2 edits | reply to fiberguy
Re: Jammie Thomas loses to RIAA in retrial of infringement case said by fiberguy: While I feel that if she was serving the music, she shouldn't be and there should be a penalty.. a thousand or two, or three? Sure.. 1.92 million? This kind of insane award is, in my opinion, what can and will cause outrage among people and will ultimately give the RIAA a bad rap. In the end, the RIAA just shot themselves in the foot. In closing arguments the plaintiff's attorney never asked for any specific amount of money. And the RIAA agreed to settle multiple times for much lower amounts. It was the jury that slammed her because she lied repeatedly and covered up evidence.
So if the RIAA takes grief over the amount, it is the jury that shot them and not themselves.
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···dict.ars
Spokesperson Cara Duckworth of the RIAA, who attended the trial, told reporters afterwards, "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." The industry appears to be doing everything it can not to appear vindictive in these cases, though Duckworth refused to discuss any details of what a proposed settlement might look like.
Camara acknowledged the settlement offer and said that his side would certainly investigate it, but he made clear that he intends to file numerous motions if Thomas-Rassert wants to continue the fight.
Here is the closing argument from the plaintiff's attorney:
»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news···liar.ars
In the end, he concluded by saying that the labels cared about the legislation and that "the need for deterrence here is great." As for the amount of a damage award? That's up the jury, but the recording industry is not asking for the full $3.6 million that the Thomas-Rasset defense team keeps bringing up. --
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
