By Andrew Orlowski
Copyright and the statutory damages framework are unchanged – as they were after the Tenenbaum verdict, in which Nesson had vowed to “put the record industry on trial.” Thomas-Rasset maintains her innocence in defiance of all reason – part of the reason for the original guilty verdict three years ago was that her peers felt she was insulting their intelligence, and wasting public money by bringing such a weak case to court. The plaintiffs will never see the damages, and don’t want it anyway. The defendant’s lawyers have been working pro bono, so there’s an opportunity cost for them, too.
why are we in it
what are we fighting for
an addition to the Register piece – subsequent to the initial rejection of my amicus offering, Judge Davis accepted my amicus brief, asked the riaa to respond, to which, when they did, i replied. The issues are now finally coming clear. Four trials now demonstrate that the court’s misapplication of the copyright law predictably leads to wildly excessive unconstitutional verdicts. Something is obviously wrong.
Orlowski concludes, “Nobody has become richer, or wiser. And Thomas-Rasset insists it must drag on. ® “
One can see that Orlowski does not play poker. as bob seger sings in face the promise, you won’t stop there. game still on.