let’s look at the numbers. For sharing songs valued on retail (read: iTunes) at $1.29 at most, the damages of $80,000 awarded per song gives a ratio of 1:62,015. Can you say “insane”?
The grounds for appeal, in addition to this ruling’s being excessively punitive, thus violating the Due Process clause of the constitution, is that the ratio contradicts an earlier Supreme Court ruling. BMW v. Gore from back in 1996 established that damages beyond a certain ratio are unconstitutional, which generally means anything over 1:10.
Oddly enough, Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s attorneys are not using the legal precedent from a case which is currently ongoing. As Ms. Thomas did not distribute the songs for commercial purposes, she cannot be accused of violating copyright for profit. One Ms. Audrey Amurao’s attorney was clever enough to argue that “making songs available” is not covered by American copyright law. So that’s another strike against the RIAA’s assumed right to Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s money.
(Original story via Ars Technica)
