$9,250 fine per song in Copyright violation case!

[Kiwon]

Woman found liable for sharing copyrighted music online

DULUTH, Minn. (AP) — The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman liable for damages for sharing copyrighted music online.

Jurors ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay record companies $220,000 — or $9,250 for each of 24 songs for which the companies sought damages. They could have awarded damages as low as $750 per song.

Story Link (http://www.usatoday.com/money/media/2007-10-04-downloading-music-trial_N.htm#uslPageReturn)

What got into this jury?

[Freak Out]

Brutal. Thats a load of cash for not having made any $$$ out of the "sharing". So it seems that the industry gets to set an example.

[SkinBasket]

She must have had some real shitty lawyers because that's not even a logical decision.

[MadtownPacker]

You're all going to lose all your money and go to jail!!

[Jimx29]

The riaa and their cronies are nothing but a bunch of hypocrytical pig fuckers. :roll:


I can only hope some lawyer that has some real clout does her appealing pro bono, and he shoves that "award" right square up their fat asses.

[Kiwon]

Numb, please tell me that you are not setting up a Haunted House display for the kids to go through on Halloween.

They might be scarred for life! :shock:

[the_idle_threat]

And they'll have lots of questions for mommy and daddy about monkeys humping pumpkins ... :lol:

[mraynrand]

I think she got what he deserved for ripping off songs. The penalty was far too high, but she should have been found guilty. I think it would have been more fair to fine her 99 cents per song or 9.99 per album. Plus the judge shouldn't fine her for any Beatles songs.

[SkinBasket]

I would think that to arrive at a number like 9k, they would have to show that she originated the file share and that she distributed it to however many people it takes times retail value to arrive at that number, which I'm guessing would be somewhere around 9000 people given CD prices.

Instead it looks like they pulled out a random person in the sharing string, blamed her for the world's piracy, and ruined her life financially - all for doing something millions of people do every day and then refusing to pay the RIAA's bribe.

Oh well, music's overrated anyway.

[GBRulz]

Brutal. Thats a load of cash for not having made any $$$ out of the "sharing". So it seems that the industry gets to set an example.

Exactly. There hasn't been much news lately on filing sharing violations, so the RIAA figured it was time to make headlines and put the scare back into people again.

She def should have been found guilty, but the amount of cash is ridiculous.

[mraynrand]

I would think that to arrive at a number like 9k, they would have to show that she originated the file share and that she distributed it to however many people it takes times retail value to arrive at that number, which I'm guessing would be somewhere around 9000 people given CD prices.

Instead it looks like they pulled out a random person in the sharing string, blamed her for the world's piracy, and ruined her life financially - all for doing something millions of people do every day and then refusing to pay the RIAA's bribe.

Oh well, music's overrated anyway.

They probably went after her because she couldn't afford a good attorney and they knew they could make an example out of her - scare the crap out of people who even minimally tweak the bounds of the law. Legal issues like this seem to more and more be about bullying tactics. The ACLU and personal injury whores for eaxmple file lawsuits in cases where they know the people they are battling can't afford to fight them. Often times, they actually can afford to fight, but it's easier to comply and/or cheaper to pay off the lawyer...errr...ahem...the person lodging the complaint.

[Jimx29]

They probably went after her because she couldn't afford a good attorney and they knew they could make an example out of her - scare the crap out of people who even minimally tweak the bounds of the law. You mean to say that a 30 yr old single parent Mom living on the reservation doesn't have the big cash roll??

These vultures have absolutely ruined her life, not to mention her kids now that will suffer cause of their greedy garnishments will probably leave very little to survive on.

They must of not been happy enough from a couple months ago when the went after 10 or so students at UW-EC, and forced all to "settle out of court", which then resulted in 3 of those students having to quit college cause they now have no money to pay for it..........Oh well, there's always burgers to flip :roll:

[Jimx29]

Go Jammie, Go :)


RIAA Defendant to Appeal Jury's Verdict
By David Kravets EmailOctober 08, 2007 | 12:25:45 PMCategories: RIAA Trial

Communism

The woman who lost the nation's first Recording Industry Association of America music pirating trial said Monday she is appealing the $222,000 verdict that a Duluth, Minnesota jury ordered her to pay last week for pilfering 24 songs.

Jammie Thomas, 30, said she would appeal, to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, on grounds of faulty jury instructions.

Specifically, it's Jury Instruction No. 15, here in full: "The act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners' exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."

"I'm so giddy right now, I can barely sit still," Thomas posted on her MySpace account, under the user name Tereastarr.

In short, she's appealing the concept that it was too easy for jurors to find that she infringed. Jurors were instructed to find liability if they found she had an open Kazaa share-file folder with music in it available to others, regardless of whether any downloading occurred.

"This can stop them dead in their tracks," said Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney. He noted that he received some 400 e-mails offering financial donations and legal services.

"They can't prove downloading unless there's a confession," he said.

The judge did not agree to the jury instruction in dispute until after the evidence phase of the trial was over. During those two days of testimony, the RIAA kept hammering away to jurors that more than 2 million users, including Thomas, were trading some 800 million files the Feb. 21, 2005 night in question.

The RIAA did not establish that any unauthorized person downloaded any of Thomas' files. But the RIAA reiterated to jurors that the only reason to use Kazaa was to share files with millions of users.

Safenet, the RIAA investigation service that nabbed Thomas, told jurors it downloaded nine of the files from Thomas' share folder and made screen shots of the 1,702 she was trading. But Safenet is authorized by the RIAA to download files.

It would be a bizarre result, to say the least, if Thomas or anybody else could be found liable for distributing music to the music industry.

The RIAA sued on just 24 songs. Thomas maintains she is innocent and was the victim of a spoof.

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-defendan-2.html

[SkinBasket]

The RIAA did not establish that any unauthorized person downloaded any of Thomas' files. But the RIAA reiterated to jurors that the only reason to use Kazaa was to share files with millions of users.


This is the part that just kills me. Convicting a person because they potentially could have done something illegal. Awesome.