Judge Lowers Jammie Thomas' Damages to $54,000 390
An anonymous reader writes "Judge Michael Davis has slashed the amount Jammie Thomas-Rassett is said to owe Big Music from almost $2,000,000 to $54,000. 'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music. Moreover, although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages.' The full decision (PDF) is also available."
My favorite part (Score:5, Informative)
Judge Davis also indicated that he found even the reduced amount to be "harsh" and that, were he -- rather than a jury -- deciding the appropriate measure of damages, the award would have been even lower than $54,000. But he felt that since the jury had determined the damages, it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My favorite part (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
Treble damages? Were the shared songs THAT bad?
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Trouble with trebles?
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in perspective, $54,000 would buy a house in her neighborhood.
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. $54,000 is one THIRD of the median home price. Where do you get your information, and why did you bother posting that?
Quit trolling. The original statement was:
To put it in perspective, $54,000 would buy a house in her neighborhood.
So here you go. A house for $54,000 in Brainerd, Minnesota: http://kurilla.com/listing.cfm?MLS=188019 [kurilla.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My favorite part (Score:4, Informative)
You could buy a house for £140k on my street. I know this, I'm living in it.
90% of the houses on my street cost £280k to £400k. I couldn't even get a mortgage on those houses, let alone afford to pay one.
Yet it would be perfectly reasonable to state that you could buy a house for £140k on my street. That it's not the median price, the mean price or indeed all that much above the lowest prices doesn't invalidate that, and does highlight just how much money £140k would be to someone in my area, even those living in the £400k houses.
So you may understand that statement to mean the typical price of an item, but I don't, and I'm guessing the person that originally made it doesn't.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The guy spouted something as a fact, while actually speaking out of his butt, and I called him on it, along with providing actual, factual data.
Your rant is cute, but ignores the most important point: the "actual, factual data" you were kind enough to link to completely vindicates that other guy and proves you to be incorrect, because she really could buy a house in that neighborhood for that amount.
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Funny)
They were MP3s - of course the treble was damaged
Re:My favorite part (Score:4, Funny)
Re:My favorite part (Score:4, Informative)
Well, he might have chosen to triple it, but treble damages are not part of the statute.
Willfulness merely raises the maximum amount that can be awarded per work infringed from $30,000 to $150,000. Nothing prevents a court from awarding the minimum of $750 per work infringed even for willful infringements.
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Informative)
Well, he might have chosen to triple it, but treble damages are not part of the statute.
This is correct; the decision addresses this issue:
Re:My favorite part (Score:5, Insightful)
His decision was that the amount awarded was in violation of the principles of remittitur. As a result, it was his duty to find the absolute maximum in damages which could be awarded based on the violations. In this case, he determined that sharing 24 songs could be worth, at most, $54,000 in damages ($2,250 per song).
He ALSO felt that, while that was the maximum in damages, he believed this case was not deserving of the maximum in damages. HOWEVER, he felt that while altering the damages awarded to be in line with remittitur were within his powers, he did not feel that lowering it further were, and thus let the judgement of the jury stand as much as possible.
It's still BS (Score:2, Troll)
How the hell is a song worth $2250?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's still BS (Score:4, Insightful)
Minimum is $750, and that is tripled in case of willful infringement, which is what jury decided was the case.
As he said in his ruling, you can't only look at the actual damages, since this fine needs to serve as a deterrent, too. If you are only going to pay the value of the songs you downloaded when you get caught, then there would be no deterrent to downloading songs for free.
Re:My favorite part (Score:4, Insightful)
...it was his province to determine only the maximum amount a jury could reasonably award.
If that language was used in the official decision then that means that the maximum allowable fine per song would be set to $2,250 = $54,000/24 right? Is that how legal precedence is established?
It still seems quite high. I wonder if another case could appeal to get it lowered even further to something like, say, $5.00 per song. I mean, when you think about it, $54,000 could buy someone a 4 year education, a really nice car, could be used for a downpayment on a decent home, or, for the philanthropic, would be a very sizeable charity donation. That money that Jamie Thomas has to pay, now, could be used for some very important things that could help progress society (as in, employing a home builder or auto manufacturer, helping Jamie grow educationally to become a more productive member of society, etc.) Instead, it is going to line the pockets of some already very rich folk who are probably going to spend it on blow and hookers, or maybe, at best, a very overpriced car that contributes to little more than an ego.
Lame.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might be able to get more money by appealing, but you run the risk of losing in a higher court and completely screwing yourself for every lower court judgment. This is also why some things are just let go/settled (possibly for LOTS of cash) in a lower court...you can't set precedent if the other side lets you win in a low court. So, if the ACLU is trying to attack someone for rights violations, they may choose to rol
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should sharing be a crime at all? These laws were only set up to provide a means to promote the arts and sciences. They're not holy, they're just an attempt to implement a system. The Founding Fathers had many doubts about it. Was it a good idea? Would it work? Would it hurt more than help?
The Internet has shown us how very easy sharing is. We can easily see that forbidding it doesn't work. Sharing cannot be stopped. Technical means can't stop it, and neither can legal means. Prohibition was
Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insane (Score:4, Insightful)
$54,000 is still a crazy amount all things considered, but hopefully this judgment can stand as a sort of benchmark for future ones, even if it's not setting a precedent.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the statutory *minimum* for copyright infringement in this case would have been $18,000. So that was the lowest number the judge could come up with. Because of the strong arguments that the behavior was "willful" and the strong need for deterrence because of the low cost of infringement and high cost of enforcement pushed him into the "treble damages" routine, just tripling the minimum number and saying that is basically as high as you can justify for the purposes of deterrence.
Still,
Re:Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insa (Score:4, Insightful)
Still, I think $18,000 is a number that already more than took into effect the need for deterrence and costs of enforcement, since it's already massively higher than any actual damages or lost revenues, which are in the several hundreds of dollars.
I think the problem with the law is that there are two different things it is addressing. This case is about an individual who shared a handful of songs with a few people with no expectation of monetary gain. For that case, a few thousand dollars is a significant deterrent.
But there is also the case where someone decides to make a business out of selling illegally copied music. The statutory damages in the law are really meant to be a serious deterrent to this kind of business. Without being able to attach a really big number to each infringing activity, someone might decide that the risk of paying a few thousand dollars is offset by the big money you can make by selling music without having to pay any artists.
I think the law itself is reasonable, it just gets really ugly when it is applied to individuals. They probably need to expand the law to distinguish personal file sharing from commercial intent. That could result in reasonable penalties for infringement. It sounds like the judge was doing the best he could to provide justice while still following the law.
Re:Alt Title: Judge Makes Damages Only Mostly Insa (Score:4, Informative)
Look on the bright side: $54k isn't going to pay RIAA's fees, either.
The RIAA has probably spent a million dollars on this case.
Some relation? (Score:5, Informative)
The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.
Re:Some relation? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think you missed the "distributing" part.
learn to read? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:learn to read? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps, but I didn't miss the part where the judge explained (citing case law) that statutory damages are intended to be a replacement for unproven and potentially unprovable actual damages.
Re:learn to read? (Score:5, Informative)
the average seed ratio is between 0 and 2 uploads per download. 100 is possible, but highly unlikely. 3000 is absolutely absurd, especially for someone who is supposedly only sharing 24 songs.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the "distributing" part.
She handed out 3000 x 24 songs?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Some relation? (Score:4, Insightful)
The wholesale price of 24 songs is $16.80. $54,000 is over 3,000 times the maximum possible damages.
What kind of punishment would I get for shoplifting a $16 CD? Isn't petty theft like a $500 fine and community service? This guy didn't even steal anything.
Incorrect analogy. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not the downloading, it's the uploading.
The correct analogy would be:
What sort of punishment would you get is you printed off 3000 CDs of copy right protected music, and gave them away for free with out the permission of the copy right holders?
-Rick
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh the joys of civil court. They don't have to prove that she uploaded the music, just that it is the most likely explanation.
-Rick
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Uploading 3000 copies would take quite a while on a typical broadband connection. Long enough that it seems rather unlikely any defendant has yet done it.
Re:Incorrect analogy. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, assuming he had a share ratio of 100 per song, that number is a good ballpark figure.
Given the nature of the Internet, and how long the defendant was known to be sharing, it's perfectly reasonable to allege that the works were shared with over 100 people each.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Re:Incorrect analogy. (Score:4, Informative)
Where did you get 3,000 CDs?
It was right in the parent post.
See that little 'parent' button right next to 'reply' ? Try clicking it some time. It might give you an insight into what everyone else is talking about.
You'll see how this works in a few hours when this post is modded flamebait due to others doing exactly what you did, not reading the parent post and thus replying to this comment 100% out of context :P
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know fair use doesn't allow receiving a backup of something from another individual, but it should. If it did, though, what would the great big corporations do if they could only sue downloaders
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Saying he didn't steal anything is a bit much unless he actually had a legitimate copy of whatever songs they said he infringed.
Copyright infringement and theft are completely different, unrelated things.
Shoplifting for fun and profit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps that's the lesson to be learned here. Don't pirate music, just go down to the local music store and steal it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I believe this? No, but this is the kind of math that would be used. Of course, you'd need to justify not only how man
Re: (Score:2)
You're just going to give up and pay their $20k (10-track album) extortion charge? I'm not exactly broke, but I don't have that kind of cash sitting around in my rainy day jar. Maybe at $200 a song (which, is memory serves, isn't too far from what they ask for in the "pay up and we won't sue" letter) that makes sense.
Re:Some relation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Better three thousand than sixty thousand times - but it's still way too much. Hopefully the greedy bastards at the RIAA will appeal this and get slashed even lower next time.
Quick! (Score:3, Insightful)
Penalties that can actually be paid? Preposterous! My God man, next thing you know they'll say gay marriage is acceptable! Harumph!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Multiples of reasonable and resemblance to actual damages done are almost entirely unrelated. In this case both are pretty accurate. You could be the guy who uploads a screener of Avatar and could quite reasonably have done several million dollars in damages, but that's hardly payable. Conversely, they could track you down for seeding an album that NOBODY ever downloaded, and hit you for a much-more-payable three grand despite having done precisely $0 in damage.
That said, both are pretty accurate in this e
Sigh, more piracy... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They need to (Score:2, Interesting)
although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages
Plaintiffs should, without a doubt, be required to prove actual damages. If they can't, their case gets thrown out. That is how it should be. I don't think it would work this way with anything physical. If someone stole a CD from a music store, that cost $10, they cost $200 in labor, and $150 in court costs, they shouldn't have to pay anything more than $500 (assuming we are inflating the price for deterrence). If I said that I shouldn't have to prove what the CD costs and say that the CD is worth $10,000
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They need to (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of enforcement is pretty high, so actual damages might have to include those.
This is totally absurd. If I steal a bread and the bakery develops their own hitech satellite surveillance system to catch me, they couldn't possible claim that they lost a billion dollars because I stole a bread.
If the cost of enforcement is more that the actual damages, it's a stupid business decision and clearly their problem that they chose to do it.
Re:They need to (Score:4, Insightful)
I have a restaurant. You run around town telling people we spit in each and every plate that goes out. I've lost business because of it. Are you saying I'd have to go and find each and every person that didn't come to my restaurant because of your lies? Even if I could find them all, what possible way would I have to convince them to testify for me?
Any simple solution to a complex problem is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They need to (Score:4, Informative)
I assume you're proposing your idea of slander and damages, not trying to recite your current understanding of the law in this area.
IANAL, but a quick google turned up this interesting page about defamation and harm. Quoting (emphasis mine):
So, in your precise scenario, spreading lies (verbally or published) that damage my business reputation are automatically presumed to cause damage. According to this Wikipedia page [wikipedia.org], all states of the United States except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee consider "allegations or imputations injurious to another in their trade, business, or profession" to be defamatory per se.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Slander per se != slander.
Re: (Score:2)
If I knee you in the groin, your actual monetary damages are -zero-. If I kick hard enough, I may even save you some money that you'd otherwise have to spend supporting children...
Stealing? (Score:5, Insightful)
'The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music.
I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything. Plus, WalMart owns the CD, Warner does NOT own the music. In the US, this "property" belongs to all of us; the "content creator" has a limited time monopoly on its publication, not ownership.
If I steal a CD and get caught I have a misdemeanor criminal charge and a few hundred dollar fine, but if I infringe copyright and get caught it costs $50k. This is better than before, but still very bad.
Pedantic much? (Score:2)
You don't think that a strict distinction between theft and infringement is just a tad pedantic?
Not when the penalties are so out of whack... (Score:2)
When the penalty for actual, physical, potential-to-cause-real-violence theft is three orders of magnitude smaller than point-and-click infringement, then no, it's a very important distinction.
The words "tart" and "molarity" can both be used to indicate degrees of acidity, but even though they can both mean essentially the same thing, there's an important difference.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically you're right, but not in the way you mean. If you're not a chemist "molarity" means nothing at all while "tart" is known to anyone who enjoys food. Likewise, "infringement" holds little meaning to someone not steeped in intellectual property law while theft is comprehensible even to a child.
When you want to explain something in a way that will make sense, it helps to use words the reader will understand. Nitpicking the precise fit of those words is the very definition of pedantry.
Re: (Score:2)
I take issue with the language used. If I download and then upload a song, that's copyright infringement. If I walk into WalMart and shoplift a CD, that's stealing. WalMart has been deprived of their property. In neither case has the record company been deprived of anything.
The record company has been deprived of its right to distribute.
Instead of talking about Walmart and stealing CDs, consider if you copied a print by a famous artist and started selling it yourself. You haven't "stolen" from the artist, per se, but you are certainly infringing that artist's exclusive right to reproduce his/her work.
The simple version is that it isn't yours to give away, whether or not you profit from it.
Welp... (Score:5, Insightful)
...I think it is still a bit much, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was. I like that the judge acknowledged that he wasn't doing this because he sympathised with the defendant, but rather was disgusted with the punishment based on the crime. The reasons he gave for changing the amount are the way a judge SHOULD be.
It's a positive (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Until overturned on appeal.
No, actually, that's just my inner cynic talking. IANAL, so I don't know whether the pigopolists even have an appeal path. If they have one, I can't imagine them not using it, since allowing "the principle that the statutory damages must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual damages" to stand in precedent would seem to be quite undesirable to them. Proportionality and reason are definitely not among the weapons of the RIAAish Inquisition. Reasonable limits on damages kinda
Re: (Score:2)
If they have one, I can't imagine them not using it
I don't know about that. I think there is logic in not pushing this issue. There is no way you can tell me that $54,000 is not a deterrent. In fact, I would be more scared of that than a $2 million judgement. With $2 million, there is no way I can pay and so I can start pursuing bankruptcy to get this off my back. But $54,000 is payable over several years by most people and so it would be hard to get out of that.
The bottom line is that they now have a judgement with a tough penalty that can stick. Als
Actual damages are 35 cents per work (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work (Score:4, Insightful)
To say that that a copyright holder could only recover his actual damages would render the law meaningless. That is why the law allows for statutory damages "in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court
considers just." Three times the minimum does not seem excessive as a matter of law to me.
Re: (Score:2)
The judge seemed to indicate he thought $54,000 was still high, how did he settle on that number?
Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work (Score:5, Funny)
The judge seemed to indicate he thought $54,000 was still high, how did he settle on that number?
Hmmm, if only he wrote some sort of opinion that explained his reasoning...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be the actual damages resulting from her not buying the music herself. However, her uploading did allow many others to cause the plaintiffs the same damages. We just don't know how many.
Personally I'd probably have aimed more at $10k than $50k, but I don't think that it is unreasonable for the court to take a position that punishes people for violating the intent of a law. Otherwise, what point is there in having the law?
Re: (Score:2)
The maximum actual damages is ~35 cents per infringed work, since the wholesale price is ~70 cents and the expenses are around ~35 cents. Under constitutional principles, the statutory damages awarded should not have exceeded $1.40 per infringed work, or a total of $33.60. Even the reduced award is 6428 times the actual damages, a grossly excessive amount.
Is that the case even if distribution is involved?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about the distribution part?
There was no evidence of her acting as a distributor. That would have required proof that she
-disseminated copies
-to the public
-by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by a rental, lease or lending. There was no proof of any of those.
Re:Actual damages are 35 cents per work (Score:4, Informative)
NewYorkCountryLawyer, why do you insist on ignoring the DISTRIBUTING side of things?
I don't ignore it. I just recognize that in this case there was no proof of
-her disseminating copies
-to the public
-by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease or lending....
all of which are required for distribution under the Copyright Act.
defusing the situation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, call me paranoid, but could this be an attempt to defuse the situation? $2M damages for 2 CDs worth of songs is outrageous enough to get the attention of even the most complacent. $54K, although a heavy burden, is significantly less so and (seems to me) much less likely to cause a general backlash.
Re: (Score:2)
You're basically accusing the record companies of controlling the actions of this judge somehow. To make such an accusation, which is serious, you ought to have some pretty good evidence.
Question (Score:2)
She'll never work again (Score:5, Informative)
As has been pointed out, that's roughly the value of a house in the area of the country she lives in. She's married now so I'm guessing she'll quit her job (if she hasn't already), and never work for a wage again. Since she can't get rid of the judgment by declaring bankruptcy, she has no incentive to ever earn money that will only be taken away from her.
So the RIAA has only succeeded in removing one person from the labor pool. Congratulations.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unless the RIAA snuck in an extra provision to the Bankruptcy Act (and I wouldn't put it past them), civil judgements ARE generally dischargeable in bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Act ReForm bill passed a few years ago does make it more difficult to declare real bankruptcy (Chapter 7) rather than slavery bankruptcy (Chapter 13). I'm sure the RIAA would prefer to have t
Re:She'll never work again (Score:4, Insightful)
So? I’d hire her exactly because of her refusing to cave to the bullshit reality of others.
That makes her reliable not to fall for schizophrenia-like diseases, like religion, strong irrational beliefs, being detached from reality etc.
Which is a great and rare quality to have.
Also, I’d hire her for minimum legal wage, and unofficially pay her a lot more.
No, they can't (Score:3, Interesting)
Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's a spot of irony for you...
We used to say, "Dude, it's just infringement. It's not really theft."
Now we say, "Christ, it's just petty theft."
Off-topic but (Score:4, Informative)
I'm a student-IT assistant at my university (it's like $40 a week, but I don't have to do anything). Part of this job is handing out infringement notices.
I've only done a few, but I have to say - they're doing these right. First of all, they are sending out DMCA C&Ds (which is an order to remove the infringing material i.e. delete it, and not get caught again), not lawsuits. Second, they have the list of the exact files, infringing products, dates and times, and checksums - all linked to the IP address which has been duly looked up by our IT department (we are, after all, an ISP and bound by the same rules). They actually send the whole thing along as an XML file, with a custom schema
Maybe they're just laying off a bit because it's college students. But they're really being quite reasonable IMHO - and this is coming from someone who did, and does, hate the MPAA/RIAA with the burning passion of a thousand firey suns. No lawsuits, and it effectively boils down to a warning. If it comes to it, they leave discipline to the university (who will cut of 'net access, or worse).
Big media is still a leech, contributing little of value to the creative process - but when they make an accusation, they at least aren't being dicks about it.
YMMV.
The only reason it got lowered: (Score:3, Insightful)
Their agents found out, that this is the maximum amount they can squeeze out of her, without her declaring bankruptcy, and them getting nothing.
$0 (Score:3, Insightful)
No damages of any amount are appropriate when the "crime" in question is virtuous act of making recorded music available to all, thereby enriching the people as a whole.
Re:3 - 5 years? (Score:4, Informative)
Well, "he" is a single mother of 4 who works w/ a Tribal Council, meaning she is probably paid a little better than a social worker. Considering the fact that you can buy a decent house in the boonies around Duluth for $60,000, I'd say that this will greatly cut into her kids' college fund.
RTFA
Re:3 - 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Those kids were never going to college.
She's a single mother of 4, that means not only did she not have the sense to not get knocked up without proper support, she did it 4 times. There isn't a lot of common sense in that family so its highly unlikely any of her rugrats are going to do anything more than Janitorial service. Its possible, but its just not a realistic expectation.
Or, you know, it's possible that she was married and that her husband ran off with another man, or mysteriously disappeared from a bar one day, or was killed in an auto accident, or a million other things. But don't let facts like having no idea what her situation is get in the way of your right to sneer at her.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:3 - 5 years? (Score:5, Insightful)
Depending on his salary and how much he wants to spend on living expenses, he can pay that off in a few years.
And if he didn't have to pay it off, he could, you know, spend the money on something that enriches society, like, say, purchasing a piece of real estate and thus maybe helping someone retire, purchasing a LOT of music legally and thus, compensating the artists justly, purchasing some new gizmos and gadgets that help sales rates and thus, help companies like Apple and Motorola and Google and so on continue to produce new, good products. In other words, he could spend that $54,000 on living and that money would get distributed throughout society. Now, instead, it will filter into the check books of record execs and lawyers and be spent in the brothels of hell, thus bringing nearer the inevitable hell on Earth apocalypse....or on hookers and coke.
1) It sets an example. Don't get caught
To which I respond:
Come a day there won't be room for naughty men like us to slip about at all
-Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity.
Re: (Score:2)
54k for a kidney and part of the liver?
Couple of questions does the liver grow back or do I need to cut back on drinking, and where can I sign up?
I'd like that, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm hoping that this is the death blow for the RIAA.
I'd really like it if it was, but I don't see how this could have that result.
It's not like they could have gotten the two million from this poor person anyways. About 50k is probably the limit they would have gotten from her anyways. She'll be in debt to the RIAA until she dies from old age, most likely. My college loan was less than that (about half actually) and I'm *still* paying on the bastard.
And a precedent in that court was set. Payoff is: $750 * 3 * [number of songs]. Wait until they catch some poor schmuck sharing his whole boot drive. It'll be back up in the millions pretty quick. 50k is what you get for sharing only 24 songs.
Nope, this doesn't go down in the win column for us I'm thinking.