Post by kim on Jun 19, 2009 11:48:53 GMT -5
Federal Jury: Music Downloader Owes $1.92 Million
Decision is a victory for the RIAA in its crackdown on illegal music file sharing.
By W. David Gardner
InformationWeek
June 19, 2009 10:21 AM
Jammie Thomas-Rasset went to trial this week hoping to nullify an earlier judgment against her on charges that she illegally downloaded music from the Internet. But in this week's jury trial, she was deemed liable to pay $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million.
An earlier jury had delivered a verdict in which she was deemed liable for $9,250 for each downloaded song.
This week's trial, in a Minnesota federal court, was short and sweet for the Recording Industry Association of America, which had brought the charges against Thomas-Rasset in the nation's sole music file-sharing case that has gone to trial. The RIAA recently changed its tactics against what it maintains is the illegal downloading of music from the Internet. Now it's asking Internet service providers to send warnings to suspected illegal downloaders.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that [money]," said Thomas-Rasset after the trial Thursday, according to media reports. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
RIAA attorneys had argued that evidence showed Thomas-Rasset was responsible for what it termed illegal music downloading that occurred on her computer. Her attorneys claimed that RIAA attorneys hadn't proved that she was the person who did the actual downloading from her computer.
In the end, the jury awarded the RIAA $1.92 million, or $80,000 a song. Earlier, the RIAA had initiated more than 30,000 lawsuits against persons it claimed had illegally downloaded music. Most of them settled for $3,500, but some said they were innocent of the charges but didn't have the financial resources to defend themselves in expensive litigation.
An official for the RIAA said the association was willing to settle for a figure of less than $80,000 a song.
Interesting to note that it was a "jury" of her peers that came to this conclusion...
Okay, although not guilty...YET!...lets av' a peek at all of the jurors
home puters and see what we can come up with to help justify this
decision shall we?
While we're at it...let's take a look at some of the prosecuting attorneys puters! If they in fact have a photo-copy as evidence, of an existing "statute" concerning why dogs can't shit on the street in downtown Boston, then they too are guilty of copyright infringement and should be taken to task for not buying the original "City of Boston Handbook of Better Bullying Through By-laws" book that most likely retails for about $119.99 and not supporting the author / publisher / retailer.
And finally, I'd really be interested in checking out the files on the
home P.C. that the judge that slammed the gavel down on this one!!!
Yeah...clean as a whistle I'd bet...
I had to agree with one of the comments made...
At these fantastic prices for music downloading, why should the record industry make an effort to develop an online platform when it can simply run to the courts for their money?
$9,250 per download compared to 99 cents for an I tunes download.
The Record Industry doesn't need to develop anything.
My comment to that in turn would of course be something along the lines of..."the next single, from the next best artist, had better be real damned good because I ain't turning my radio on for anything under $10.000.00!!!
Okay, so they (the RIAA) made their point...set some sort of
precedent...now what? Do they go after the rest of the general
public? If the fines can't be paid, then what?...Prison?...3 squares a day and everyone you know is your cell mate?
Maybe it's just me...but I'm almost at the point where I may have to start telling people that whistle songs in public to shut the f*ck up for fear of having to pay a royalty fee if I hear them doing so?
Thanks
Kim
Decision is a victory for the RIAA in its crackdown on illegal music file sharing.
By W. David Gardner
InformationWeek
June 19, 2009 10:21 AM
Jammie Thomas-Rasset went to trial this week hoping to nullify an earlier judgment against her on charges that she illegally downloaded music from the Internet. But in this week's jury trial, she was deemed liable to pay $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million.
An earlier jury had delivered a verdict in which she was deemed liable for $9,250 for each downloaded song.
This week's trial, in a Minnesota federal court, was short and sweet for the Recording Industry Association of America, which had brought the charges against Thomas-Rasset in the nation's sole music file-sharing case that has gone to trial. The RIAA recently changed its tactics against what it maintains is the illegal downloading of music from the Internet. Now it's asking Internet service providers to send warnings to suspected illegal downloaders.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that [money]," said Thomas-Rasset after the trial Thursday, according to media reports. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
RIAA attorneys had argued that evidence showed Thomas-Rasset was responsible for what it termed illegal music downloading that occurred on her computer. Her attorneys claimed that RIAA attorneys hadn't proved that she was the person who did the actual downloading from her computer.
In the end, the jury awarded the RIAA $1.92 million, or $80,000 a song. Earlier, the RIAA had initiated more than 30,000 lawsuits against persons it claimed had illegally downloaded music. Most of them settled for $3,500, but some said they were innocent of the charges but didn't have the financial resources to defend themselves in expensive litigation.
An official for the RIAA said the association was willing to settle for a figure of less than $80,000 a song.
Interesting to note that it was a "jury" of her peers that came to this conclusion...
Okay, although not guilty...YET!...lets av' a peek at all of the jurors
home puters and see what we can come up with to help justify this
decision shall we?
While we're at it...let's take a look at some of the prosecuting attorneys puters! If they in fact have a photo-copy as evidence, of an existing "statute" concerning why dogs can't shit on the street in downtown Boston, then they too are guilty of copyright infringement and should be taken to task for not buying the original "City of Boston Handbook of Better Bullying Through By-laws" book that most likely retails for about $119.99 and not supporting the author / publisher / retailer.
And finally, I'd really be interested in checking out the files on the
home P.C. that the judge that slammed the gavel down on this one!!!
Yeah...clean as a whistle I'd bet...
I had to agree with one of the comments made...
At these fantastic prices for music downloading, why should the record industry make an effort to develop an online platform when it can simply run to the courts for their money?
$9,250 per download compared to 99 cents for an I tunes download.
The Record Industry doesn't need to develop anything.
My comment to that in turn would of course be something along the lines of..."the next single, from the next best artist, had better be real damned good because I ain't turning my radio on for anything under $10.000.00!!!
Okay, so they (the RIAA) made their point...set some sort of
precedent...now what? Do they go after the rest of the general
public? If the fines can't be paid, then what?...Prison?...3 squares a day and everyone you know is your cell mate?
Maybe it's just me...but I'm almost at the point where I may have to start telling people that whistle songs in public to shut the f*ck up for fear of having to pay a royalty fee if I hear them doing so?
Thanks
Kim
