Supreme Court Won't Hear Jammie Thomas Appeal

from the but-of-course dept

We didn’t think that the Supreme Court would grant cert to hear the appeal in Jammie Thomas’ case and now it’s been confirmed. As we’ve said for a while, neither Jammie Thomas’s case nor Joel Tenenbaum’s case,were ideal cases to take to trial, and both people mounted questionable defenses, which massively harmed their credibility. There are serious issues that could have and should have been covered in these kinds of cases, including the Constitutionality of certain levels of statutory damages. However, the way they went about this case made sure that it was doomed from the start. And, unfortunately, now it’s just more bad precedent out there.

Filed Under: , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Supreme Court Won't Hear Jammie Thomas Appeal”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

they should be ashamed of what they are doing. catering for the entertainment industries whilst doing what the government says is not following the law and in this and all other ‘file sharing cases’, the punishment is way over the top in relation to the so-called crime!! there isn’t a single song produced that is worth what she and others have been fined. and remember, it’s all so the governments friends can be encouraged to keep on supporting political campaigns!!

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

Pirate Mike once again supporting pirates. She should face up to her crimes.

Take a loopy tour of! You always end up at same place!
What are you stoopid pirates doing here? Mike supports copyright!
There, fixed that for ya.

Don’t you kids wish YOU were influential enough here to have imitators? Heh, heh.

Anyhoo, ACTUALLY, as I’ve said, I think the punishment MUCH too severe: should be quite limited — to, say, the $3500 bucks they originally wanted to extort. Lower fines but more certain to be caught would be better.

I’d mostly blame EFF or whoever backed her legal challenges in the first place.

out_of_the_blue says:

Re: Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

@Me: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I have to say I’m fairly proud of the Techdirt modus operandi. They do make it look unique

MY OPINION: Jammie Thomas knew that what she was doing was wrong. Who cares if the law system if flawed, it’s better to ignore the faults it produces and focus on the results…which have been apparently zilch to none.

Take a loopy tour of! You always end up at same place!
Where fanboys assert that working industries are doing it all wrong!

Ezekial says:

Re: Re:

I agree, she broke the law and deserves the punishment. She shared those files to 10s of thousands of people and should pay for every copy she gave away.

On a side note, why is this site called Techdirt anyway. I never see any tech stories anymore. It should be renamed copyright and patent dirt since 99% of the stories anymore have to do with those topics

bob (profile) says:

Re: Now

Not just the maximalists, but those who support artists everywhere. The only ones who are sobbing are the copyright deniers and the creator haters.

And it’s not a bad precedent, it’s a good one. Everyone predicted it would happen from the beginning except the tenured law professors who wanted to smoke up and dream wacko thoughts.

E. Zachary Knight (profile) says:

Re: Re: Now

How exactly does upholding these insane statutory damage fees actually support artists? Is all that money going to go to the artists who wrote and/or performed the songs she uploaded? No. None of it is.

That is stepping aside from the real issue that these damages will actually erode what respect of copyright the average person holds. When they hear that uploading 24 songs will get you fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are just going to laugh and go right on doing what they do everyday with the addition of complaining about how one sided copyright law has become.

Internet Zen Master (profile) says:

Um, hold up a sec

Exactly what precedent has been set here? A refusal to hear a case means just that. The Supreme Court refused to hear Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case, and her case alone.

I have no idea where the hell you people are coming up with the idea that just because the US Supreme Court denied Thomas-Rasset her appeal means that there’s some sort of precedent being set. All means is that the decision of whatever lower court ruled on the case last is the final outcome.

In short, we’re back to square one. No binding (nationwide) precedent has been set. The RIAA is still able to sue for outrageous amounts of cash if they so desire (however, after all the terrible press they received from the “we’re gonna sue you into poverty for rest of your life” angle, they’d have to be really stupid to try something like that again), and the people still have the ability to appeal to the courts over the constitutionality of exorbitantly high damages.

If something like this happens again, perhaps next time we’ll have a defendant who has a better case to take to trial.

As the Zen Master says, “We’ll see.”

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Um, hold up a sec

Ummm, for starters, it’s precedent in whatever circuit it was heard. There are only 11 in the country, so each one covers a lot of real estate (and district courts). And it’s not uncommon for one circuit to look at another when crafting an opinion about a case with similar circumstances. Certainly the lawyers will.

As noted elsewhere, this whole matter is the Frankenstein created by the zealots of EFF and tenured law professors who pushed her into the spotlight to further their cause and beliefs rather than act in the best interest of their client.

Now she gets to hold the bag while they tilt at their next windmill.

Internet Zen Master (profile) says:

Re: Re: Um, hold up a sec

Correct. In this case this precedent would cover the Eight Circuit. However, there is no nationwide, legally binding precedent being set (I’m not a lawyer, I’m simply basing this on what limited knowledge I have from my education in business law).

As for the argument of one circuit/the lawyers looking at the result here when crafting an opinion about a case, that’s pretty much a given. However, it’s also equally likely that they could dismiss what happened in the Eighth Circuit and come to their own conclusion on the matter.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...