Woman fined $1.9 million for illegally downloading songs

[Sdaeriji]

Sorry if I missed a thread about this already.

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.

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.

This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.

The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.

Thomas-Rasset is married with four children and works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/min ... index.html

I'm curious how the jury justified $79,999.01 in damages per song, and how the RIAA intends on collecting $1.9 million from a mother of four.

[Maurepas]

man, fuck them...it may be cliche, but Im pretty sure No Doubt, Linkin Park, and the rest have enough money without picking on people, hell, I bet they dont even care...

the RIAA should go fuck themselves, Theyre more about the record labels than the artists anyway...

[Barringtonia]

A question I'd like answered is this:

If one kept the receipts for CD purchases, had lost the CDs but then downloaded the music - could one make a case in law that you did nothing illegal since you'd paid for the music?

[Largent]

I should begin by saying that I agree the situation is ludicrous but I believe the reasoning is that when most people download music it downloads automatically to your shared folder that people can then upload from. If 80,000 people uploaded, even indirectly, from her folder, then that is probably where the justification came from.

[Sdaeriji]

I should begin by saying that I agree the situation is ludicrous but I believe the reasoning is that when most people download music it downloads automatically to your shared folder that people can then upload from. If 80,000 people uploaded, even indirectly, from her folder, then that is probably where the justification came from.

Why the jump from $220,000 in damages to $1.9 million in damages?

Not that I find $10,000 per song any less assinine than $80,000 per song.

[Techno-Soviet]

man, fuck them...it may be cliche, but Im pretty sure No Doubt, Linkin Park, and the rest have enough money without picking on people, hell, I bet they dont even care...

the RIAA should go fuck themselves, Theyre more about the record labels than the artists anyway...

This man, he speaks great truth.

[Maurepas]

I should begin by saying that I agree the situation is ludicrous but I believe the reasoning is that when most people download music it downloads automatically to your shared folder that people can then upload from. If 80,000 people uploaded, even indirectly, from her folder, then that is probably where the justification came from.

Meh, I still dont care, the Artists make their money through ticket sales anyway...its the Big Labels that make their money through album sales...and itll be a cold day in hell when I favor Sony over a random woman in Minnesota...

[Largent]

I should begin by saying that I agree the situation is ludicrous but I believe the reasoning is that when most people download music it downloads automatically to your shared folder that people can then upload from. If 80,000 people uploaded, even indirectly, from her folder, then that is probably where the justification came from.

Why the jump from $220,000 in damages to $1.9 million in damages?

Not that I find $10,000 per song any less assinine than $80,000 per song.

Greed I suppose?

[Newmanistan]

There's more to this story, obviously, for this to be justified.

I wonder if she will be listening to any of the downloaded songs while writing out the check.

[Ferrous Oxide]

Yeah, this'll get people on the RIAA's side.

[The Romulan Republic]

I'm curious how the jury justified $79,999.01 in damages per song, and how the RIAA intends on collecting $1.9 million from a mother of four.

Collecting...1.9 million...mother of four. For downloading 24 songs? Unless this woman happens to be a million-heir, or actually committed a crime beyond downloading records, that goes far beyond greed. That is evil. It is a human rights abuse. I would consider it one's duty as a citizen to defy such a court ruling. My first inclination is to say that the company or companies in question should be boycotted as well.

I wonder if anyone's considered how many lives would be ruined if this ruling were applied to everyone who's downloaded songs illegally? And when they can't pay? Do we jail them? Take all their property and throw them out on the street, wait for them to turn to crime in desperation, and then jail them?

This only changes if she did something much worse than simply what's described above.

[Conserative Morality]

Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

[Techno-Soviet]

Holy Christ... I support this, in part. This woman broke the law. She deserves to be fined. But 80,000 for each song? No. There is a line, and the RIAA has once more overstepped it.

$10 for each song and that's a massive overprice.

[Conserative Morality]

$10 for each song and that's a massive overprice.

I would think that would be within the bounds of reason. A bit excessive, yeah, but not entirely unreasonable.

[Newmanistan]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

[Sdaeriji]

$10 for each song and that's a massive overprice.

I would think that would be within the bounds of reason. A bit excessive, yeah, but not entirely unreasonable.

If we're talking about mere reparations, then sure, $10 per song is reasonable. But you have to add punitive damages and legal costs to that. I could support a much higher figure, perhaps as high as $1,000 per song illegally downloaded. But 80 times that? I find it difficult to believe there's any need for that except for pure greed or pure vindictiveness.

[Sdaeriji]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

Then press criminal charges. I still don't see the justification for up to $150,000 per song in a civil suit, regardless of whether the law allows it.

[Intangelon]

Agreed. The law was broken, a fine is in order, but the fine should be a criminal fine payable to the jurisdiction, and the RIAA should get it's lousy $23.76 -- and not a fucking PENNY more. So a $50 fine sounds standard, payable to the county clerk. RIAA gets its money in one-yen coins.

[Intangelon]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

True, but at $80K a pop? No.

[Techno-Soviet]

$10 for each song and that's a massive overprice.

I would think that would be within the bounds of reason. A bit excessive, yeah, but not entirely unreasonable.

If we're talking about mere reparations, then sure, $10 per song is reasonable. But you have to add punitive damages and legal costs to that. I could support a much higher figure, perhaps as high as $1,000 per song illegally downloaded. But 80 times that? I find it difficult to believe there's any need for that except for pure greed or pure vindictiveness.

Jeez, $1,000 a song? Are you trying to break my bank or something? :P

[The Romulan Republic]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

Its still excessive. Outrageously so.

[Flaming Psycopaths]

Consider that the RIAA is just as happy to screw the artists as it is to screw the public. They do not care about anything but lining their own pockets. A lot of the artists are not much better. I lost all respect for David Crosby when he was trying to get legislation passed that would allow his grandchildren to collect royalties from his songs for 60 years after he is dead. the guy who makes chairs for a living doesn't get a royalty payment every time someone sits in the chair he made. If he wants to keep getting paid he has to make more chairs. So a musician who wants to keep getting paid should have to keep performing live appearances. And the record companies? Well the cost of a CD with songs on it is only slightly higher than a blank CD. So they are entitled to only that much more. And that little bit should be split with the artist.

If every single person in the world wrote a few songs and then just lived of of the royalties, thell me, what would we all eat?

[Newmanistan]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

Its still excessive. Outrageously so.

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

[Newmanistan]

Consider that the RIAA is just as happy to screw the artists as it is to screw the public. They do not care about anything but lining their own pockets. A lot of the artists are not much better. I lost all respect for David Crosby when he was trying to get legislation passed that would allow his grandchildren to collect royalties from his songs for 60 years after he is dead. the guy who makes chairs for a living doesn't get a royalty payment every time someone sits in the chair he made. If he wants to keep getting paid he has to make more chairs. So a musician who wants to keep getting paid should have to keep performing live appearances. And the record companies? Well the cost of a CD with songs on it is only slightly higher than a blank CD. So they are entitled to only that much more. And that little bit should be split with the artist.

If every single person in the world wrote a few songs and then just lived of of the royalties, thell me, what would we all eat?

This I actually do agree with, but you have to fight the law; not the application of a law; nor fighting the law by breaking it.

[Moreau Catholic High]

As i expected, there is more to this story. If you're distributing these songs to others then, well, you're a criminal.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music ... 82Fk.CfNdF

Its still excessive. Outrageously so.

It's a lot, but I'm not crying for her. Nor will I stop using the legal websites over it.

I really have to applaud your law-abidyness.