Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case - recording companies awarded $1.92 million

[Kadie]

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 18, 2009


(06-18) 15:34 PDT MINNEAPOLIS (AP) --

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.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/0...

[Turbineguy]

1. See?

Not everybody get bankrupted by medical bills!

[ThomCat]

4. They are out to prove that we haven't seen yet how evil

corporations can truly be. They are just warming up.

[ThomCat]

2. WTF!

$80,000 per song? How that hell is that any kind of justice, even if you buy into their ludicrous ideas that they've been harmed in any way?

The most they should be entitled to is $1 per song. That's all they have been denied because she didn't buy the songs.

[MercutioATC]

6. The argument is that she distributed them (via file sharing) on Kazaa.

In essence, she may have given away hundreds of thousands of free copies.

[ThomCat]

13. May have?

Have they somehow proven that she gave away 80,000 copies of each song? If not, then this is a fairytale number.

[MercutioATC]

16. I agree that the number is unreasonable.

I was just explaining that it's not about her DLing the music, it's about her distributing it.

[LostinVA]

3. Ridiculous

[Joe the Liberal]

5. Sheesh $80,000 per song....

Where the hell is this lady gonna get that kind of money?

[dionysus]

9. she's not, her life is ruined

[customerserviceguy]

18. Well, while it indeed sucks to be her

she can file for bankruptcy, and have it off of her credit report in ten years. There's no way in hell she's ever going to pay them that kind of bucks, is there?

[TheWatcher]

21. She Should. It would be the PERFECT way to say FUCK YOU. You don't get one thin dime.

Because if she doesn't have much in the way of assets she can probably screw them that way.

Bankruptcy is NOT the end of the world. You CAN rebuild your credit.

These parasites don't deserve ONE CENT.

FUCK THE RIAA.

[yodoobo]

23. Only if you believe money = your life.

She's only 32 years old. A bankruptcy hardly ruins a life.

Thats not to say that this is not a terrible thing that has happened to her. Its also a terrible injustice.

Just saying that money is not your life.

Assuming she is like most folks, the practical effect of a $222,000 judgment is the same as a $10 million dollar judgment.

She'll file bankruptcy and start over.

If she was broke before this case, then the net effect is that she'll pay a few thousand to file bk and have a credit ruined for about 3 years. (bankruptcys have little affect after about 3 years).

btw, I'm talking from experience. I filed bk 7 years ago this month and I would never say that my life is ruined.

[RavensChick]

7. Yikes!

I hope I can still download on I-Tunes. At least I pay for my songs. 80 grand is way too much for any song, whether it's a hit or a miss.

[madrchsod]

8. not one of those who had a financial stake in those 24 songs will get anything

what ever money they can collect will go to their legal fees.

well maybe those who have a financial stake will get what they are owed on a single play of their work

[baldguy]

10. bingo

[Deja Q]

11. Which is the most depressing aspect of them all.

People worked hard to make those songs - even if they're crap, people still made them. I'll respect that.

You don't steal others' livelihoods.

But don't get me wrong; the RIAA will leech off of everybody it can.

Thank goodness for iTunes...

[Howardx]

12. i wonder if any of these defendents lawyers

have ever asked the riaa to prove they represent the artists involved? perhaps show how much money they have returned to the copyright holders over the years?

[ThomCat]

15. If they can't show that any of the money they collect goes to artists

then at some point I hope artists file a class action lawsuit against them and shut them down.

Because if they go to all this effort, sue all these people, and collect money from people to defend the ownership of these songs and the artists don't see any of it then effectively they are saying that they own the songs in their entirety, not the artists. Doesn't that make them the pirates, stealing ownership away from the artists?

[Pavulon]

14. Time for the supremes and end to end vpn and encrypted files..

these assholes just continue to dig their own graves. Not going to outsmart the collective. cant compel a password turnover.

[davidpdx]

17. That's the problem with retrials

In some cases, you end up with a worse result. Though I honestly can't believe how they came up with that number. I hate to say it, she should have paid the $222,000 judgement. The women has been screwed by the Recording Industry and the courts.

[yodoobo]

22. As a practical matter, its the same result.

She can probably no more pay $222k, than $1.8 million or 1.8 billion or 1.8 trillion.

The plantiffs will get what they can after shes file bankruptcy.

[davidpdx]

24. But as a practical matter, it would have been easier to

say fundraise to help her pay off $222,000. This is 6X that. I think it would have been a hell of a lot less likely she went to bankruptcy had it not gone to retrial. But then again, hindsight is 20/20.

[votingupstart]

19. that sucks nt

[tech3149]

20. Truly beyond insanity! $80K per song?

If I could get $80K per song from one listener, I'd still be doing music. The term eff them where they breath comes to mind. I've still got my guitars and would rather spend 16 hours a day to get my chops back than support some administrative dweeb or their lawyers.
You know for damned sure the artist doesn't get peanuts. Some days I really hate this world.