The topic of copyright law that I found intriguing and interested in learning more about was the enforcement of damages when the infringement occurred in the digital sphere. The case of Jammie Thomas, a woman who used peer-to-peer file-sharing software to illegitimately download and distribute 24 copyrighted songs in 2009, was described in depth in the required reading. According to the required reading, the copyright holder's legal action was successful, and they were forced to pay $1.92 million in damages or $80,000 per song.

This kind of restitution for digital copyright violation is incomprehensible to me. There is no explanation for how this college student's allegedly infringement-related conduct could have cost the copyright holder $1.92 million. Physical products have not been taken, sales have not been halted by the downloading or distribution of the infringing works, and the infringement was not carried out with malice or a view to profit. At most, the defendant cost the plaintiff money that would have been spent on legitimately purchasing the songs. Considering that most digital music costs $1.99, it will probably be approximately $48. I intend to respond in this paper to the question of how a court analyzed this case and concluded that the student owes millions of dollars.

Looking into it, there were various permutations of this situation. The defendant in the case, known as Capital Records v. Thomas-Rasset, was initially found guilty and sentenced to pay damages totaling $220,000, or $9,250 per song. A new trial was granted based on judicial mistakes from the initial trial since this was one of the first instances involving damages for music file-sharing. The defendant was found to be responsible for $1,920,000 in this second trial, or $80,000 per song (Barclay, McSherry, & Lohmann 2015). The judge in the case reduced the necessary damages when this trial was discovered to have problems once more. The defense argued that the damages were unlawful since they did not reflect anything proportionate to the actual loss, which led to a third trial to determine appropriate damages. This upset the case's plaintiff, who asked that the third trial be held as planned. They desired numerous jury rulings establishing the legal precedent that these exorbitant damages are both valid and appropriate (Anderson, 2010).

The third trial went ahead as planned since the plaintiffs got their way. The defendant was ordered to pay damages of $1,500,000, or $62,500 for each song, in the third trial after the jury determined that the damages could be extremely high. The judge did, however, find that the damages, in this case, were not related to the real harm, and he decreased the mandated payment to $54,000, or $2,250 per song, as a result. Many of us who practice law from a distance could be happy with the outcome if it stopped here. Although I still believe the award is unjust at this point, it is not exorbitant enough for me to claim it is unconstitutional. I believe the majority of the populace would concur. The case, however, did not stop there. The defendant appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which decided that there is no constitutional cap on damages in copyright matters and affirmed the original court's $220,000 fine (Barclay, McSherry, & Lohmann 2015).

This person downloaded 24 songs, and as a result, was finally had to pay roughly $10,000 for each song for violating someone's copyright. This is true even though there was no actual theft, very little loss of revenue, and no intentional injury or profit-seeking. In addition, the plaintiff incurred significant financial loss by spending millions of dollars on the litigation process. Even though she wished to pay, the defendant was a nanny for a low-income family with multiple children who received energy aid. The plaintiff has no legal means of recovering damages (USA Today, 2013). This case, therefore, focused less on compensatory damages and more on warning people away from downloading and sharing copyrighted music. Since they were aware during the entire process that they would not be obtaining any of the enormous awards handed out by the jurors, the plaintiff wanted attention to guarantee that people are terrified of the potential consequences of these activities. It's interesting to note that they made a $5,000 settlement offer before the first trial and another offer if the defendant agreed to give $25,000 to a charity during the second trial. Both proposals were turned down (USA Today, 2013). This is probably due to the fact that the defendant lacked the funds to satisfy either demand, just as she lacked the funds to satisfy the judgments the jurors ultimately rendered. Should the plaintiff try to collect, the defendant intended to file for bankruptcy rather than pay the settlements (Wired 2013). This shows even more clearly that the plaintiff's goal was not financial, despite the proceedings' emphasis on money.

When looking back on this situation, the plaintiff's activities appeared to have been successful in some instances and unsuccessful in others. If copyright holders are able to show that you downloaded or shared copyrighted material unlawfully, case law has been established that allows for significant damages. But the digital world has also changed; currently, filesharing is more widespread than it was back then, people submit copyrighted works to safe harbor sites, and servers in non-US nations host copyrighted works. In certain aspects, copyright owners have greater legal recourse, but copyright infringers also have greater freedom to disregard the law.

References

Anderson, Nate. "Jammie Thomas' Third P2P Trial Looms; RIAA Complains about Cost."

Jammie Thomas' Third P2P Trial Looms; RIAA Complains about Cost,Ars Technica, 20

Oct. 2010,https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2010/10/jammie-thomas-third-p2p-trial-looms-riaa-complains-about-cost/.

Barclay, Michael, et al. "Capitol v. Thomas."Electronic Frontier Foundation,8 Sept. 2015,https://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-thomas.

Kravets, David. "Supreme Court OKs $222K Verdict for Sharing 24 Songs."Wired, Conde Nast,18 Mar. 2013,https://www.wired.com/2013/03/scotus-jammie-thomas-rasset/.

USA Today. "Woman Who Lost Downloading Case Says She Can't Pay."USA Today, GannettSatellite Information Network, 18 Mar. 2013,https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/18/downloading-case-cant-pay/1997127/.

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The case of Jammie Thomas a college student who was found guilty of illegally downloading and distributing 24 copyrighted songs using peertopeer files... View the full answer