File-sharing mom begs US Supremes to void bloated RIAA fine

Would Founding Fathers approve of $9,250 per track?


Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota mother of four facing a $220,000 fine for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs, has petitioned the US Supreme Court to hear her case.

Thomas-Rasset's lawyers have filed a petition for certiorari (from the Latin verb 'to show') that asks the court to review the charges of $9,250 per MP3 and decide if they are constitutionally excessive. Her legal team argues that the current system is grossly unfair and their client is being pursued not for her specific transgressions or any damages actually caused, but in an attempt to deter others and enforce punitive fees.

"This is not just. It is unfair, it is not due process, for an industry to sue 12,500 people and threaten to sue 5,000 more, wielding a statute for which they lobbied, under which they can threaten hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in statutory damages, where the only way to resist is through modern, complex, expensive federal process, so that the only reasonable choice is to pay the settlement and be done. That's extortion, not law," the brief states.

So far the US Supreme court has refused to hear cases on file sharing, most recently declining to take up the case of Joel Tenenbaum who is facing a $675,000 fine for downloading 30 songs when he was 16. But Thomas-Rasset and her pro-bono legal team aren't the sorts to give up their fight.

Thomas-Rasset lost her file-sharing case back in 2007, when she was found guilty of sharing songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer system. The jury spent minutes finding her guilty and imposed the $220,000 fine, which realistically Rasset had no way of paying. She lost her appeal, but the presiding judge had a change of heart and ordered a retrial.

This wasn't the good news Thomas-Rasset might have hoped for. In 2009, the court increased the award against her to $1.92m, or $80,000 per track, which even embarrassed the Recording Industry Ass. of America, which had instigated the case, prompting them to offer to settle the case for a $25,000 donated to charity. Thomas-Rasset refused, and the appeal against her verdict cut her fine to $54,000 – but she decided to fight on.

At her third trial in 2010, the jury increased her fine to $1.5m for sharing those 24 songs, but this was cut back down to $54,000 on appeal. After recontesting her case, the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit ruled that the original $220,000 ruling should stand.

Now the Supreme Court is being asked to rule on the issue. It's unlikely to, but based on Thomas-Rasset's past form, she'll keep on fighting to the end anyway. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • FTC urged to protect data privacy of women visiting abortion clinics
    As Supreme Court set to overturn Roe v Wade, safeguards on location info now more vital than ever

    Updated Democrat senators have urged America's Federal Trade Commission to do something to protect the privacy of women after it emerged details of visits to abortion clinics were being sold by data brokers.

    Women's healthcare is an especially thorny issue right now after the Supreme Court voted in a leaked draft majority opinion to overturn Roe v Wade, a landmark ruling that declared women's rights to have an abortion are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.

    If the nation's top judges indeed vote to strike down that 1973 decision, individual states, at least, can set their own laws governing women's reproductive rights. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" in place prohibiting abortions – mostly with exceptions in certain conditions, such as if the pregnancy or childbirth endangers the mother's life – that will go into effect if Roe v Wade is torn up. People living in those states would, in theory, have to travel to another state where abortion is legal to carry out the procedure lawfully, although laws are also planned to ban that.

    Continue reading
  • Oracle really does owe HPE $3b after Supreme Court snub
    Appeal petition as doomed as the Itanic chips at the heart of decade-long drama

    The US Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear Oracle's appeal to overturn a ruling ordering the IT giant to pay $3 billion in damages for violating a decades-old contract agreement.

    In June 2011, back when HPE had not yet split from HP, the biz sued Oracle for refusing to add Itanium support to its database software. HP alleged Big Red had violated a contract agreement by not doing so, though Oracle claimed it explicitly refused requests to support Intel's Itanium processors at the time.

    A lengthy legal battle ensued. Oracle was ordered to cough up $3 billion in damages in a jury trial, and appealed the decision all the way to the highest judges in America. Now, the Supreme Court has declined its petition.

    Continue reading
  • UK Supreme Court snubs Assange anti-extradition bid
    Home Secretary ponders putting WikiLeaker on one-way US flight

    Julian Assange has all but lost his fight against extradition from Britain to America after the UK Supreme Court said his case "did not raise an arguable point of law."

    The former WikiLeaks chief's future now rests in the tender hands of British Home Secretary Priti Patel, who must formally decide whether or not to extradite him for trial in the US.

    American prosecutors want the Australian in court over a multitude of espionage charges, including one alleging that he commissioned the cracking of a password protecting US Department of Defense files from unauthorized access.

    Continue reading
  • Alphabet still can't kill off Google+ insecurity lawsuit
    You forgot about this social network? A small army of lawyers haven't

    On Monday the US Supreme Court turned down Alphabet's request to hear it argue for the dismissal of a shareholder lawsuit that claimed Google quietly covered up a security issue that could have exposed almost 500,000 Google+ accounts.

    A lawsuit filed in 2018 accused the search giant of deceiving investors by failing to disclose details of a design blunder in an API for its now-defunct social network Google+. It was estimated that 438 third-party apps could have siphoned off information, such as people's email addresses, genders, and ages, via the privacy shortcoming in the API.

    It was believed as many as 500,000 users could have had their info obtained through this bug, though it's not thought any data actually leaked. Google secretly patched the hole, and everything was hunky-dory until the Wall Street Journal blew the lid off the saga. Google's share price dropped sharply at the disclosure, prompting investors to sue its parent biz Alphabet for failing to disclose the issue.

    Continue reading
  • Google swats away £3bn Safari Workaround ad-tracking cookie lawsuit in Supreme Court victory
    Campaigners' case had 'no real prospect of success'

    Google has successfully fought off a £3bn lawsuit brought in London over ad tracking cookies, beating the Google You Owe Us campaign in the Supreme Court of England and Wales.

    The case, brought in 2017, had "no real prospect of success", the Supreme Court unanimously ruled this morning, in a devastating blow for organisations hoping it would create new law allowing them to easily launch opt-out class action lawsuits against companies who leak user data or whose data stores are broken into.

    Former Which? director Richard Lloyd was the frontman of the case. He lost because his legal team filed suit against Google "without attempting to show that any wrongful use was made by Google of personal data relating to that individual or that the individual suffered any material damage or distress as a result of a breach", as the court ruled.

    Continue reading
  • No return of the JEDI: Supreme Court declines to hear Oracle's challenge to now-dead cloud deal
    Blown up like a Death Star

    The US Supreme Court has brushed off Oracle’s complaint that it wasn't awarded the Pentagon's $10bn winner-takes-all Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) cloud contract.

    On Monday, the top judges declined to hear the database giant's case filed back in January. At the time, the Dept of Defense hadn’t yet cancelled its ten-year mega-IT deal that was awarded to Microsoft in 2019. Oracle and Amazon Web Services protested and attempted to overturn that decision by suing the federal government.

    Oracle claimed it was unfair for the DoD to award the contract to a sole company, and that there were clear conflicts of interests in the procurement process since AWS was actively trying to recruit a government employee handling the negotiations.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022