|
And for those who will not be able to read through all this legal stuff - here is the verdict:
*****************
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively,
illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages
awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by
Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs - the
equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total
damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying
24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While
the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than
the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less
attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that
are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a
sufficient deterrent.
Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she
sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in
copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for
infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. In the case43
of commercial actors, the potential gain in revenues is enormous and enticing to
potential infringers. In the case of individuals who infringe by using peer‐to‐peer
networks, the potential gain from infringement is access to free music, not the
possibility of hundreds of thousands – or even millions – of dollars in profits.
This fact means that statutory damages awards of hundreds of thousands of
dollars is certainly far greater than necessary to accomplish Congress’s goal of
deterrence.
Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet
users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who
was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her
behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in
damages unprecedented and oppressive.
Accordingly, based upon the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the
jury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be
set by the Court after consultation with the parties.
2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is
VACATED. 44
3. Defendant’s Motion for New Trial, or in the Alternative, for
Remittitur [Docket No. 109] is GRANTED on the grounds set forth
in this Memorandum of Law & Order.
4. Plaintiffs’ unopposed Motion to Amend Judgment [Docket No. 116]
is DENIED.
|