Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Thu Nov 4, 4:37 PM
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US jury has ordered a Minnesota woman to pay 1.5 million dollars for illegally downloading 24 songs in a high-profile digital piracy case.



Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother of four, was found liable by a jury on Wednesday of copyright infringement for using KaZaA peer-to-peer file-sharing network to download the songs over the Internet.

She was ordered to pay 62,500 dollars for each of the 24 songs, a total of 1.5 million dollars.

The verdict was the third in the long-running case and was welcomed by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).
Talk about making an example out of someone :eek:
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
310 Posts
The American justice/litigation system. Isn't it wonderful?

They ruined this woman's life over 24 songs. Completely and utterly pathetic. I think this woman also got some bad advice from her lawyers early on to not settle and get it over with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
520 Posts
Does she atleast get to keep the songs?

You would expect to have some protection against extreme charges like this, and it was a US jury. What a joke.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
I would pay with pennies. This is just out to lunch if you ask me. How will they expect to get that money or is it just a principle judgement?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,131 Posts
It's scare tactics. The idea is to scare people into not downloading music. The logic used in these law suits is flawed. They basically say that, since a copy is also uploaded, anyone who downloads a file with P2P is responsible for everyone who downloads a copy of the file. That logic is flawed since responsibility is shared among everyone who downloads/uploads the file. Say, for example, someone downloads one song and 'shares' it 3 times. Common sense says the the the maximum liability should be 4 times the value of the song plus a small penalty. The music companies are saying that person is responsible for everyone who subsequently shares the song, kind of like a pyramid scheme in reverse. That can easily be 10s or 100s of thousands of people. I can see that kind of logic being applied to the person who originally uploads the song. Applying it to a single person who is part of a pool of p2p file sharers is questionable.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,122 Posts
Single Mom with 4 kids! They can really pick'em. Will she declare bankruptcy, go on welfare, give up her kids?

Found the answer.
She said she's not going to worry about damages until the case is finalized and appeals are finished. Even then, she said, she'd probably file for bankruptcy and write off the damages, rather than pay herself.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,239 Posts
She should cash in everything she has of value and hand it over to them which would put her and her kids on the street. Then make sure the media hears about that!

-Mike
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,111 Posts
the problem is it was most likely more then 24 songs. If you download music who really ONLY has a hand full of songs. they just went after for 24 that were easily provable.

still the fines are crazy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
81 Posts
the whole copyright thing.....and jammie

The whole copyright agenda sucks.... on one side you have a bunch of greedy record execs......on the other you have a bunch of "free? im entitled to it " consumers and in the middle ... the artists who get get screwed by both. I personally loved the original Napster.... for rare hard to find stuff but, peer 2 peer became a virus, malware haven... I dont mind paying for music at a buck a tune..... Im sure the greedy record companies will change that. as for Jammie Thomas.... the fine is ridiculous She will never pay... the RIAA will never get their money.... but it will scare off a few illegal down loaders....The riaa uses the artists as a pawn in all this... saying the artists are intended to their royalties..... fact is the industry takes most of the money and the artist ends up with a fraction......the industry will only promote you if they think they can make a gazillion of you....there has been allot of good talent fall by the wayside because some rec exec cant parlee the artist into a million sales. because of the greedy RIAA and the alike MPAA I really dont support movies and buy music like I used to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,906 Posts
She should cash in everything she has of value and hand it over to them which would put her and her kids on the street. Then make sure the media hears about that!

-Mike
But really...she knows the rules..she's messing with the law. What kind of single mom is this? Surely she has responsibilities to attend to. She is not too swift, IMNSHO. Maybe her kids should go to family services! (Armour plate on)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,432 Posts
We have all downloaded something that wasn't for us to keep. Everyone. Nobody will ever convince me they didn't. No one.

To blame her as being immoral and what not, isn't really fair at all. She is being used as an example albeit very harsh and ridiculous one at that.

I think the record companies should rethink they way they do business instead of waiting for her to repay all this money. Can't see it happen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
280 Posts
P2PNet has managed to grab hold of the RIAA's tax documents for the last few years, and they make for some very entertaining reading. According to the RIAA’s disclosure form for just 2008, the outfit paid its lawyers more than $16,000,000 to recover $391,000 from P2P music traders. Between 2006 and 2008, the RIAA paid (mostly to lawyers) about $64 million to hunt down and threaten file sharers -- a process which only netted around $1.4 million (which didn't go to artists, of course).
The RIAA has a great business model.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top