Print
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) isn't finished making an example of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the 34-year-old Native American mother of four from Minnesota who was found guilty in 2007 of illegally sharing 24 songs via peer-to-peer. Attorneys representing the RIAA have filed an appeal against last month's decision by Judge Michael Davis to knock the fines down to $54,000.
Thomas-Rasset was originally ordered to pay $222,000 in statutory damages four years ago, an award amount that would eventually balloon to as high as $1.92 million through an appeal that backfired for the Minnesota woman. Through several appeals, that number would fluctuate wildly before once again being dropped down to $54,000 for a second time last month, and neither side appears happy with that number.
According to court documents obtained by CNet, the RIAA is arguing that Judge Davis made a mistake in ruling that simply making a song available through a P2P network doesn't qualify as an intent to distribute automatically constitute copyright infringement. The organization is also fighting the Judge's notion that prior penalties violated the due process cause.
No court date has yet been set for this umpteenth appeal.
Comments are closed on this article
Slugbait
August 23, 2011 at 11:10am
I can imagine how they came to the decision to continue drawing out this case...
RIAA exec #1: I'm bored. Whaddaya wanna do today?
RIAA exec #2: I dunno. Play DNF again?
RIAA exec #1: Nah, the excitement is gone there.
RIAA exec #2: Hey, I know...let's piss off Anonymous again!
RIAA exec #1: Brilliant!
Scatter
August 23, 2011 at 10:14am
While I don't necessarily agree with the way the RIAA attacks some people I don't blame them entirely. I don't think that many people have really stopped to think about how they would feel if they were the artist that spent a year or so of their life to create am album only to see it made available for free across the world via a torrent. I know that I'd be as pissed as hell and want blood and why shouldn't I?
kris79
August 23, 2011 at 12:22pm
I'm not disagreeing with you. Here's how I understand this after reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas... The suit was brought by Sony-BMG and then by Capitol Records based solely on IP addresses illegally obtained in a collalboration between Sony-BMG and MediaSentry. It amounted to wiretapping without a warrant in violation of constitutional rights as well as other state laws. Nevertheless the first trial judge not only dismissed the defense's objections, but also defined the ambiguous terms "distribution" and "availability" to mean willful copyright infringement should apply without any proof of either. Apparently, the fact that the defendant didn't have the music on her computer, or own the pseudonym that was linked to the KAZAA files where the music was downloaded, or make any money from the files were some pesky little details that were overlooked. And don't forget that the judge had already made the statement that she was guilty by interpreting "making available" as "copyright infringement" for the jury before the trial ended. In itself, that is a neat little skirting of what proof was available. Where's the justice? I mean, you can't make this crap up! It seems to me that the injured party here is definitely not the cigar smoking, limosine lounging, lords and masters of music.
In Chicago vernacular - Youse pays youse money ta buy da judge n jury, and da sky's da limit...
CaptainFabulous
August 23, 2011 at 11:55am
Considering the label takes 90% of the money for your work, I think your anger would be better directed towards them, not some poor lady in Minnesota.
win7fanboi
August 23, 2011 at 11:42am
Software piracy had been going on for lot longer than media piracy... You don't see microsoft going after mother of four and asking for multi million $ compensations... the artists wouldn't ask for that either... so what if they made 7 million instead of 9 ... better that then piss off the fans... but RIAA and their goons make a living out of it... it is about time this "business model" falls on its face and fails.
Scatter
August 23, 2011 at 9:40pm
"so what if they made 7 million instead of 9 ... better that then piss off the fans..."
This kind of proves my point. Basically saying that the artists should just suck it up and not worry about losing $2 million dollars (a made up number btw) is real easy for a person who has absolutely nothing invested in the work. If someone broke into your home while you were at work and stole your wide screen TV set, PC and Xbox 360 how would you feel if the local police just told you to suck it up?
TerribleToaster
August 24, 2011 at 5:42am
Scatter, the problem with your point is that the RIAA doesn't represent the artists and if the RIAA makes settlement or wins, they don't give a cut to the artists, the money all goes right back into the RIAA so that it can make more money by suing more people. The artists are just being used by the RIAA so they can get into the court rooms to make their money. In a sense, the RIAA steals from the artist.
That's why I have no sympathy for them.
They are a business solely based on the concept of ruining the lives of others for money. They offer no positive social benefit.
Scatter
August 24, 2011 at 7:14am
I don't really buy this excuse. If the RIAA owns the music then they have every right to protect it. Would you feel any differently if it were the artists sueing the downloaders rather than the RIAA? Why was Lars Ulrich of Metalicca shit on so badly for going public in his distaste for services like Napster?
I'm not claiming to be a role model but downloading music that you don't have a right to from a Torrent, website, newsgroup or whatever is no more and no less stealing then it would be to walk into a Walmart and stick a CD in your pants and then walk out the door. And don't give me crap about downloading not being theft because you aren't stealing a physical item which would result in one less product of inventory. The product is the music on the CD. The physical CD is only the delivery method in getting it to the customer. Theft is theft.
kris79
August 26, 2011 at 10:33am
Hmmmmm? How do you feel about libraries that loan out music as many times as you want for free? How do you feel about people giving away their music collections to charity? How do you feel about stores that resell music CDs for $1 and don't hand over any of it to the artist? Or kids trading CDs? And on and on and on. My point is that no one is entitled to this money grubbing forever - which is what RIAA wants to happen. At some point in time this should become public domain. The artists keep working for their money. And so should the folks who buy the rights and then collect forever and ever without doing a damn thing. Perhaps they should take up something productive - like street sweeping. Period...
TerribleToaster
August 24, 2011 at 8:31am
"I don't really buy this excuse. "
It's not an excuse. It does, in no way, excuse pirating. It is simply a hole in your reasoning for supporting/sympathizing with the RIAA. You don't need to side with the RIAA to be against supporting piracy, they aren't mutually exclusive.
"If the RIAA owns the music then they have every right to protect it. "
The RIAA doesn't actually own any of the content they sue for. It's the firms that are members of the RIAA that own the content, and even then, they are acting as non-stocking suppliers. That is, they don't really own what they supply, they simply pay the original supplier (in this case, the artist), mark up the price, and redistribute. It's already a huge argument over if the RIAA has the right to sue at all because they are really many firms (firms that make up its membership but don't own the content) suing on behalf of another firm (one of the firms that make up it's membership and owns the content being sued about), which is entirely illegal.
"Would you feel any differently if it were the artists sueing the downloaders rather than the RIAA?"
Yes.
"Why was Lars Ulrich of Metalicca shit on so badly for going public in his distaste for services like Napster? "
Why does that matter in our conversation?
"I'm not claiming to be a role model but downloading music that you don't have a right to from a Torrent, website, newsgroup or whatever is no more and no less stealing then it would be to walk into a Walmart and stick a CD in your pants and then walk out the door."
I don't think I, nor anyone else who has responded to you has said any different.
" And don't give me crap about downloading not being theft because you aren't stealing a physical item which would result in one less product of inventory. The product is the music on the CD. The physical CD is only the delivery method in getting it to the customer. Theft is theft."
Once again, I have never even hinted at the idea that I thought piracy isn't wrong. (And on that note, if you think theft of music online = theft of music from a store, then why is it that stealing music online lands you with an exponentially higher fine?) What I simply said was the RIAA is wrong as well. They aren't out there to seek justice or fair compensation. Their "business model" is built around suing people who can't afford to go to court for more money than they could ever possibly pay so they can settle out of court for more money than the court would have settled on otherwise.
TheZomb
August 23, 2011 at 6:56pm
thats because microsoft isn't part of a failing industry that instead of innovating charges ridiculous middleman fees and tries to make a business out of extortion through threat of law suit.
How many crime syndicates love to "make an example out of people" so that when they threaten everyone else they just pay up.
Nimrod
August 23, 2011 at 7:40pm
Regardless. His point is excelent. I and the rest of the public dont care if their industry is falling apart.
warptek2010
August 23, 2011 at 10:10am
RIAA... u know what happens to asshole tyrants like yourself? You eventually get toppled. Just ask Gaddafi.
Headline I'd like to see: Judge rules RIAA to pay 16.7 million in damages to defendants falsely prosecuted.
praack
August 23, 2011 at 9:43am
at this point RIAA does not care about eventual verdict just that they can continue to have a poster child, they have someone- that however lopsided the court was or the law was convicted and though they cannot change anything- nor hope to get anything from it. they wish to hound the poor soul until the end to show thier power.
nothing more just a show of power at this point
TerribleToaster
August 23, 2011 at 7:55am
I believe the RIAA has succeded... in making me have even less respect for them.
rawrnomnom
August 23, 2011 at 7:54am
RIAA... for every one person you catch and fine, theres about 1000000 that you don't, and another 1000000 who start torrenting because you guys are such gigantic tools... You Don't exist to support the artist like you claim, you exist simply to serve your own corrupt adjenda's...
win7fanboi
August 23, 2011 at 6:51am
RIAA : If at first you don't succeed sue, sue, sue again (and keep trying to find a corrupt judge).
kris79
August 23, 2011 at 7:35am
AMEN to that. If there was ever a reason to band together to screw the RIAA advocates, this is it. What a bunch of fools, jerks and money grubbing low lifes they are. So little self esteem that they can sue a mother of four to "make their point". What's the point? "We love money. The rest of you are unimportant." I, for one, would love to have some leader of the opposition start a movement to ban every company that piles on to this lawsuit. Take away their money is something they can understand. The way it is now, we are giving their lawyers every opportunity to pry into our lives, our finances, and even to write their own laws to screw us. I hope every one of them croaks before they get one dime of this woman's money... goddamned pigs...
