Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

kluang · 11-05-2010, 02:33 AM

http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/amp...ding-24-songs/

Quote:

What's the value of a song? Jammie Thomas-Rasset has spent the last few years in court debating that question. The Minnesota mother of four is being penalized for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa in 2006, but how much she owes the record labels has been in question. The jury in her third trial has just ruled that Thomas-Rasset should pay Capitol Records $1.5 million, CNET reports, which breaks down to $62,500 per song. It's a heavy penalty considering the 24 tunes would only cost approximately $24 on iTunes, which was Thomas-Rasset' argument, too. .

.

Thanks to Thomas-Rasset's colorful case, she has become the public face of the record industry's battle with illegal downloaders. In her first trial, in 2007, the jury demanded she pay $222,000 for violating the copyright on more than 1,700 songs by Green Day, Aerosmith and Richard Marx, to name a few. (Marx said he was "ashamed" to be associated with the "farcical" prosecution of an illegal downloader.) Thomas-Rasset maintained she wasn't the computer user who did the file sharing, and her legal team cited an error in jury instruction to secure a second trial in 2009 that ended with a much harsher result: an astronomical fine of $1.92 million. However, earlier this year a U.S. District Court judge found the $1.92 million penalty against Thomas-Rasset to be "monstrous and shocking" and "gross injustice" before lowering it to $54,000, or $2,250 a song. Thomas-Rasset and her legal team decided to appeal that decision, too..

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the organization that represents the four major record labels, was pleased by the most recent decision, even if it has no intention to collect the $1.5 million from Thomas-Rasset. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," the RIAA said in a statement. Earlier this year, the RIAA offered Thomas-Rasset the opportunity to end the legal battle for $25,000 and an admission of guilt; Thomas-Rasset declined. .

Burying a Midwestern mom in insurmountable debt isn't the best publicity move, so rather than argue the labels are entitled to the cash, the RIAA has sought to make this trial into a cautionary tale for anyone considering illegally downloading music -- a reminder that there are penalties. But as the constantly declining weekly Nielsen SoundScan sales figures demonstrate, nothing seems to have deterred music fans from stealing rather than purchasing songs and albums. And in a digital world now dominated by Bit Torrent and Rapidshare, a trial over a music-sharing dinosaur like Kazaa seems nothing but antiquated. (Last month, after a decade of illegal file sharing, peer-to-peer service LimeWire was shut down by the government, much to the surprise of the millions who thought LimeWire had faded years ago into the Internet ether.) .

Still, Thomas-Rasset and her legal team are already making plans to appeal, setting the stage for a fourth trial. "The fight continues," promised Thomas-Rasset's lawyer Kiwi Camara. Even if Thomas-Rasset were to win the next trial, the RIAA would likely appeal that decision to ensure that copyright infringement without penalization won't happen. This story has the potential to drag on well into the next decade -- when for $1.5 million, all of Thomas-Rasset's four kids could finish law school and take up the fight on her behalf.

**Miburo** · 11-05-2010, 06:25 PM

Wait. They're taking a mother of four to court, costing her god knows how much in legal fees alone, over sharing 24 songs? And then say it's to set an example for others?

Wow. All that does is make me go from not feeling bad at all for downloading and sharing shit (Because I see nothing morally wrong with fucking sharing) to making me want to go download and share shit I don't even want, purely out of spite.

And fuck yarrr! to her for battling to the bitter end, like a true pirate.

Numinous · 11-05-2010, 06:50 PM

This is just ridiculous.

A million and an half dollars caution over uploading in a site (that isn't being cautioned for some stupid reason) 24 songs? And songs that, if bought online, would probably cost 20 bucks? Really, RIAA?! Aren't the millions on mainstream garbage attempts of music enough for your pockets?

And the initial price wasn't that sane either: 220 000$? This whole court process shouldn't even cost more than 300$ to the poor woman.

ask me anything · 11-05-2010, 07:25 PM

She should go on every news outlet she can and just to tell everyone how much of a douchebag the record industry is. Shame those motherfuckers into submission.

Find out who the people are that are suing her, and go to their children school and tell the kids their father(s) are evil, maniacal, terrorists that worship satan, and drink the blood of babies. What? A little too much?

nah

Kinako · 11-05-2010, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Miburo

Wait. They're taking a mother of four to court, costing her god knows how much in legal fees alone, over sharing 24 songs? And then say it's to set an example for others?

Wow. All that does is make me go from not feeling bad at all for downloading and sharing shit (Because I see nothing morally wrong with fucking sharing) to making me want to go download and share shit I don't even want, purely out of spite.

And fuck yarrr! to her for battling to the bitter end, like a true pirate.

Exactly. That whole thing is some straight bullshit. That situation makes me wanna do this.

KillerNN · 11-05-2010, 08:48 PM

Because HR said we are followers, and you guys are saying that she should be let off the hook for downloading 1.5 mil. in fines, I'm gonna say NO! MAKE HER PAY OR THROW THE BITCH IN JAIL!

Kidding, what the fuck are they thinking? Mother of 4, paying that much for 24 songs. Its fucking disgusting. Even the fucking artist she illegally downloaded said he was ashamed to be part of such a dumbfucking trial.

FUCK THE SYSTEM! < sorry gaiz. i got excited. =/

kluang · 11-05-2010, 11:56 PM

Quote:

a trial over a music-sharing dinosaur like Kazaa seems nothing but antiquated

And sueing a mother of four with 1.5 million is a good move?

ACt · 11-06-2010, 09:27 AM

Look, let's ignore the whole "who's fault it was that files are out there" and "is downloading wrong" argument. Under US law it is wrong. Done. But what is it really? For me, if you aren't sharing, it is theft. In this case, it is Petty Theft. From a Californian Defense Lawyers website:

Quote:

Petty theft involves the taking of property whose value is less than $400. If you are charged and convicted of misdemeanor petty theft, you may be sentenced to up to 6 months in jail and fines ranging from $50- $1,000.

If the value of the property taken is less than $50, you may be charged with a simple infraction. An infraction is less in severity than a misdemeanor and the penalty for infraction petty theft is a fine less than $250.

How you go from petty theft to $1.5 million is beyond me. The US legal system should not allow the music industry to make these sorts of examples.

**Miburo** · 11-06-2010, 12:30 PM

Totally guessing since it makes no logical sense either way, but I'm guess they don't consider it as petty theft due to the whole sharing part of it. Since you're sharing it with a fuckload of people, it's worse than just stealing a CD or some shit. So you're like, an illegal distributor of copyrighted material or some fucking thing like that. I dunno.

If we are to focus on legality instead of morality, then legally isn't not actually even considered theft really. It's copyright infringement. Which, by totally bullshitted unprovable numbers, loses companies millions of dollars a year. And shit. So if you have 24 songs sitting there being downloaded by hundreds of people, then you just dicked those companies out of hundreds of sales. Assuming everyone who downloaded shit would have bought the same shit if they couldn't download it, which is a moronic as fuck assumption to make...

Yeah, it's stupid.

ACt · 11-06-2010, 04:43 PM

I think the defendants stance, based on the article, that she isn't sharing only taking them from a massive share system. The record companies are trying to make the point that any download is equal to the entire sharing system. They also say they don't want the money, just to make an example.

Numinous · 11-06-2010, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy

They also say they don't want the money, just to make an example.

They want to make an example AND the money, because such pleasantry along with their cause is too tempting to let go. Or else they wouldn't go from 220,000$ to a 1,5 million $.

ACt · 11-06-2010, 06:39 PM

Then is this just the author's interpretation:

Quote:

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the organization that represents the four major record labels, was pleased by the most recent decision, even if it has no intention to collect the $1.5 million from Thomas-Rasset. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," the RIAA said in a statement. Earlier this year, the RIAA offered Thomas-Rasset the opportunity to end the legal battle for $25,000 and an admission of guilt; Thomas-Rasset declined. .

Burying a Midwestern mom in insurmountable debt isn't the best publicity move, so rather than argue the labels are entitled to the cash, the RIAA has sought to make this trial into a cautionary tale for anyone considering illegally downloading music -- a reminder that there are penalties.

They are making an example. The money they are concerned with isn't from the woman but in the actual industry. By making the punishment jump to such a huge amount, it add publicity and will scare off some who care to download.

Sensei-Q · 11-06-2010, 07:13 PM

Cool story. To compensate for these kind of cases, mass piracy is out there before it even started. They be losing potential incomings anyway. Greedy motherfucking bastards.

ninjalostboy95 · 11-06-2010, 08:09 PM

What the fuck? The mom isn't supposed to pay that much. If she downloaded 24 songs and then shared to other people, she isn't at fault for what happens afterwards. If each song is $20, then that would only add to $480. Did they multiply the damn thing by $3125? What type of example will that set? It's not going to help even if they don't plan on collecting. This will just stop a small percentage of Pirating temporarily, at best.

**Miburo** · 11-06-2010, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AkamaruChewtoy

I think the defendants stance, based on the article, that she isn't sharing only taking them from a massive share system. The record companies are trying to make the point that any download is equal to the entire sharing system. They also say they don't want the money, just to make an example.

Not to nitpick, but I didn't get that from the article. Except the last part. I see it as the record industry wants to use the case to set an example to anyone who shares music (Copyright infringement), even only a couple of songs. Basically they're thinking this will make people shit their pants and stop downloading shit. And probably to set a legal precedent too, I'm sure. And her defense is basically that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Or, in other words, it's fucking ridiculous. Which I'm sure any remotely reasonable person reading this would agree.

11-05-2010, 06:25 PM	#2
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs Wait. They're taking a mother of four to court, costing her god knows how much in legal fees alone, over sharing 24 songs? And then say it's to set an example for others? Wow. All that does is make me go from not feeling bad at all for downloading and sharing shit (Because I see nothing morally wrong with fucking sharing) to making me want to go download and share shit I don't even want, purely out of spite. And fuck yarrr! to her for battling to the bitter end, like a true pirate.

11-05-2010, 06:50 PM	#3
Numinous Writing speed: snail Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Porto, Portugal Posts: 4,910 Thanks: 8,542 Thanked 11,644 Times in 4,015 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs This is just ridiculous. A million and an half dollars caution over uploading in a site (that isn't being cautioned for some stupid reason) 24 songs? And songs that, if bought online, would probably cost 20 bucks? Really, RIAA?! Aren't the millions on mainstream garbage attempts of music enough for your pockets? And the initial price wasn't that sane either: 220 000$? This whole court process shouldn't even cost more than 300$ to the poor woman. __________________ My writings: Waters of Ocean Darkest Chapters: 1 - 2 Weaver Chapters: 0 - 1- 2 - 3 Björk Season My Top 25 Non-Romantic Songs

11-05-2010, 07:25 PM	#4
ask me anything Simply AMAzing Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Impel Down Posts: 3,053 Thanks: 8,845 Thanked 3,363 Times in 1,498 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs She should go on every news outlet she can and just to tell everyone how much of a douchebag the record industry is. Shame those motherfuckers into submission. Find out who the people are that are suing her, and go to their children school and tell the kids their father(s) are evil, maniacal, terrorists that worship satan, and drink the blood of babies. What? A little too much? nah __________________

11-05-2010, 08:48 PM	#6
KillerNN Λυρικής Σκέψεις Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Vagabond Posts: 2,097 Thanks: 3,614 Thanked 4,322 Times in 1,976 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs Because HR said we are followers, and you guys are saying that she should be let off the hook for downloading 1.5 mil. in fines, I'm gonna say NO! MAKE HER PAY OR THROW THE BITCH IN JAIL! Kidding, what the fuck are they thinking? Mother of 4, paying that much for 24 songs. Its fucking disgusting. Even the fucking artist she illegally downloaded said he was ashamed to be part of such a dumbfucking trial. FUCK THE SYSTEM! < sorry gaiz. i got excited. =/ __________________ The Cap'n

11-06-2010, 12:30 PM	#9
Miburo Deos Fortioribus Adesse Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Valhalla Posts: 3,543 Thanks: 34,417 Thanked 17,643 Times in 5,442 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs Totally guessing since it makes no logical sense either way, but I'm guess they don't consider it as petty theft due to the whole sharing part of it. Since you're sharing it with a fuckload of people, it's worse than just stealing a CD or some shit. So you're like, an illegal distributor of copyrighted material or some fucking thing like that. I dunno. If we are to focus on legality instead of morality, then legally isn't not actually even considered theft really. It's copyright infringement. Which, by totally bullshitted unprovable numbers, loses companies millions of dollars a year. And shit. So if you have 24 songs sitting there being downloaded by hundreds of people, then you just dicked those companies out of hundreds of sales. Assuming everyone who downloaded shit would have bought the same shit if they couldn't download it, which is a moronic as fuck assumption to make... Yeah, it's stupid.

11-06-2010, 04:43 PM	#10
ACt Heart Wizard Join Date: May 2009 Location: The Halls of Irreverence Posts: 3,257 Thanks: 5,326 Thanked 18,706 Times in 4,853 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs I think the defendants stance, based on the article, that she isn't sharing only taking them from a massive share system. The record companies are trying to make the point that any download is equal to the entire sharing system. They also say they don't want the money, just to make an example.

11-06-2010, 07:13 PM	#13
Sensei-Q ✪✪✪✪✪ Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Mijdrecht, Utrecht, Netherlands. Posts: 4,279 Thanks: 5,180 Thanked 2,904 Times in 1,711 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs Cool story. To compensate for these kind of cases, mass piracy is out there before it even started. They be losing potential incomings anyway. Greedy motherfucking bastards. __________________ "Science has made us gods even before we are worthy of being men." Jean Rostand

11-06-2010, 08:09 PM	#14
ninjalostboy95 Osu! = the best game ever Join Date: May 2010 Location: NY, Far Rockaway(currently) Age: 17 Posts: 5,772 Thanks: 8,239 Thanked 4,587 Times in 2,795 Posts	Re: Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs What the fuck? The mom isn't supposed to pay that much. If she downloaded 24 songs and then shared to other people, she isn't at fault for what happens afterwards. If each song is $20, then that would only add to $480. Did they multiply the damn thing by $3125? What type of example will that set? It's not going to help even if they don't plan on collecting. This will just stop a small percentage of Pirating temporarily, at best. Last edited by ninjalostboy95; 11-06-2010 at 09:12 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Dark Knight' stays on top with $26M	kluang	World News	11	08-15-2008 03:39 PM