We didn’t consider that January 25, 2010
In Podcast 34 (to be released later tonight), we talked about the order lowering damages in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. As you will hear, we discussed whether the RIAA would challenge the order. What we failed to talk about is whether Jammie Thomas-Rasset would challenge the order. The judge’s ruling, which reduced the amount Jammie Thomas-Rasset owed to 1/36th the original verdict is still too high in the view of her lawyer. The main issue seems to be that the judge didn’t squarely decide whether or not statutory damages here are unconstitutional. A topic we address on this week’s podcast.
Related posts:
- Damages Reduced for Jammie Thomas-Rasset The judge in the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case just reduced the...
- Yet Another Thomas-Rasset Trial, Set for Oct 2010 This week, court documents were posted online indicating that Jammie...
- RIAA Offers Thomas-Rasset Settlement, T-R Rejects The RIAA offered to settle Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case for $25,000...
- Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset Update In the never ending saga of the RIAA v. Jammie...
- Podcast 34: Some Relation FBI Spying, Jammie Thomas gets a Break, and Joel Tenenbaum...
Posted in: Commentary by Ben Snitkoff.
