RIAA wins 1.9 million lawsuit. No mention on FOFC. That's slipping.

[Axxon]

Decision is a victory for the RIAA in its crackdown on illegal music file sharing.

By W. David Gardner
InformationWeek
June 19, 2009 10:21 AM

Jammie Thomas-Rasset went to trial this week hoping to nullify an earlier judgment against her on charges that she illegally downloaded music from the Internet. But in this week's jury trial, she was deemed liable to pay $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million.

An earlier jury had delivered a verdict in which she was deemed liable for $9,250 for each downloaded song.

This week's trial, in a Minnesota federal court, was short and sweet for the Recording Industry Association of America, which had brought the charges against Thomas-Rasset in the nation's sole music file-sharing case that has gone to trial. The RIAA recently changed its tactics against what it maintains is the illegal downloading of music from the Internet. Now it's asking Internet service providers to send warnings to suspected illegal downloaders.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that [money]," said Thomas-Rasset after the trial Thursday, according to media reports. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

RIAA attorneys had argued that evidence showed Thomas-Rasset was responsible for what they termed illegal music downloading that occurred on her computer. Her attorneys claimed that RIAA attorneys hadn't proved that she was the person who did the actual downloading from her computer.

In the end, the jury awarded the RIAA $1.92 million, or $80,000 a song. Earlier, the RIAA had initiated more than 30,000 lawsuits against people it claimed had illegally downloaded music. Most of them settled for $3,500, but some said they were innocent of the charges but didn't have the financial resources to defend themselves in expensive litigation.

An official for the RIAA said the association was willing to settle for a figure of less than $80,000 a song.

In a newly published Harvard Business School paper, two economists argue that while file sharing has weakened copyright protection, weak copyright protection benefits society.

Personally, I'm not sure she went about her defense the right way. She was trying to say she was innocent of the act and it was pretty obvious she wasn't. She was using the same login she used for her email, facebook, ect.

Still, this is a ridiculous award and will likely not stand.

hxxp://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/music/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218100335

[molson]

There's a reason only 1 out of 30,000 of these suits went to trial...

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by molson

There's a reason only 1 out of 30,000 of these suits went to trial...

I think not having deep enough pockets to afford the lawsuit as a greater deterrent to trials than the possible loss of money you'll never be able to pay in the first place. This woman's lawyers are pro bono which was the only way she could fight the issue and likely why she fared so badly.

[Big Fo]

Twelve jurors agreed on $80,000 per song, that is nuts.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Big Fo

Twelve jurors agreed on $80,000 per song, that is nuts.

i wonder how many of those jurors had illegally downloaded music on their computers at home?

or didn't own computers

[NewIdentity]

Originally Posted by Axxon

She was using the same login she used for her email, facebook, ect.
hxxp://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/music/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218100335

What Login are they talking about? Was it this Login thing that doomed her case?

I download most of my music from random web pages on the internet or Limewire. Neither require you to actually login. Was she using some kind of music site she had to login to; so they could track her?

Anyway, I once received a letter many years ago from my former ISP that they were contacted by Universal Studios because I had downloaded a movie of theirs. I was warned to quit doing this and they also advised I check my router for security, as I guess someone other than me can use my wireless router without having to login to download illegal things. Who knew?

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by NewIdentity

What Login are they talking about? Was it this Login thing that doomed her case?

I download most of my music from random web pages on the internet or Limewire. Neither require you to actually login. Was she using some kind of music site she had to login to; so they could track her?

Anyway, I once received a letter many years ago from my former ISP that they were contacted by Universal Studios because I had downloaded a movie of theirs. I was warned to quit doing this and they also advised I check my router for security, as I guess someone other than me can use my wireless router without having to login to download illegal things. Who knew?

This guy's spam is getting more and more elaborate.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

He's also unaware of basic security protocols... JUST LIKE YOU'D EXPECT OF A SPAMBOT.

[path12]

The only thing that I'm really curious about is what songs did she download?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I hadn't seen it, but I'll give the decision a big woot, an attaboy, and a waytogo.

[RendeR]

Always nice to hear from the radically wack Jon. Hows the wife and my kids?

[stevew]

Originally Posted by path12

The only thing that I'm really curious about is what songs did she download?

Hopefully the greatest and best song in the world.

[Shkspr]

Originally Posted by path12

The only thing that I'm really curious about is what songs did she download?

From one "rumor" website...

1.Vanessa Williams - Save the best for last
2.Sheryl Crow - Run baby run
3.Reba McEntire - One honest heart
4.Janet Jackson - let's wait awhile
5.Guns n Roses - Welcome to the jungle
6.Guns n Roses - November rain
7.Def Leppard - Pour some sugar on me
8.Bryan Adams - Somebody
9.Aerosmnith - Cryin
10.Linkin Park - One step closer
11.Green Day - Basket case
12.Goo Goo Dolls - iris
13.No Doubt - Hella Good
14.No Doubt - Different people
15.No Doubt - Bathwater
16.Sarah McLaughlan - Building a mystery
17.Sarah McLaughlan - Possession
18.Gloria Estefan - Rhythm is gonna get you
19.Gloria Estefan - Here and we are
20.Gloria Estefan - Coming out of the dark
21.Journey - Faithfully
22.Journey - Don't stop believin
23.Destiny's Child - Bills, bills, bills
24.Richard Marx - Now and for ever

I'm fairly certain that for $80K, some of those artists would live at her house and sing those songs for her whenever she asked.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I hadn't seen it, but I'll give the decision a big woot, an attaboy, and a waytogo.

I am all for her getting punished... but $80,000 a song? Come on. At $.99 a song, she would have had to have shared EACH SONG with 80,808 people. She was found guilty of 24 counts, so that is 1,939,392 shares.

At 4MB a song, she would have had to have shared over 7 TERABYTES of music.

I don't care what the law says, in my mind, this is cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment does not equal the crime.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Shkspr

From one "rumor" website...

1.Vanessa Williams - Save the best for last
2.Sheryl Crow - Run baby run
3.Reba McEntire - One honest heart
4.Janet Jackson - let's wait awhile
5.Guns n Roses - Welcome to the jungle
6.Guns n Roses - November rain
7.Def Leppard - Pour some sugar on me
8.Bryan Adams - Somebody
9.Aerosmnith - Cryin
10.Linkin Park - One step closer
11.Green Day - Basket case
12.Goo Goo Dolls - iris
13.No Doubt - Hella Good
14.No Doubt - Different people
15.No Doubt - Bathwater
16.Sarah McLaughlan - Building a mystery
17.Sarah McLaughlan - Possession
18.Gloria Estefan - Rhythm is gonna get you
19.Gloria Estefan - Here and we are
20.Gloria Estefan - Coming out of the dark
21.Journey - Faithfully
22.Journey - Don't stop believin
23.Destiny's Child - Bills, bills, bills
24.Richard Marx - Now and for ever

I'm fairly certain that for $80K, some of those artists would live at her house and sing those songs for her whenever she asked.

80k a pop for 3 No Doubt, 2 Sarah McLaughlan, and a Bryan Adams song? Ouch.

[Julio Riddols]

I'll stick with the study that showed that people who pirate music purchase a significant amount more than their "law abiding" counterparts.

They're also probably much more satisfied with their puchases as a result.

[Sgran]

So what happens if the verdict stands after all the appeals? Does she just file for bankruptcy?

[Comey]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

80k a pop for 3 No Doubt, 2 Sarah McLaughlan, and a Bryan Adams song? Ouch.

You pick out those but overlook Richard Marx?

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Sgran

So what happens if the verdict stands after all the appeals? Does she just file for bankruptcy?

Pretty much, she said "I'm a single mom, so they're not going to be anything for them to get anyway"

[RendeR]

they don't actually expect to recoup the money, this isn't about the monetary damages of the trial, this is about the verdict and the verdict alone, so that they can point at this and threaten OTHER people.

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by RendeR

they don't actually expect to recoup the money, this isn't about the monetary damages of the trial, this is about the verdict and the verdict alone, so that they can point at this and threaten OTHER criminals.

Fixed that last word for ya

[SportsDino]

She has to lose, whatever the monetary amount it will be settled upon eventually as more cases are there to establish precedence. The amount is the headline, but it doesn't change the nature of whether you will be found guilty and have to pay something. I'm sure the penalties will converge towards some more sensible standard as more cases pop up and some sort of precedent is set for reasonable punishment.

[Oilers9911]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I hadn't seen it, but I'll give the decision a big woot, an attaboy, and a waytogo.

The decision is correct but the punishment is completely overboard and ridiculous. $80,000 per song? Talk about killing a mosquito with a bazooka.

[fantom1979]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

Fixed that last word for ya

It has been well documented that not everyone that the music industry sends letters to are guilty.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

It has been well documented that not everyone that the music industry sends letters to are guilty.

This would be the BIGGER reason that only 1 in 30k of these go to trial.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

It has been well documented that not everyone that the music industry sends letters to are guilty.

Glad you mentioned it.

Although the big news has been surrounding the RIAA and their decision over file sharer Jammie Thomas, another piece of interesting news regarding the trade group has surfaced today as well.

Mavis Roy, a woman who was sued by the RIAA over alleged file sharing, has 'settled' today with the trade group, however there is much more to it.

On the dates in which she is alleged to have pirated the music, Roy did not own a computer, and her stories check out. She tossed out the first written threat from the RIAA thinking it was a joke and was promptly sued afterwards. Luckily, a law student took up her case and Roy and the RIAA settled today for the lofty sum of $0 USD.

Despite this victory in court, Roy is "still unsettled that the record companies are able to treat upstanding American citizens in this way. Invading people’s privacy and accusing people of things that don’t even make sense. It is such a sad waste of the courts time."

Moby may be correct in saying it is time for this group to disband.

hxxp://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/18256.cfm

This issue has gone far beyond protecting a copyright into simple extortion and these people need to be stopped.

[Bad-example]

So merely the great majority of these people are actually guilty of what they are accused? Or is it more than just a small percentage that are turning out to be falsely accused?

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by Bad-example

So merely the great majority of these people are actually guilty of what they are accused? Or is it more than just a small percentage that are turning out to be falsely accused?

How would we know? I doubt there's an easily accessable database detailing the 29999 settlements that we could research to determine the case in each one.

The point is, why allow an entity to engage in witchhunts costing innocent people time and money with no merit? If they harass you in error and still force a "settlement" when clearly wrong then they really shouldn't be allowed to have that kind of power. They didn't let the mafia have it, why the record industry?

[Axxon]

dola - I do realize they're not suing people any more so this is kinda retroactive outrage but I still think their tactics almost require they be disbanded and a new group be chosen to reflect the new direction of the fight against piracy. I'm not against the fight ( I'm a long time Rhapsody guy ), just the fighters and I think they could win a lot of support by matching the new approach with a new watchdog.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Julio Riddols

I'll stick with the study that showed that people who pirate music purchase a significant amount more than their "law abiding" counterparts.

They're also probably much more satisfied with their puchases as a result.

Still theft. If I'm into designer jeans and buy a lot of them, it doesn't mean that gives me a free pass to shoplift a few every few times.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by fantom1979

I am all for her getting punished... but $80,000 a song? Come on. At $.99 a song, she would have had to have shared EACH SONG with 80,808 people. She was found guilty of 24 counts, so that is 1,939,392 shares.

At 4MB a song, she would have had to have shared over 7 TERABYTES of music.

I don't care what the law says, in my mind, this is cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment does not equal the crime.

That's definitely high but just part of our civil courts these days. My neighbor here doesn't work and supports herself from a nearly $1 million dollar settlement she got for slipping on some ice outside of a mall and breaking her wrist many years ago.

[Axxon]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's definitely high but just part of our civil courts these days. My neighbor here doesn't work and supports herself from a nearly $1 million dollar settlement she got for slipping on some ice outside of a mall and breaking her wrist many years ago.

Of course, that means she could download 12 songs if she wanted to.

[SirFozzie]

They're still suing, btw, they apparently lied to congress (big shock, eh?)

[SportsDino]

Hopefully some of that rhetoric about cutting down on fraudulent lawsuits is applied to corporations and their lackeys as well.