Jammie Thomas-Rasset, one of only to defendants in the RIAA's legal battle against illegal music downloaders, has had her judgment reduced from from $1.92 million to only $54,000. The Judge, finding the size of the judgment "so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience of the court", granted a remitter. This is wholly different than the Constitutional argument that a large statutory damage judgment violates due process under the law. If the RIAA strategy was to get a few big judgments to scare people into complying with copyright laws, they will likely appeal. Having such a large remitter in the case law would hurt a future litigation strategy.
The court noted:
Although Plaintiffs highlight valid reasons that Thomas‐Rasset must pay a statutory damages award, these facts simply cannot justify a $2 million verdict in this case. Thomas‐Rasset was not a business acting for profit. Instead, she was an individual consumer illegally seeking free access to music for her own use. ...
The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.
You can read and download the Court's order granting remitter below. (Copyrights & Campaigns blog has further analysis.)
Ray Beckerman of the blog "Recording Industry vs. The People" has a database of litigation documents from a large number of copyright infringement cases initiated by the recording music industry. This is a great resource for those interested.
There is no clear answer (is there ever with law?). It often depends on how many songs you are accused of sharing. The statutory minimum is $750 per song; the amount that would be applied in default. So ten songs? $7500. Settling with the RIAA appears to cost around $4000 to $5000.
Ars Technica has an article examining further the two options.
The amount of broadband traffic used on P2P file-sharing is now down to 20% in the United States while streamed media nearly doubled to 26% according to the Sandvine's "2009 Global Broadband Phenomena" report (via Ars Technica). This is an important trend that can likely be explained by a number of factors:
Increased availability of free, legally streamed media (Hulu, Pandora, and Lala)
Increased availability of free, illegally streamed media (ch131 and wisevid)
Increased availability of subscription service media providers (Netflix and Rhapsody)
All in all, it is easier than ever to access streamed media (legally and illegally) for free or for a low marginal price. As a result, the incentive to download media via P2P file-sharing has diminished. The key to continuing the trend away from P2P file-sharing is for the market to provide users access to free streamed media (supported by ad revenue) as well as subscription models that add addition value. However, with the foolish announcement this week that Hulu will begin charging for access in 2010, the media providers may very well resurrect P2P file-sharing all on thier own.
