Print
For the second time, a jury on Thursday found Jammie Thomas liable for willful copyright infringement, this time ordering her to pay fines totaling an eye-popping $1.92 million to the RIAA. The surprise decision breaks down to $80,000 for each of the 24 songs Thomas was found guilty of illegally sharing. According to ArsTechnica, Thomas let out a gasp as the fine was read.
"Good luck trying to get it from me," Thomas said when speaking about the verdict. "It's like squeezing blood from a turnip."
For those who haven't been following, Thomas in 2007 was initially accused of illegally sharing 1,700 songs, but the RIAA dropped that number down to 24. In October of the same year, a jury found her guilty and imposed a $222,000 verdict against her. The decision was later thrown out when U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he erred when giving his jury instructions that simply making songs available amounted to copyright infringement.
The RIAA, big winners in the retrial, told reporters that they have always been, and still are, willing to settle the case. Thomas' lawyer acknowledged the settlement offer, but said he plans to file numerous motions if Thomas chooses to continue the fight.
Image Credit: despair.com
Comments are closed on this article
silversov
June 21, 2009 at 5:05pm
This is bullshit. 200k for that!? there are millions sharing p2p mp3's and movies all over the place. Why dont they throw 200k fines at all of them? Stupid dicks are just trying to make an example of someone. Their cause is lost and they should go shoot themselves for being wankers.
Aaron_Daub
June 19, 2009 at 10:34pm
Honestly, I hope the RIAA sues me. Really, I do. There are a few ways to win this case.
1. How do they know the people who downloaded the songs didn't own them? The judge already asserted that just making the songs available for illegal download wasn't a crime, it was only a punishable offense if someone actually downloaded the songs illegally. Downloading an mp3 of a song you own is routinely seen as 'fair use' and not illegal. If the downloads can not be proven to be illegal, Jammie can not be found guilty.
2. How do they know it was me? This is a weak defence, but still adds a little layer of doubt. For all the RIAA knows, the uploadeder was some neighbour who accessed her open wireless network.
3. The previously mentioned 'the music isn't whole' defense. The prior comment explains it better than I can.
Cache
June 19, 2009 at 6:45pm
I would take a slightly different tack. The mp3's that were downloaded would be, by their very nature, inferior copies of original songs, and that downloading an mp3 would be akin to taping a song off the radio. Now if it were a lossless codec there would certainly be an easy point to make that the whole, entire music had been pirated, but in this case (much like the princess bride) it was only 'mostly pirated'.
However, since we can tape songs from the radio we have an already-established and accepted tradition where music that is not whole or complete may be taken in an as-is state without legal repercussion. In fact, some companies--such as Sony--have been the creators of this technology for decades. Now they wish to sue people using the technology and with the same fundimental rights as we have had for more than a generation becase they own data that was never included in the copies that are shared? Tsk, tsk, RIAA.
Because the music downloaded was not truly the legitimate copies that can be purchased via CD (or online music services), Ms. Thomas cannot be liable for stealing them, sharing them illegally, altering them, or anything similar. There are bit-by-bit errors that degrade the total 'musical experience' offered by a full and complete, unaltered lossless copy of the music in question. Further, the missing data was not merely chopped off at the beginning or end of the music in such a way as to fully recreate it on hers, or anyone else's computer by merely adding the missing data; no, the copies she was sharing could in no way ever be used in whole or in part to create the full, unaltered music the RIAA claims was shared. Ms. Thomas made no assertion that the music she was trading was complete and unaltered, nor did she try to profit from the sharing of these incomplete copies. In the very technical letter of the law, she has not violated the DMCA, and therefor cannot be guilty. Hope she wins on appeal.
JDK
June 19, 2009 at 5:06pm
Read elsewhere:
"This is like shooting the chicken because the horse got out of the barn.......ten years ago."
maniacm0nk3y
June 19, 2009 at 4:54pm
It's a slogan you can read often on other social sites. I won't specify because it's easy enough to find out for yourself.
One of the spokesperson recently stated that "it's not about the money". When they say it isn't, it is full and large. They believe they are losing billions and all that revenue BS. It's been proven that it is not the case. They are just milking everyone for all they have and not caring about anything else. They are also trying to scare other fileshares who in disbelief and disgust share some more.
This is the same women that was going to be charged a ridiculous amount for that other set of songs. She most likely wasn't the one who was downloading them in the first place! Even if it was 24 songs, almost every place with digital distribution sells these for .99 full charge. They actually want $80,000 is pathetic.
I won't go anymore, because it's probably been said many times over. All these companies care about is hits for the masses. When the artist dries up they are thrown to the side. There is no true "art" to mainstream music these days. There might be a gem but if they are not on the ball they will be forgotten for one hit wonders.
pastorbob
June 19, 2009 at 4:07pm
Let's face it folks, she wasn't just backing up her own purchased digital media. She was making the songs available for people to download without paying a dime for the songs. Contrary to how I may feel about the RIAA and MPAA, I don't think anybody has the right to do that.
I believe I have the right to make personal backup copies of all digital media whether it is a cd, a DVD movie, a song I downloaded legally, or even a software program. But I do not think that gives me the right to make copies of said media and pass them on to friends and family for their own personal use. Nor will I accept any illegally made copies from them.
LordPyro
June 19, 2009 at 1:46pm
good, maybe this will be a lesson to everyone else, personally I think if found guilty they should have to pay the maximum $150,000 a song.
Denis63
June 19, 2009 at 12:09pm
How do they expect people to pay for that? at my current salary, it'd take me over 60 years to make that much money, and thats giving 100% of my earnings to them. $1.20 (or whatever the average song goes for on iTines) is the most they should have to pay. $28.80 to the riaa and none of this would of happened and everyone could live their lives. but instead, this will piss people off even more. and when you're mad at someone, where is the incentive to give them money? If bands accually made money off their CD's, im sure we'd be hearing quite a bit more from them, and less from the labels. The RIAA/MPAA need to be shot, and dragged into this century.
-Denis
Tekzel
June 19, 2009 at 12:32pm
The problem is, these are rich old jacklegs that have made a very comfortable living riding on the backs of the folks that actually produce something worth (uh, sometimes....) buying. Most of the industry is hell bent on not only maintaining their existing outdated and unworkable business model, but using the power of their money to buy laws that will make that happen. Copyright law is a joke, just not a funny one. If I do work, I get paid for it once and that is it. I don't get to keep getting paid for it for my lifetime PLUS 90 freaking years. IF I invent something I get patent protection for what, 20 years? I have that time to actually make a product and make some money off it. I still have to actually PRODUCE something to get paid. Yet these jackasses have somehow greased the right pockets so they can keep getting paid for the same work, over and over.. and over again, for a period of time that is just hilarious. On top of that, most of the money doesn't even go to the people that actually DESERVE it.
Tenhawk
June 19, 2009 at 11:43am
it's simple insanity. They won't even be able to recoup LEGAL expences from this woman, let alone the punitive fines, and any sane person seeing this is going to view it for what it is... an absurdly stupid response to a minor infringement. Pirates will retaliate by downloading more and buying less, the publicity will further tarnish their image, and in the end they'll have spent more money with no hope of recuperating any significant portion of it on a fools errand.
The end result is predicatable... Prices for CDs climb to cover the morons Lawyers, so more people download and less people buy, and they get hotter under the collar and sue even more. The Cycle continues until one or more of the big labels actually faces financial problems from it, gets bought out by a smarter company, and someone in the corporation figures out how to make MONEY from the downloaders legitimately... much the same way they did with VCRs back in the day.
The labels obviously think that they can bully people into settling, thus make some money without the pubilcity of the full lawsuits like this one... and for most, they probably can. However it only takes a few people to stand up and take the bullet before they looks as bad as they really are. Unfortunately, here is someone who's taken the bullet.
What's really disturbing here is how obviously the legal system has been manipulated. The implications are a little chilling, because it implies both that the system is easy to twist and that the people doing twisting are too STUPID, or too untouchable, to do it with any degree of intelligence or subtlety. First that a woman can be brough to court for downloading TWENTY FOUR songs... that's just... No. That's beyond stupid. A Judge should have looked at that and immediately tossed it back to small claims court, or out alltogether. Twenty Four HUNDRED, maybe. Uploading 24 songs, possibly... But downloading 24 songs? The Judge, the Jury, and the Congressmen who set the laws in place to allow this are all imbeciles.
Downloading 24 songs is, at MOST, a 45 dollar offence. Arguably, uploading those same songs is a FAR greater offence, since they can be downloaded hundreds or thousands of times each, but merely downloading them is akin to shoplifting the same CD. If someone got sued for 2 million bucks for shoplifting a single CD, I can't imagine the reaction...
We live in a time where the tail doesnt merely WAG the dog... apparently it does most of the 'intelligent' thinking as well. I guess when people say the government has their heads up their posteriors... they're really not kidding.
Tekzel
June 19, 2009 at 12:25pm
While I agree with the intent of your response, you have some of your info a bit off. She was "uploading" those 24 songs, as they were in her Kazaa shared folder and, from my recollection, downloaded by MediaSentry. That was what she was taken to court for, not downloading, but uploading.
I still think they are insane though.
nekollx
June 19, 2009 at 11:50am
The RIAA and MPAA are living in the 19th century. Personaly i'm wating for them to get the newpaper that says "Thomas Edison invents personal illumination - discovers electricity. Power and light come to the common man!" and want their heads explode.
------------------------------
Coming soon to Lulu.com --Tokusatsu Heroes--
Five teenagers, one alien ghost, a robot, and the fate of the world.
Zazubovich
June 19, 2009 at 10:52am
Nothing like severe overkill to make you look like a vicious, vindictive bunch of Nazis. Maybe you can send her to Gitmo. Is it starting to look to anyone else like our IP laws are hampering innovation and progress? Like maybe the industry has a bit too much political power?
slumbersix
June 19, 2009 at 8:51am
I don't know, but shouldn't this be considered cruel and unusual punishment for such a harsh verdict?
Maybe they need to investigate the jury and see who has downloaded or uploaded songs and charge them the same fines...
Tekzel
June 19, 2009 at 8:18am
It is an uncollectable judgement, though they can likely make her life pretty miserable for a while. They already looked like a bunch of turds, but all this is just making it far worse. Its actually pretty hilarious how they probably THINK they are doing some good to their cause, yet they are doing huge harm to it.
D3lt4
June 19, 2009 at 8:12am
Gay,
I wonder if RIAA bought out the Jury... to make this a public stunt. As*holes.
