Lady is fined $2 million for downloading 24 songs
phongone
1,652 Posts
This schitt is incredible and not a joke. I spit up my water reading this. A Minnesota jury found this lady guilty of copyright infringement -- essentially downloading 2 albums worth of songs. The judge fined her $80,000 per song for a total of $2.4M. All this for downloading songs by "No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow."Im guessing my potential fine may be in the billions 
FUSK THE RIAA. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.Illegal downloads of musical files will cost a Minnesota woman $1.9 million, a jury has decided. Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents. She plans to appeal, he said.Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the RIIA was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable.""We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.
FUSK THE RIAA. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.Illegal downloads of musical files will cost a Minnesota woman $1.9 million, a jury has decided. Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents. She plans to appeal, he said.Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the RIIA was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable.""We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.
Comments
Further proof that the current music industry needs to get torn down.
$80,000 per song!!!
given the "artists" involved, even that assessment's very debatable.
Excuse me, I meant torn down, stomped on, spit on, pissed on, and incinerated.
I just can't wrap my brain around the legality of fining someone that much money for such a petty crime. Can a legal expert please clear this processes up?
Thanks,
Perplexed in Portland
Calling KVH. As I recall, he not only can explain this kind of action, he believes it is justified.
If I am confusing him with some one else I apologize.
Isn't that how much Kelis wants from Nas per month?
Although I've got to say I wouldn't want her attorney's bills, let alone whatever penalty the court dreams up.
Same schitt.
Yup, she was probably charged with 24 separate counts of copyright infringement.
There's no way this fine will withstand appeal. If it does, gawd help us all!
This is not about a "fine" because this is not a criminal case. This is a civil case (Capitol Records v. Thomas) in which the jury decided that the defendant Thomas (the lady who allegedly uploaded all the songs) should pay $80,000 per song in damages to the record labels.
These civil damages are based on the set range of statutory damages available in Copyright Law: $750 to $150,000 per song.
In this case it seems the jury found her guilty of copyright infringement, then chose a figure slightly above half the available statutory damages: $80,000 per song, at 24 songs = $1.92 million.
This was decided in a Federal District Court, so it will likely be appealed to the Federal Court of Appeals. It's possible that the size of these damages create a live constitutional issue for appeal - in other areas (like car crashes), the Supreme Court has limited punitive damages in civil cases to a single-digit ratio (1:1 to 1:9) of actual damages to punitive damages.
And how exactly does a record label prove "actual damages" caused by some songs that were uploaded for a limited period of time?
That said, the "lady" in the case, Jammie Thomas, needs to get her story straight because it appears she was lying in court. Poorly coached!
What I'm wondering is, why her?
scapegoat intended to strike fear in our hearts -- and especially the hearts of those whose taste, like hers, runs toward the mega-popular, mega-tepid acts that the RIAA goes to bat for.
to send a message...
One of you might be next! Can a nearly anonymous data-tracking service show that you uploaded 1,000 songs to a peer-to-peer service? Then a righteous Minnesota jury may find that you owe the record labels...80 MILLION DOLLARS.
Mwaa-ha-ha-ha-ha!
big brother is watching
I agree that copyright infringement should be a crime, but I don't agree with the statutory damages in this case.
Just as an FYI to those unfamiliar with this case, let me share some facts from the case (some are disputed, but this is what the jury believed):
- the defendant had about 1700 songs in her shared folder on kazaa
- she had all the music on an external harddrive but claimed that the drive broke and that she no longer had it (the riaa had the evidence in captured screen shots)
- she never owned up to downloading the music but blamed it on either her kids, her ex boyfriend, or random internet pirates
- her lawyer tried to argue that she couldn't have done it because she had cds with some of the songs she was accused of downloading on them
- THEY OFFERED TO SETTLE FOR $5,000
I predict bankruptcy in her future.
I really wonder how this will play out if the fine stcks. There's really no way your average person could ever pay that off short of living in a box - maybe.
Perhaps the trick is to incorporate a business and download the songs on behalf of the business so it is liable and not you personally.
"My Boss at Soulstrut Inc. told me to download these songs. I thought it was ok or something? Maybe? You should talk to them, I just work here."
I interviewed a guy who received a settlement letter from the RIAA for a story - he said they'd just have to take him to court because there was no way he could come up w/that kind of money. I told him that they average $30k per song in court and he responded that that still wouldn't make him have 5 grand to pay them.
i'd imagine that the RIAA picks and chooses who it sues. this woman never claimed she didn't have the $5,000, rather, she thought that they were "extorting" her.
the amount of the copyright fines are law. they might be wildly out of wack, but arguing with the amount of the fines is like arguing that the amount of your speeding ticket will not stand up in court. the laws would have to be changed first.
Bullies.
That said, settling is always cheaper. Attorneys make their money if their clients collect or not, especially RIAA attorneys.
And don't the special interest groups (RIAA in these areas) pretty much write these laws?
no, collection attys make money this way. the RIAA probably lost a million dollars on this case in attys fees. it went to trial twice. they don't expect to collect from this woman, the point of the trial was to use the coverage as a deterrent.
But their attorneys still get paid, that is my point. The collection attorneys may make money but may still collect nothing, or a fraction of the judgement. My main point here is that the civil court system is used in these cases not for justice, but for attorneys to get paid and special interests to exert control.
what do you even mean by "for attorneys to make money"? attorneys didn't invent this law, the legislature did.
we don't deserve to get paid for doing work?
this is the first statement by KVH that i can agree with wholeheartedly.