top of page


Public·8 membres

To Download The PDF Of The Ben Settle Copywriti... ~UPD~

Before filing suit, Capitol Records offered to settle for $5,000, but Thomas-Rasset declined. The ultimate damage order came after several trials and appeals in 2007-2013. The damage award at one stage reached $1,920,000.

to download the PDF of the Ben Settle copywriti...

The RIAA sent Thomas a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer in August 2005.[1] Thomas declined the settlement offer. On April 19, 2006, several major record labels sued Thomas for copyright infringement by unauthorized downloading and sharing[2] of 24 sound recordings on Kazaa under the username "TEREASTARR@KaZaA". The labels' complaint alleged that Thomas infringed copyright on February 21, 2005, downloading and distributing songs by such bands as Aerosmith, Green Day, and Guns N' Roses.[3][4] Rather than seeking actual damages, the plaintiffs sought relief via statutory damages, assessed in accordance with 17 USC 92 504(c)(2).

Thomas contended that she was not the person behind the "tereastarr" account and denied having downloaded any files.[6][7] During the trial, her lawyer suggested her computer could have been under the control of people elsewhere by means of "a spoof, a zombie or some other type of hack".[8] Juror Michael Hegg later commented, "She's a liar."[9] A hard drive containing the copyrighted songs was never presented at the trial, though Thomas did turn over a hard drive that referenced neither Kazaa nor the infringing files to the plaintiffs' attorneys.[8][9]

The judge in Thomas' trial then, sua sponte (of his own accord), issued an order indicating a possible "manifest error of law" in connection with his "making available" jury instruction, on the ground that it may have contravened binding 8th Circuit precedent, and on the ground that a case upon which the RIAA and the Court had relied had been vacated by the Court which had issued it, without Judge Davis's knowledge.[12] Subsequently, the Court vacated the judgment, on the ground that "making available" could not be equated with "distribution" under "settled case law".[13]

The defense argued that Thomas-Rasset had no reason to download music, as she was one of the plaintiffs' best customers, having legally purchased over 200 CDs,[17] including many of the songs at issue, which she only ever ripped into WMA format, not MP3 as found in the shared folder.[18] On the stand, Thomas-Rasset speculated that perhaps her children or then-boyfriend had installed Kazaa on her computer without her knowledge.[18] Closing arguments focused on the fact that none of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset personally, but only to the IP address assigned to her Internet account.[18]

The jury was instructed to find that the owners' copyrights were infringed if the plaintiffs owned copyrights in the songs and there was an infringement of either the reproduction right (via Thomas-Rasset "downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners") or the distribution right (via Thomas-Rasset "distributing copyrighted sound recordings to other users on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners"). For each song reproduced or distributed, the infringement had to be assessed as willful or non-willful, and damages assessed accordingly. The jury was not allowed to be specific in its verdict about which rights (distribution or reproduction) were infringed, and the judge did not attempt to define distribution in the second trial.[20]

A few days later, the plaintiffs proposed a $25,000 settlement to Thomas-Rasset. She declined.[26] The plaintiffs then rejected the damage reduction ordered by the judge.[27] On June 18, the court appointed a special master to facilitate negotiations due to the parties' failure to reach a settlement.[28]

Second, a beneficiary can ask Medicare to compromise its claim for MSP recovery before a settlement is reached. Compromise is appropriate when the amount of recovery is too small to merit pursuit of the claim, and it is in the best interests of the Medicare program.[15] The CMS Regional Offices handle requests for compromise, which usually come from the attorney handling a liability claim.

In certain circumstances, the apportionments in the settlement and the arrangements for setting aside an appropriate amount of the settlement for payment of future Medicare covered health costs should be approved by the CMS Regional Office. Such approval is required when the individual will be entitled to Medicare within 30 months of the date of settlement, and when more than $250,000 is designated for future Medicare covered costs.[21]

[5]A series of court decisions interpreted the Medicare statute as not allowing MSP recovery from settlement funds in class action lawsuits. Thompson v. Goetzman, 334 F.3d 489 (5th Cir. 2003); Mason v. American Tobacco Co., 346 F.3d 36 (2d Cir. 2003); U.S. v. Phillip Morris, 116 F. Supp. 2d 131, 145 (D.D.C. 2000). In 2003 Congress overturned these holdings by amending the statute to expand the definitions of self-insured entities and primary plans from which MSP recovery is authorized. See 42 U.S.C. 1395y(b)(2)(A) and (B). 041b061a72

À propos

Bienvenue dans le groupe ! Vous pouvez communiquer avec d'au...
bottom of page