Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/...ine/index.html

    "(CNN) -- A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs. /snip "

  • #2
    Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

    From what I read, she did have the opportunity to cave for less money, and she went for the whole enchilada. I bet she didn't think she would lose so badly.

    Sounds like she cannot pay. What is that saying...oh, yeah. "You can't get blood from a turnip."

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

      Originally posted by cyleet99 View Post
      From what I read, she did have the opportunity to cave for less money, and she went for the whole enchilada. "
      The article reports, "The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies". I can see why she carried it a step further trying to reduce the punishment. OUCH!
      Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

        Dang!

        And keep in mind the RIAA stopped suing individual "pirates" back in Dec/Jan. I guess they wanted to make a statement with a parting shot? So much for showing some retroactive love.
        "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

          Originally posted by Amati View Post
          The article reports, "The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies". I can see why she carried it a step further trying to reduce the punishment. OUCH!
          Actually, like all the other Kazaa users targeted by the RIAA for copyright violations, Thomas-Rasset was first given the option to settle out-of-court for several thousand dollars. She made the decision to reject the settlement offer, which compelled the RIAA to take her to court.

          Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
          And keep in mind the RIAA stopped suing individual "pirates" back in Dec/Jan. I guess they wanted to make a statement with a parting shot? So much for showing some retroactive love.
          As for showing "retroactive love," it's not that simple. Thomas-Rasset's case is the first time that a music file-sharing lawsuit was taken to a jury trial. So a legal precedent is being set here. Despite the RIAA making the announcement last December that it would no longer target individual file-sharers en masse, the organization still wanted to reserve its rights to sue heavy file-sharers. Hence, its decision to sue Thomas-Rassett for whatever damages they could get, which turned out to be $80,000 per song.

          Even after the latest trial outcome, an RIAA spokesperson said the recording companies were still open to negotiating a settlement that will lead to a "reasonable outcome," although she didn't give a specific dollar amount.The point here is that the music industry wanted to make clear that what this woman did was illegal and that damages would have to be paid for the violations she committed. To let her off the hook without paying a red cent would set up a bad precedent for future cases, so the RIAA wants her to fall in line with the other violators who settled out-of-court.
          This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

            Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
            Despite the RIAA making the announcement last December that it would no longer target individual file-sharers en masse, the organization still wanted to reserve its rights to sue heavy file-sharers. Hence, its decision to sue Thomas-Rassett for whatever damages they could get, which turned out to be $80,000 per song.
            Considering the hordes of attorneys retained by the RIAA, I'm sure they're aware they don't need to make any reservations as far as their rights to sue file sharers. Their decision to stop pursuing individuals was of their own accord -- though perhaps PR-influenced -- and not legally binding.

            Putting the screws on Thomas-Rassett:
            1. Set a precedent. Definitely.
            2. Created chilling effect in the community of illegal downloaders. Sure.
            3. Bumped up billable hours for RIAA attorneys. Yep.
            4. Made a reservation. Not so much.
            "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

              Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
              Considering the hordes of attorneys retained by the RIAA, I'm sure they're aware they don't need to make any reservations as far as their rights to sue file sharers.
              You've squarely missed the signficance of this groundbreaking lawsuit.

              That the RIAA pursued the case of Capitol v. Thomas to the bitter end has nothing to do with trying to squeeze $1.9 million from a single mom of limited means. The plaintiffs know they are not going to get all that money from her. She simply doesn't have it. All the plaintiffs will ultimately get from Jammie Thomas is a settlement of a few thousand dollars, if even that.

              This lawsuit is significant because Jammie Thomas' rejection of an out-of-court settlement set up this test case that sets precedents regarding the burden of proof required for a plaintiff to win a judgment in a file-sharing/copyright infringement suit and the type of evidence that is admissable in such a trial.

              http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...ict-kazaa.html

              The RIAA's anti-piracy contractor, MediaSentry, presented evidence that Thomas-Rasset actually distributed 11 copyrighted songs through Kazaa (to MediaSentry's investigators), and cited metadata from tracks in her shared folder strongly suggesting that the files had themselves been downloaded, not purchased or ripped from her CD collection. RIAA witnesses also linked the Kazaa uploads to a unique identifier on Thomas-Rasset's modem and computer and showed that the unusual username on the Kazaa account matched one that Thomas-Rasset acknowledged using on several other websites. In other words, the RIAA's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, but there was a lot of it.

              Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
              Their decision to stop pursuing individuals was of their own accord -- though perhaps PR-influenced -- and not legally binding.
              Well there you go! If you understand the PR black-eye that the RIAA was getting from pursuing lawsuits/settlements against individual file-sharers, then why do you think the RIAA would pursue this lawsuit against a 32 year old single mom of 4 kids? Purely out of spite? Because of some irrational urge to ruin the lives of this young family in Minnesota?

              When you consider the legal expenses that the recording industry has invested in this case, then none of those answers makes sense. When you strip away the names, faces, and personalities of the parties involved and you concentrate on the legal principles that are being argued, you will have taken the first step in beginning to comprehend the bigger picture of this landmark case.
              This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                You've squarely missed the signficance of this groundbreaking lawsuit ...

                ... If you understand the PR black-eye that the RIAA was getting from pursuing lawsuits/settlements against individual file-sharers, then why do you think the RIAA would pursue this lawsuit against a 32 year old single mom of 4 kids? Purely out of spite? Because of some irrational urge to ruin the lives of this young family in Minnesota?
                I never once said that the RIAA was pursuing the lawsuit out of spite or potential monetary gain. In fact, I agreed with you in my first bulleted point:
                Putting the screws on Thomas-Rassett:
                1. Set a precedent. Definitely.

                Since we are in concordance on that point, are you pooh-poohing yourself for misunderstanding the significance of this case, or do you only look at the first sentence of others' posts then make judgments based on your poor reading?

                Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                This lawsuit is significant because Jammie Thomas' rejection of an out-of-court settlement set up this test case that sets precedents regarding the burden of proof required for a plaintiff to win a judgment in a file-sharing/copyright infringement suit and the type of evidence that is admissable in such a trial.
                The RIAA didn't need this so-called "landmark decision" because previous case law was already on their side. Why else would 99.9% of defendants have automatically capitulated? The outcome of the case was no surprise -- just the award amount.

                Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                When you consider the legal expenses that the recording industry has invested in this case, then none of those answers makes sense. When you strip away the names, faces, and personalities of the parties involved and you concentrate on the legal principles that are being argued, you will have taken the first step in beginning to comprehend the bigger picture of this landmark case.
                Thanks, Gramps, but I don't need you to tell me what's to be comprehended here. The reality is, setting a legal precedent, in and of itself: expensive monetarily and from a PR-perspective. Literally creating a chilling effect among file sharers with this large award (though we know this particular defendant won't actually have to pay the full amount) so the RIAA doesn't have to bother with prosecuting them in the first place: priceless.

                The questions you raise about what you think I said obviously have no relation to anything I've actually said. Instead of looking for an argument where there is none, your time might be better spent first carefully reading posts before hitting REPLY.
                "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                  Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post


                  I never once said that the RIAA was pursuing the lawsuit out of spite or potential monetary gain. In fact, I agreed with you in my first bulleted point:
                  Putting the screws on Thomas-Rassett:
                  1. Set a precedent. Definitely.

                  Since we are in concordance on that point, are you pooh-poohing yourself for misunderstanding the significance of this case, or do you only look at the first sentence of others' posts then make judgments based on your poor reading?
                  On the contrary, I think I have a very good grasp on the larger implications of Capitol v. Thomas. That you are still thinking of the motivation for the suit as "putting the screws on Thomas-Rassett" indicates to me that you still can't see the forest for the trees. Oh well.

                  Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post



                  The RIAA didn't need this so-called "landmark decision" because previous case law was already on their side. Why else would 99.9% of defendants have automatically capitulated?
                  That is factually incorrect. There was no "previous case law" as Jammie Thomas is the the first person to be taken to court by the RIAA for illegal P2P file sharing by an individual. That virtually everyone else targeted by the RIAA for the same violation settled out of court did not establish any legal precedents for the prosecution of this type of copyright infringement.

                  Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
                  The outcome of the case was no surprise -- just the award amount.
                  The award amount was surprising. (Not that the plaintiffs expect Thomas to ever pay that much!) But while you're focused on the judgement award, I think it is more important to look at the arguments that the plaintiff put forward in order for the court to arrive at that judgement.

                  One needs to be mindful that the first trial in this case (where Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000) was thrown out. The difference between how the plaintiff's case was argued between the first and the second trial is what will shape future litigation in online music piracy.

                  http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/tech...ict-kazaa.html

                  Thomas-Rasset's was the first trial in the campaign against individual file-sharers that the RIAA began in 2003 and ended late last year. As such, it was one of the few tests of the legal underpinnings of that campaign, including the argument that making tracks available to others online (by keeping them in a folder that was open for sharing) was a form of infringement. U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis instructed the jury in Thomas-Rasset's first trial that making songs available was an infringement, a low threshold that would enable the labels to prove piracy just by collecting lists of the songs in people's shared folders. But Davis second-guessed himself after the verdict and ordered a new trial, mirroring the views of several other judges who had rejected the RIAA's interpretation of the law.

                  The result of the second trial suggests that the higher threshold isn't enough to derail the labels in an infringement lawsuit.


                  And to find out what kind of evidence was used in the second trial against Thomas-Rassett, look at the quote I provided in my previous post.

                  Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
                  Thanks, Gramps, but I don't need you to tell me what's to be comprehended here.
                  And with that act of name-calling, you have ended the civilized tone of this discussion. I now take my leave.
                  This post may contain an opinion that may conflict with your opinion. Do not take it personal. Polite discussion of difference of opinion is welcome.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                    Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                    And with that act of name-calling, you have ended the civilized tone of this discussion.
                    I thought the same thing. And, tossing in some name-calling is a sure way to weaken your position.
                    Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      On the contrary, I think I have a very good grasp on the larger implications of Capitol v. Thomas. That you are still thinking of the motivation for the suit as "putting the screws on Thomas-Rassett" indicates to me that you still can't see the forest for the trees. Oh well.
                      I guess you're still having trouble following my posts. It's painfully obvious that "putting the scews on" is the consequence of the RIAA's actions, not their motivation. This indicates to me that you can't see past your nose.

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      That is factually incorrect. There was no "previous case law" as Jammie Thomas is the the first person to be taken to court by the RIAA for illegal P2P file sharing by an individual. That virtually everyone else targeted by the RIAA for the same violation settled out of court did not establish any legal precedents for the prosecution of this type of copyright infringement.
                      There was established general case law in the areas of copyright and intellectual property that already supports the RIAA's position. That is a fact. Again, if you could see past your nose ...

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      The award amount was surprising. (Not that the plaintiffs expect Thomas to ever pay that much!) But while you're focused on the judgement award, I think it is more important to look at the arguments that the plaintiff put forward in order for the court to arrive at that judgement.
                      Many considering to file share will watch news reports of the award amount (on CBS morning show today) and will be deterred from engaging in the practice. Court arguments become moot at that point.

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      One needs to be mindful that the first trial in this case (where Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000) was thrown out. The difference between how the plaintiff's case was argued between the first and the second trial is what will shape future litigation in online music piracy.
                      It's almost sad that I have to point out that this case was the first and almost certainly the last of its kind to go to trial. Even if the judgment on this case were to be thrown out on appeal because of a technicality, 99.99% of file sharers would continue to settle out of court if sued by the RIAA. So who really cares about any shaping of litigation that almost never goes to trial?
                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      The result of the second trial suggests that the higher threshold isn't enough to derail the labels in an infringement lawsuit.
                      That's because a guilty verdict was a foregone conclusion based on pre-existing case law.

                      Originally posted by Frankie's Market View Post
                      And with that act of name-calling, you have ended the civilized tone of this discussion. I now take my leave.
                      Based on your comments in the Waikamilo McDonalds thread, you are, in fact, old enough to be my grandfather. In addition, by mistakenly concluding that I had not yet begun to comprehend the significance of the case, you purposely cast yourself as a doddering, know-it-all octogenarian. I simply handed you the shoe you made yourself fit.

                      Originally posted by Amati View Post
                      ... tossing in some name-calling is a sure way to weaken your position.
                      Basing your argument on a misreading is no position at all.

                      P.S. Guess what? Even Thomas-Rassett herself agrees with me:

                      "They're using me as pretty much to show the rest of them don't fight back or this is what's going to happen to you."
                      "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                        Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
                        Based on your comments in the Waikamilo McDonalds thread, you are, in fact, old enough to be my grandfather. In addition, by mistakenly concluding that I had not yet begun to comprehend the significance of the case, you purposely cast yourself as a doddering, know-it-all octogenarian.
                        So, is that how you talk to your Grandfather when you have a discussion with him? If he does not agree with you, do you call him "doddering" and a "know-it-all octogenarian". What a disrespectful attitude to have towards kupuna.
                        Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                          Originally posted by Amati View Post
                          So, is that how you talk to your Grandfather when you have a discussion with him? If he does not agree with you, do you call him "doddering" and a "know-it-all octogenarian". What a disrespectful attitude to have towards kupuna.
                          Actually, both my grandfathers have passed away. And both would have agreed with my assessment of FM, as neither of them suffered dismissive know-it-alls with a penchant for misrepresentation of any age. This apple does not fall far from either family tree.

                          If you feel FM is worth it, by all means, you can kowtow to him. I learned from my familial elders to set my standards higher.
                          "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                            Originally posted by MixedPlateBroker View Post
                            If you feel FM is worth it, by all means, you can kowtow to him. I learned from my familial elders to set my standards higher.
                            My comments were directly related to YOUR disrespect of elders. You should reassess your "higher standards".
                            Now run along and play, but don’t get into trouble.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: 1.9 Million Fine for Illegal Downloads of Songs

                              Originally posted by Amati View Post
                              My comments were directly related to YOUR disrespect of elders. You should reassess your "higher standards".
                              It's amusing that you, who complained that I supposedly weakened my position on the RIAA decision by name calling are now resorting to making inane and hysterically shrill demands. "Gramps" is an honorific; it's no one's fault but his own that FM read it poorly and took offense while acting like a doddering, diapered curmudgeon.

                              If you truly wanted to set things right, you'd demand FM cease his insidiously disdainful, faux-civil postings and elevate his discourse by consistently using a genuinely mannerly tone. Honest and plain-speaking gramps everywhere (like my own elders and this man) would rejoice! Then they'd remind you not to download music illegally because you are likely to be bludgeoned with a million-dollar fine.

                              Hey, at least I'm back on topic.
                              "If it's brown, it's cooked. If it's black, it's f***ed" - G. Ramsey

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X