Court orders Jammie Thomas to pay RIAA $1.92 million

[Trainz]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10268199-93.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Court orders Jammie Thomas to pay RIAA $1.92 million

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of willful copyright infringement on Thursday in a Minneapolis federal court and must pay the recording industry $1.92 million.

In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused to sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing..

In 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America claimed in a lawsuit that Thomas-Rasset pilfered 1,700 songs. The RIAA eventually culled that number down to a representative sample of 24.

Thomas-Rasset lost a previous trial in October 2007 when a jury rendered a $222,000 verdict against the Minnesota native. U.S. District Judge Michael David threw out the decision after acknowledging he erred when giving his jury instructions.

According to Ars Technica reporter Nate Anderson, Thomas-Rasset gasped when the dollar amount was read in court.

For the four largest recording companies, the jury's decision is an affirmation of the legality of the industry's copyright claims.

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do," said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. "We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so."

According to Ben Sheffner, a copyright advocate and former attorney for 20th Century Fox who attended the entire hearing, one of Thomas' attorneys is willing to discuss a settlement with the music industry.

This is completely insane.

:grey:

[Harry]

I was just reading that. While I am exceptionally bitter towards the sharing of music, as it pretty much killed my real career, that is completely nuts. I'm sure the jury doesn't think it will survive appeal, but still it's nuts.

[Snatch]

So can he afford $1.92 million? What's the purpose of assigning a value that could never be repaid and restitution never acheived? Is that justice?

[Trainz]

So can he afford

She.

$1.92 million? What's the purpose of assigning a value that could never be repaid and restitution never acheived? Is that justice?

It certainly isn't. RIAA is trying to make an example. What they will accomplish is to piss off millions of people.

In other words, head up ass.

[Freedom Canadian]

Wow. I might have expected a verdict like that from a judge but from a jury it's very surprising.

[AZRogue]

It is insane.

From the explanation I heard, they're really, really trying to make their point and establish a precedent where there is a difference between a person sharing music with a few friends and a person who uses a file sharing service and allows the mass distribution of material they do not own, to people they do not know.

In other words, if you put up files to be shared by people you don't know, watch your ass; they intend to savage it until you'll never shit right again.

[Snatch]

She.


How dare you correct my inability to type properly or proofread on the internet! I'm utterly shocked. Shocked and victimized I say!

[Trainz]

How dare you correct my inability to type properly or proofread on the internet! I'm utterly shocked. Shocked and victimized I say!

Tell it to PETA. They care.

[Varaj]

Wow. I might have expected a verdict like that from a judge but from a jury it's very surprising.

I would have been surprised the other way around. :)

My guess is the instructions given to the jury made them feel like they had little wiggle room. Most members on a jury are not familiar with the concept of jury nullification.

As the law stands the RIAA is very likely in the right, the problem is the law is wrong.

[AZRogue]

I would have been surprised the other way around. :)

My guess is the instructions given to the jury made them feel like they had little wiggle room. Most members on a jury are not familiar with the concept of jury nullification.

As the law stands the RIAA is very likely in the right, the problem is the law is wrong.

I agree, and have argued the point with my friends before, though this isn't one of the issues that I am passionate about so don't spend much time thinking about it.

The problem is, how should the laws be changed? In this day and age, with information easy to find and distribute, what changes should we be working towards that would both protect copyright holders, who should be able to profit from their work and be protected from having their IP exploited, and protect the general public/internet user?

The only answer I've found, so far, is in a focus shift towards profiteers and monetary exploitation--people making money off of another person's IP. Maybe there's a better focus, but I can't think of one offhand. The current shift--or supposed shift, since these are just opinions I've heard from "experts" interpreting the lawsuit and others like it--towards attacking distributors, rather than those downloading files themselves, is not helpful, in my opinion.

I'd rather they aggressively go after those people making money off of someone else's work: the basement bootleg-DvD scumbags and websites or services that, while perhaps distributing IP for no charge themselves, make money off of advertisers or are monetarily rewarded based on their traffic.

As I said, I don't follow the issue much, other than when it pops up in a big way like this story. Does anyone know what the movement (whatever it's called) currently is holding forth as their goal in the matter? What's the current consensus on the matter? I know what the anti-piracy people want, if they could: complete and total lockdown.

[Trainz]

I'd rather they aggressively go after those people making money off of someone else's work: the basement bootleg-DvD scumbags and websites or services that, while perhaps distributing IP for no charge themselves, make money off of advertisers or are monetarily rewarded based on their traffic.

I just checked, and both Mininova and Pirate Bay (the two biggest torrent sites) have advertisers. Now maybe the money they get from those advertisers barely cover bandwith and hosting costs, but I doubt it.

What about that?

[AZRogue]

I just checked, and both Mininova and Pirate Bay (the two biggest torrent sites) have advertisers. Now maybe the money they get from those advertisers barely cover bandwith and hosting costs, but I doubt it.

What about that?

I don't know. If it was me, I suppose I'd just concentrate on them because they're making money, even if it's only a little. It's the only I like so far: Making a money vs. not making money. Not a lot of money, or working at a loss, but any money. Maybe, if they only provide a service, like Craigs' list, that wouldn't apply to them and only to the people hosting, whether they're making money.

What do you think on the matter? What should be changed and why?

[Dr_Avalanche]

I just checked, and both Mininova and Pirate Bay (the two biggest torrent sites) have advertisers. Now maybe the money they get from those advertisers barely cover bandwith and hosting costs, but I doubt it.

What about that?

In the case of the Pirate Bay, I think I can say with reasonable certainty that they are not making any considerable money out of advertising - all the guys running the site have a net worth of zero. If the advertisinng is providing them with a net profit, it's peanuts. One problem is that since the legality of the site is in question, the high profile advertisers shy away from the site, leaving them with low profit ads from adult sites and poker sites.

[Varaj]

Personally I think that the RIAA has shot themselves and the IP producers/artists in the foot by going after basic traders. When it comes to music multiple models have shown that artists/IP producers win under multiple distribution methods. People, in general, want to pay for it as long as the price is seen as reasonable.

An example of not reasonable.
Ebooks. Why the fuck would I pay more than a paper copy for an electronic copy of book that cost nothing to produce, nothing (or virtually nothing) to distribute and gives less royalty to the author than the paper copy.

As for changing the laws, make the laws such that profiteering off other peoples IP is the crime not the trading of other peoples IP.

And for the love of god take the DMCA, the lawyers, politicians and lobbyists involved in getting it passed and burn them alive in the streets of DC as warning to others.

[Freedom Canadian]

Personally I think that the RIAA has shot themselves and the IP producers/artists in the foot by going after basic traders. When it comes to music multiple models have shown that artists/IP producers win under multiple distribution methods. People, in general, want to pay for it as long as the price is seen as reasonable.

An example of not reasonable.
Ebooks. Why the fuck would I pay more than a paper copy for an electronic copy of book that cost nothing to produce, nothing (or virtually nothing) to distribute and gives less royalty to the author than the paper copy.

I completely agree with this. This whole mess is caused by an industry that refuses to adapt to the times.

Also, I think the way the RIAA is calculating damages and lost sales in those court cases in complete bullshit.

Lastly, I believe usage rights should extend to an IP work in all its forms. If you own a book, you should have the right to own the corresponding e-book without needing to pay for it all over again.

However, I disagree with this:


As for changing the laws, make the laws such that profiteering off other peoples IP is the crime not the trading of other peoples IP.

IMO, that's like saying that it should be legal to throw a rock at your window as long as the throwee does it for fun and not as a job. My position is that the criminality of an action should be determined by the harm it does others and not by the profit it gains you. If an action nets you profits but harms no one, I believe it should be legal and if an action nets you no profits but harms someone, it should not. But that's me.

[Dacke]

I just checked, and both Mininova and Pirate Bay (the two biggest torrent sites) have advertisers. Now maybe the money they get from those advertisers barely cover bandwith and hosting costs, but I doubt it.
In the trial against TPB, the plaintiffs tried to show that they had turned a big profit from advertisement, but couldn't. They could show that there was money coming in, but not all that much of it.

As I said, I don't follow the issue much, other than when it pops up in a big way like this story. Does anyone know what the movement (whatever it's called) currently is holding forth as their goal in the matter? What's the current consensus on the matter? I know what the anti-piracy people want, if they could: complete and total lockdown.
Don't know about the movement as a whole, but our political goals here in Sweden regarding copyright are:


Reduce the copyright term to 5 years, maybe 10.
Legalize non-profit file-sharing. The details would have to be determined as to what exactly is considered non-profit. A site that charged for membership would likely be considered bad. An ad-free site that didn't would be OK. Something like TPB that's ad-supported? Bit of a grey area.
Make it easier to create derivative works (re-mixing). So what if Vanilla Ice took the bass line from Under Pressure - he did something new with it. Same with the Verve's Bitter Sweet Symphony.

And Harry, I'm sorry that the record store you worked at closed, but I can't really feel much sympathy for an outdated business model. Even without file-sharing, record stores would be knocked out by online stores like ITunes and Amazon - it would just take a little longer (even though they're grossly overpriced - a few cents per song would be more appropriate than a dollar). Most people who buy music are interested mostly in the music itself, not the piece of plastic the record business uses as a media. That sucks for record stores, but I'm sure it sucked for icemen when the refrigerator was invented too.

[Varaj]

IMO, that's like saying that it should be legal to throw a rock at your window as long as the throwee does it for fun and not as a job. My position is that the criminality of an action should be determined by the harm it does others and not by the profit it gains you. If an action nets you profits but harms no one, I believe it should be legal and if an action nets you no profits but harms someone, it should not. But that's me.

Normally I agree with you but I do give credence to the argument that is near impossible to show harm from internet sales even if harm is done and am willing to error in the the error in the favor of IP holders when it comes to money making. You want to trade, go ahead, just no ads, no sales, etc. etc.

[Freedom Canadian]

Normally I agree with you but I do give credence to the argument that is near impossible to show harm from internet sales even if harm is done

It's a good point. Really, the monetary value of traded files is impossible to calculate exactly and that makes fair enforcement difficult.

The value used by the RIAA is an upper limit. Nobody could reasonably argue that a copied work's value is greater than its legal version's price. At the same time, it has to be lower because if it was worth that much to the copy receiver, then he would likely be paying that price for a legal copy. People often download stuff exactly for the reason that it's something they would never buy anyway.

In the case of profit infringement, there is a clear dollar amount associated with the copies' value so it's easier to assign damage and thus to have fair justice rendered.

[Trainz]

The problem with the RIAA win is that it completely ignores the fact that the "criminal" is just one of tens of millions. There's a reason why courts are run by human beings, it's because a crime has to be judged within its human context.

I'm sure half of us right here are such "criminals", so there.

In fact, I call bullshit on anyone who has hung around on the net for over 5 years and says he has never downloaded a single pirated file.

The RIAA ruling ignores that fact, and that's why it's bullshit.

[Varaj]

The problem with the RIAA win is that it completely ignores the fact that the "criminal" is just one of tens of millions. There's a reason why courts are run by human beings, it's because a crime has to be judged within its human context.

I'm sure half of us right here are such "criminals", so there.

In fact, I call bullshit on anyone who has hung around on the net for over 5 years and says he has never downloaded a single pirated file.

The RIAA ruling ignores that fact, and that's why it's bullshit.

Usually the defense "everybody else is doing it, I just got caught" is a pretty poor defense. :)

[Trainz]

Usually the defense "everybody else is doing it, I just got caught" is a pretty poor defense. :)

No no no, it's still a crime, but it HAS to be put in context. Fine her, sure, NOT 2 million dollars.

[Varaj]

No no no, it's still a crime, but it HAS to be put in context. Fine her, sure, NOT 2 million dollars.

I think just about everybody and their kid brother agrees it is well past stupid. Hell even the RIAA even probably realizes it is past stupid and in their little heads realizes it hurts them more than it helps them.

[Janos]

So can he afford $1.92 million? What's the purpose of assigning a value that could never be repaid and restitution never acheived? Is that justice?

The woman has gone on record saying she can't and won't pay it. The RIAA has gone on record saying they're still willing to settle, but for more than the 3-5k they originally offered to settle with her for.

[obryn]

As the law stands the RIAA is very likely in the right, the problem is the law is wrong.
Yep. The problem isn't with the evidence - she's pretty clearly guilty, IMHO.

The problem is that the law is insane.

-O

[Dawnstar]

interesting. i hope they settle with her.

[Varaj]

interesting. i hope they settle with her.

I hope it gets take to the Supreme Court the the Court rules the laws are wack.

[Snatch]

I hope it gets take to the Supreme Court the the Court rules the laws are wack.

That's a bet I would not take.

[Varaj]

That's a bet I would not take.

I wouldn't lay large amounts of money on it either but there is precedence. :)