Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTDISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
CAPITOL RECORDS, INC., et al.,Plaintiffs,v.
MEMORANDUM OF LAW & ORDER
 Civil File No. 06-1497 (MJD/LIB) JAMMIE THOMAS-RASSET,Defendant.Andrew B. Mohraz, David A. Tonini, and Timothy M. Reynolds, Holme Roberts& Owen, LLP; Felicia J. Boyd, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP; and Matthew J.Oppenheim, Oppenheim Group, LLP; counsel for Plaintiffs. Joe Sibley and K. A. D. Camara, Camara & Sibley, LLP, and Brant D. Penney andGarrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, counsel forDefendant.Adam D. Kirschner, United States Department of Justice, and Gregory G.Brooker, Assistant United States Attorney, for Intervenor United States ofAmerica.
I.
 
INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Judgment[Docket No. 435] and Defendant’s Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment and
Renewed Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law [Docket No. 437].
CASE 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-LIB Document 457 Filed 07/22/11 Page 1 of 43
 
2
II.
 
SUMMARY OF THE COURT’S OPINION
 
The Court grants Thomas-
Rasset’s motion and reduces the damages award
to its constitutional maximum of $2,250 per song
–
three times the statutoryminimum.The Court is intimately familiar with this case. It has presided over threetrials on this matter and has decided countless motions. It has grappled with theoutrageously high verdict returned in a case that was the first of its kind to go to
trial. The Court is loath to interfere with the jury’s damages decision. However,
the Constitution and justice compel the Court to act.The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing anddistributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severeand oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviouslyunreasonable. In this particular case, involving a first-time willful, consumerinfringer of limited means who committed illegal song file-sharing for her ownpersonal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is themaximum award consistent with due process.This reduced award is punitive and substantial. It acts as a potentdeterrent. It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its
CASE 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-LIB Document 457 Filed 07/22/11 Page 2 of 43
 
3sole discretion, but the decision was not for this Court to make. The Court hasmerel
y reduced the jury’s award to the maximum amount permitted under our
Constitution.
The Court further grants Plaintiffs’ request to amend the Judgment to
include a permanent injunction, but declines to enjoin Defendant from making
available Plaintiffs’ wo
rks because, as the Court previously held, the CopyrightAct does not provide a making-available right.
III.
 
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs are recording companies that owned or controlled exclusiverights to copyrights in sound recordings, including 24 at issue in this lawsuit. OnApril 19, 2006, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendant Jammie Thomas-
Rasset alleging that she infringed Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings
pursuant to the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 106, 501-505, by illegallydownloading and distributing the recordings via the online peer-to-peer filesharing application known as Kazaa. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, statutorydamages, costs, and attorney fees.The first trial on this matter began on October 2, 2007. On October 4, 2007,the jury found that Thomas-
Rasset had willfully infringed all 24 of Plaintiffs’
CASE 0:06-cv-01497-MJD-LIB Document 457 Filed 07/22/11 Page 3 of 43
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    19 p.
    Capitol v. MP3tunes order on motions for reconsideration
    Ben Sheffner
    119 Reads
    27 p.
    Order on motions to dismiss in Craigslist v. 3Taps
    Ben Sheffner
    209 Reads
    2 p.
    Shepard Fairey Summary Judgment Order
    Ben Sheffner
    1620 Reads
    43 p.
    One 3 Two, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in AP v. Shepard Fair...
    Ben Sheffner
    2056 Reads
    70 p.
    AP motion for summary judgment vs. One 3 Two, Inc.
    Ben Sheffner
    2530 Reads
    1 p.
    Order Denying Nesson Amicus
    Ben Sheffner
    1205 Reads
    12 p.
    Nesson Amicus Brief
    Ben Sheffner
    1319 Reads
    13 p.
    Defendant's Motion to Reduce Award
    Ben Sheffner
    1572 Reads
    10 p.
    Motion for Injunction
    Ben Sheffner
    1336 Reads
    1 p.
    Jammie Thomas-Rasset Verdict
    Ben Sheffner
    2439 Reads
    2 p.
    Nesson motion for pro hac vice
    Ben Sheffner
    1017 Reads
    135 p.
    Record Labels' appellate brief in Sony v. Tenenbaum
    Ben Sheffner
    2165 Reads
    2 p.
    Order denying motion for reconsideration
    Ben Sheffner
    1040 Reads
    6 p.
    DOJ Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration
    Ben Sheffner
    1674 Reads
    9 p.
    Plaintiffs' Opposition to Motion for Reconsideration
    Ben Sheffner
    2326 Reads
    36 p.
    Plaintiffs' Opposition to petition for certiorari in Maverick Recor...
    Ben Sheffner
    1545 Reads
    4 p.
    Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration
    Ben Sheffner
    1676 Reads
    5 p.
    Mannie Garcia discontinuance
    Ben Sheffner
    854 Reads
    4 p.
    Order moving trial date in Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset
    Ben Sheffner
    896 Reads
    1 p.
    Order relieving parties of settlement talk obligations
    Ben Sheffner
    739 Reads
    3 p.
    Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal
    Ben Sheffner
    1650 Reads
    64 p.
    Order on motion for new trial/remittitur in Joel Tenenbaum case
    Ben Sheffner
    4376 Reads
    4 p.
    Joint motion re settlement
    Ben Sheffner
    1834 Reads
    17 p.
    Order on Motion to Dismiss in Williams v Scribd
    Ben Sheffner
    2456 Reads
    Notes
    Load more