Woman who illegally downloaded songs has to pay $80,000 per
 

Don't know if it was posted before, but here it is.......OUCH!!!! Gideon should be here in just a few minutes......:1orglaugh:1orglaugh




MINNEAPOLIS ? A replay of the nation?s 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-Rasset?s 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 jury?s finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury?s penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she was resigned.

?There?s no way they?re ever going to get that,? said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. ?I?m a mom, limited means, so I?m 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 didn?t believe Thomas-Rasset?s denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn?t decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America?s 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 Thomas?s computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa,? Sibley said. ?They couldn?t put a face behind the computer.?

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset?s 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 didn?t 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.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described ?huge music fan? raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity?s sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name ?tereastarr.? It?s the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by ?tereastarr? on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset?s Internet Protocol address ? the online equivalent of a street address ? and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That?s an important point, given Davis? new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren?t able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it?s only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that?s what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name ?tereastarr? to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

?They are going to come at you like they came at ?tereastarr,?? he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA?s Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.?s Sony Music Entertainment.

The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

Was those songs on slae or what? :1orglaugh

hahaha this is what all these fuckers who have thrown in the towel and think you have to accept having your content ripped off and morons like Gideon who think the existing copyright law is on the side of thieves don't understand - copyright infringing is still a illegal and copyright cases are civil cases, this isn't 'beyond a reasonable doubt' criminal law, when a jury is asked for a verdict they are asked to weigh the evidence against the defendant and decide if it's more likely than not that they commited the act they are being sued for. if the defendant's IP address xxx.xxx.xx.xx is shown to have downloaded/distributed a copyrighted file, good luck with that defense that the IP could have been also used by anybody else on the same network - not if you also have evidence that IP address was also used to post on forums with a nickname that can be traced to the defendant and any other evidence a good investigator/attorney will dig up that points towards the defendant

OJ Simpson got off on murder charges because a retarded jury took a one in a billion out Johnny Cochrane gave them on DNA evidence and twisted that one in a billion into 'a reasonable doubt'. When Fred Goldman sued OJ Simpson civilly the case was a slam dunk for Goldman.

Copyright cases against infringers are easy, it's suing those who may/can be protected by the 'safe harbor' provisions of the DMCA, search engines/file hosting services/tube sites etc that is difficult

what James Grady did is what anybody who owns content should do. Just make sure before you sue somebody that the person has some assets that you can collect from.

im curious was gideon sticks up for people who post stolen content so much if hes in the industry

All they have to do now is sue 3 billion more people and they'll have recuperated their losses

And the world economy will be back to normal :thumbsup

:1orglaugh

I'm glad I don't have to worry about that any more. I got my son a Zune for Christmas with a ZunePass and for $14.99 per month, he can download pretty much anything he wants for his Zune on the "kids" pc and I can use the program on both my main pc and laptop to build a nice collection of tunes, so I got all the free legal music I want at my fingertips, either just a song or the whole album with one click. Hell, it saved me a lot of money in buying cds that suck.

Sure, the music is there as long as I keep paying the monthly fees, but hell, I used to waste a lot more than that on cds each month.

Good. That's what she gets.

they caught 1 theres millions

Why... cause you think the record company will be willing to part with that cash to bail the country.

Quoted and highlighted for greater ease of noticing it on the part of the moron Gideon.

And might I add... :thumbsup

fuck you, pay us

She'll never pay it anyway, in the end she'll just become bankrupt and they still won't get the money.

Bet she's wishing now that she took the option in beginning to settle for 5k.

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/...cle6534542.ece

The funny thing is he only likes to quote and acknowledge court findings and precedents when it backs HIS view on this whole topic yet he outright condemns any court findings and precedents that oppose it. As if, "That silly case didn't really mean anything, its okay, we can still take anything we like."

He can argue fair use bullshit till the fucking world ends but all it comes down to is self righteous pricks thinking they are somehow entitled to whatever the fuck they please. I say eliminate it and put the power back in the hands of the copyright holders. Let them control their product the way THEY see fit.

I saw somewhere that a good scapegoat is easier to find than the solution to the problem


http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/scapegoat.jpg

Exactly right.

:thumbsup

This is the latest breaking news........................................








From last week

This is just ridiculous, great system you got!

The other 3000+ "scape goats" were smart enough to settle out of court for $3000.
Your goat is just a dumb bitch who made the news. :1orglaugh

You're preaching to the choir man, because I so agree with you.

Lord knows I've argued this very thing with Gideon on several threads. His agenda is obvious.

Blah Blah Blah
 

Look no matter how many people they go after for downloading copyrighted material it will not stop people from doing it. Remember back in the 80's and early 90's before CDs or DVDs came out how the big craze was having a tape deck or VCR with a recorder in it so you could listen to the radio or rent a movie and record your favorite songs or movies or your friend had a tape and you made a copy of it? Same fucking difference nobody gave 2 shits about it then but now that is in on a world wide scale where every motherfucker who has a decent enough computer to search for an album or movie or whatever it is that you want and get it in a few hours of so. Here's to your copyright laws....:321GFY

Come on now let's be realistic. 1.92 million! That lady probably won't see that much money in 2 life times. And yeah I get the fact that it takes money away from the record label or movie studio or whatever but lets face it man she is probably a homemaker who doesn't really grasp the concept of the whole P2P programs and all that shit. And she probably really didn't think she was doing anything wrong at the time.

And here's to you ugly bitch who never created anything worth copyrighting besides
showing your fat ass in the camera. :321GFY

:1orglaugh

Ha Ha
 

That's pretty fucking funny! It's funny how some of you people think or read on this board. All I was saying was that it won't stop people and that's what people think of the laws. LOL And just to let you know I do have some copyrighted stuff because I am a musician who has put out 3 albums worth of music that is copy written. And I say if I have enough fans to want to get my music that way then hey at least I have fans that want to hear my music. And also by the way that's not me in my avatar. You are way off if you think it is.:1orglaugh

:1orglaugh Poor thing ...

"copyrighted" not "copy written".

Try reading the shit you claim you have.

And the reason you are here posting is because your music sucks and you are
desperate for fans. So upload your shit to youtube and STFU.
Don't ask other people who are not desperate to join you in your pursuit to
give away shit that you can't sell.

Now 10 , 9 , 8 , 7 ..... count down to when you start bitching about illegal tube
sites ruining your sells by infringing on copyrighted videos. :helpme

Fuck the bitch, she got what she deserved.

Omg
 

Ok your right! I am just here trying to get fans. I would love for you to tell me in what post I have ever said anything about me trying to get fans because my music sucks or any post where I have ever even stated that I play music besides this post in this very thread. And I would also like to let you and everyone else that ever replies to any of my posts know that you can't get me all pissed off or anything like that in here. I am here to try and learn more about this type of business and I know what your next post will be "Yeah look at this noob coming in here trying to act like he is some big time webmaster" I never said I was a big time webmaster or anything even close to that. I am a listen and learn kinda person. No I'm not a troll either I sit back and listen to everything you guys have to say day after day and learn from the helpful posts and people that are on here that are willing to lend a helping hand and not try to tear you down on every little post people make such as the case in my statement about "fucking copyright laws" So the next time someone rips off one of your "Copyrighted" works let me know and I will find them and kick their ass for you until they come off your money.

Given the fact that you replied civilly I am at a lost of what to do next.

:1orglaugh

I don't think he is really in this industry.

I was reading a different thread the other day where he basically said he is using the adult industry to test some torrent marketing out because the content is cheaper and that once he perfects it he will be moving to mainstream and selling his technology to mainstream production companies.

Peace!
 

:party-smi

So it's ok to come out now! :1orglaugh

You would be correct.
:2 cents:

Stupid lawsuit, i like way of living in US for Some ways, but hate to see such bullshit.

Beth this jurry have no clue how to use of a mouse point, imbecile bums.

Don't take it personally, but You download mp3s, don't You?

Honestly...

they need to hit some richer families, doctors and dentists and businessmen where the millions could be collected, it would make bigger news

most people downloading music today don't even know about this case or even think there is any chance of getting in trouble

Stupid lawsuit, i like way of living in US for Some ways, but hate to see such bullshit.

Bet this jury have no clue how to use of a mouse point, imbecile bums.

It won't stop all people, granted. But it will stop a lot of people who fear getting caught and taken to court as well.

If they prosecute a few more people for it it will stop even more people.

Really, who in their right mind thinks downloading a few hundred songs is worth even a $5k fine + court costs?

This was not just for downloading songs. Because of the way the file sharing system she used works, she made those songs available to millions of people. That's what got her into trouble. It was the distribution, not the downloading for personal use that landed her in this mess.

If she downloaded a single copy from a server, there would be no problem.

But why do people see music as being different than software? If she downloaded illegal copies of Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Windows Vista, and Microsoft Office and shared them, would anyone argue that she broke the law?

you're right jim, and that is why anyone that uses torrents is exposing themselves to big legal risk because afaik there is no way to download without seeding at the same time, and even if you seed for a few seconds to a peer that is collecting evidence, you have shared that data

the rapidshit and megapoopload method of downloading removes that legal risk from the pirate downloading stuff :2 cents:

Point well made. :thumbsup

well unless they offer her a sweet heart settlement deal like the one they gave the two kids odds are she will keep appealing
so far each appeal has won and the court case keeps being tried again.
EFF and other trade groups are footing the legal bill on her side, the RIAA is spending their hard earned money each time.

so if you think that spending millions to collect pennies is a win
then go ahead and thing this is a win.

It's music. It's fucking music. Classified as 'ART'. Art is free.

I'm not going to speak for the RIAA, but I assume what they are hoping is that they get a big judgment like this one and it gets a lot of press and scares a bunch of people into not sharing music anymore. Then later on they quietly settle for a lot less. This way down the road they can send nasty letters to people and those people will see the previous cases and just stop.

But then again the RIAA recently announced that they are no longer going to sue people (at least for the time being) so I assume this idea hasn't worked out too well for them.

So I should just be able to walk into a museum of my choice take a Picasso off the wall and take it home with me? It is art. Art should be free.

Yes, and porn is art. See your shit on youporn soon. :1orglaugh

Yeah, the reason we're here talking is "this idea hasn't worked out too well". :1orglaugh

Downloaders with any brains whatsoever are shitting in their pants, only the
absolute fucking dumbest will continue.

Your twist on things is like saying prosecuting people for murder is a waste of time
because other people will do it anyway.

only if you are a world class moron who to stupid to see that i keep talking about downloading stuff you bought or have been given a right too.

the RIAA stipulated that she was not guilty for all the songs she bought
they only went after her for the 24 songs she did not buy.

ergo no timeshifting/backup/etc

when this court case started they wanted her to be liable 3k per song for all 1700 songs
her lawyers produced proof that she had bought all but 24 songs in her my music folder
rather than deal with fair use arguements (backup/recovery)

the previous decision was overthrown based on the appeal of make available ruling
(taking one more arguement away for RIAA)

she still has tons of basis for appeals

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/06...-labels-awarde


here is my prediction if this was about getting her off for the crime they will jump straight to the bankruptcy ruling arguing that because that version of kazza automatically shared the my music folder. Since that automatic nature would make it impossible to prove "“willful and malicious” infringement.


if however this is about eff/anti-copyright people knocking down the bogus precedent then they will start with the "send a message"(probably this one first since this would require a new trial) or "grossly excessive" (where this one could be handled by the judge knocking down the value of the judgement).

after all the bad precedents are gone, and it would be established that you could declare bankruptcy for any debt/judgement where the program automatically created infringement (see the automatic seeding arguement above)

then if she has not won by then one of the kids will "confess" that it was them that choose the songs from kazza and that the mother didn't do it at all. if they were really smart about this kids will be able to prove that they given the songs as a "gift" and those cd were "damaged/lost" and they were just "recovering" those lost songs.

they will probably pay the settlement so that and then use the settlement as publicity for a campaign for making fair sharing for personal use fair use and exempt for prosecution.


The way her laywers are arguing this case, just seems to be specifically designed knock down precendents instead of going after the easiest to win arguements.

Why else would they strike down the make available precedent (and go thru a brand new trial) instead of just getting legal right to declare bankruptcy and discharge the debt that way.

That much per song - just think of all the pirates out there that have thousands of songs. At that much per song, some of the bigger pirates of music out there would be dinged for over a billion dollars easy, lol. Damn...

Well, I guess you assuming that most downloaders have brains. I put them into two camps.

camp 1 - these are the serious people. They download and seed everyday and have gigs and gigs of content on their drives. They read the boards, blogs and news and follow the torrents. Some of these people might be shitting their pants right now.

camp 2 - the average everyday person who found out from a friend or wherever how to get free music online so now they do it. Often it might be the person's kids doing it. These people download the new Green Day album or whatever is out that is new that they want. I'm confident a good number of these people are completely unaware that they are doing anything illegal. Rick Rubin (the new head of Columbia Records) did a study group when he first took over the label. He brought in a bunch of different people mostly ages 15-29 and asked them to be honest and tell him about their music habits. Most (around 80%) of them said they got music online and didn't pay for it. More over they almost all agreed that they felt downloading music wasn't stealing. These are people who don't know the law and don't care about it. They are not stopping.

The RIAA has gotten over 30,000 different settlements. This case is the first one that actually went to trial. With 30,000 wins the book they have done nothing to curb downloading. They themselves have said they are stopping going after individuals and are now focusing their efforts on making ISPs be responsible for their clients actions by cutting off service of repeat offenders.

Maybe this verdict will help the RIAA. Most likely it will not. Right now millions of people are downloading music and they know nothing about this verdict. Many of them feel they are doing nothing wrong. I am not supporting them. I never said the RIAA should stop. I think they should go harder after people that download. They should go after ISPs that allow downloaders to use their services and hosting companies that host torrent sites. But as we are seeing with the Pirate Bay trial doing that is expensive and time consuming.

I don't know the answer to stopping illegal downloading. I was just pointing out that the RIAA got what they have wanted yet still are changing their tactics to something they hope works better.

In the article they say that she actually was, at one point, sharing over 1,700 songs on her computer but in order to make the case simpler and easier to present they only went after her for 24. Still if they had gone after her for all 1,700 and won that kind of verdict it would have been over 130 million :) that would have rocked.

The RIAA didn't drop all those infringments claims because they were being nice
she bought those songs, and ripped them to her my music folder
kazza automatically shared them, and she could have argued fair use
either by

1. Arguing that the diamond rio granted her the right to rip them to her hard drive and kazza automatic indexing was responsible for the infringment
2. arguing she had a right to back them up to the kazza cloud (extending timeshifting to a cloud to cover backup to a cloud)

The RIAA did the equivalent to ceding those points by only going after her for the 24 songs she failed to prove she bought.