http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns ... ?GT1=43001

 

 

 

MINNEAPOLIS - A replay of the nations only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result, finding a Minnesota woman to have violated music copyrights and ordering her to pay hefty damages to the recording industry.

 

 

 

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

 

 

 

Thomas-Rassets second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

 

 

 

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

 

 

 

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jurys finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jurys penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

 

 

 

Outside the courtroom, she was resigned.

 

 

 

Theres no way theyre ever going to get that, said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. Im a mom, limited means, so Im not going to worry about it now.

 

 

 

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didnt believe Thomas-Rassets denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

 

 

 

Camara said he and his client hadnt decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of Americas settlement overtures.

 

 

 

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle but she refused to name a figure.

 

 

 

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

 

 

 

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the greater weight of the evidence showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

 

 

 

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

 

 

 

Only Jammie Thomass computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa, Sibley said. They couldnt put a face behind the computer.

 

 

 

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rassets life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

 

 

 

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to jurors.

 

 

 

For the retrial, Davis instructed the jurors that in order to find Thomas-Rasset infringed any copyrights, they had to determine that someone actually downloaded the songs. He said distribution needed to occur, though he didnt explicitly define distribution. Before, Davis said simply making the songs available on the Kazaa file-sharing network was enough.

 

 

 

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

 

 

 

A woman in Minnesota was found guilty for file sharing by a jury because file sharing took place on her computer. She is now being charged an exorbitant fine by the music companies for "damages" caused by the downloading of 24 songs. The mother stated that she would be unable to pay the fines because she is a mother of four children.

Bringing shame to my home :shame:

Well that's just stupid.

Bringing shame to my home :shame:

 

Yeah cause someone that downloads 24 songs is the filth of humanity.

 

 

 

OT: How do you even get caught for downloading just 24 songs?

Well I hope the record company will make a dramatically reduced settlement... I doubt they want to be seen as a fatcat money-grabbing type company, but in the recession you never know... :roll:

 

 

 

I want to know how they worked out that each song caused $80,000 of damages though, that's ridiculous, the punishment should be buying each song as an individual single or something like that... perhaps paying double, but $80,000? That just makes the case lose any credibility at all.

At that much a song I'd owe a lot of money :shock:

Well that's [developmentally delayed]ed.

 

 

 

#-o

Looks like the music industry finally had some fun, in suing someone's [wagon] of.

 

-.-

 

 

 

Yet people will still go in their thousands pirating illegal software, and downloading ten times more music at once. She was an easy picking, and something they could resolve...

I hope they don't come home :|

Bringing shame to my home :shame:

 

Yeah cause someone that downloads 24 songs is the filth of humanity.

 

 

 

OT: How do you even get caught for downloading just 24 songs?

 

 

 

Well she got caught by:

 

 

 

Only Jammie Thomass computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa, Sibley said. They couldnt put a face behind the computer.

 

 

 

She must of downloaded a file of which the police put something in it...

 

 

 

80k a song is ridiculous, that jury is a joke. The RIAA has done a nice job of brainwashing the common people, who wouldn't download a car, if they could.

[hide=][/hide]

Damn, I don't have $400M...

The damn CDs the songs are on aren't even worth 80K. There are people out there who's illegally downloaded a Hell of a lot more than 24 songs but they decide to crackdown on some lady? The [bleep]?

Bringing shame to my home :shame:

 

Yeah cause someone that downloads 24 songs is the filth of humanity.

 

 

 

 

Well, it's certainly not good publicity.

 

 

 

She was actually originally accused of downloading about 1700 songs. The RIAA just lowered it to 24. She should have just tried settling it :|.

 

 

 

Source

According to this i owe somewhere in the region of $150,240,000, and thats on my nw computer, god knows what it would be with my old computers music file :thumbsup:

 

 

 

But tbh, this is just pathetic, its just a show really, because there is absoultely no way that woman will be able to pay, and the jury will know that.

 

 

 

Also, looking at this, it seems as if the only way to get prosecuted is to actually 'share' the files downloaded. So if you were to turn off the file sharing part of a music downloading program (very easy to do) you can't be charged with anything.

Why doesn't anybody sue the RIAA then? It'd make more sense than suing single moms and iguanas... You can sue for anything in America, something like that would actually be justified.

But was it only the download or was it actual sharing?

But was it only the download or was it actual sharing?

 

 

 

For the retrial, Davis instructed the jurors that in order to find Thomas-Rasset infringed any copyrights, they had to determine that someone actually downloaded the songs. He said distribution needed to occur, though he didnt explicitly define distribution. Before, Davis said simply making the songs available on the Kazaa file-sharing network was enough.

 

 

 

By that it sounds like sharing has to occur for any punishment (refer to my previous post)

I thought RIAA stopped going after downloaders.

Why doesn't anybody sue the RIAA then?

 

 

 

Can I sue them for putting out bad toilet paper? All that money they sue for and they put out bad quality toilet paper.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought RIAA stopped going after downloaders.

 

 

 

When was this? I never heard that...

Just another case of making a 'example' of an average person to deter others... The RIAA operative apparently just went for an easy target who isn't using a proxy to hide her identity, determined she has downloaded 24 songs and asked the ISP to release her personal information.

 

 

 

If RIAA wanted to really go after users, let's just say there are countless people who have songs in the range of 10-20,000 per hard-drive and more.. No, this isn't about punishing a typical mother, it's like a theatre scene played over and over again.. They sue a 'normal' person, so that another 'normal' person will think twice before downloading.

 

 

 

It obviously doesn't work since piracy is still exponentially rising every year and has been for over 5 years [1], maybe instead of suing normal consumers they could work out different distribution schemes, cheaper albums, no DRM, etc... To make consumption of movies/music as easy as possible... I'd say around $0.10 per track is still a very profitable business scheme when you consider all the new customers you'll be getting

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought RIAA stopped going after downloaders.

 

 

 

When was this? I never heard that...

 

Here

Out of all the people to make an example of, they pick out a mother who took around 2 albums worth of songs with 4 kids whom she probably has to pay to feed and educate? I highly doubt anyone will learn a lesson from this besides the overly strung up soccer moms who believes the Internet is the spawn of the devil. And lets face it, a majority of the file-sharers of the world are not strung-up soccer moms. Why not go after the bigger law-breakers, the ones who downloaded thousands of songs illegally who thought they were invincible from justice and had their computers craploaded with songs they never listen to but just downloaded because its free?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

 

Why the [bleep] is the RIAA immune to this? There's no way in hell someone would be fined $80,000 for stealing a candy bar, but it's "just" fine for a song? :roll:

That is some serious debt. Pretty messed up, I'm just glad that downloads can't be tracked back to me. God knows how much illegal [cabbage] I got on here.