Crime Jury rules against woman in download case: $80,000 Fine Per Song

[jonadrian619]

MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge 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.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recordin…

www.gainesville.com

 

[C-Death]

Oh..that really sucks.
*pink* all your downloads are complete

oh sweet! my new cd is here!

 

[xxxtrickyxxx]

i think its fucking retarded, just make her pay the couple dollars per song like you would have had to. this is like making someone pay 2 million dollars for stealing a candy bar. come the fuck on, what happened to the justice system.

 

[C-Death]

i think its fucking retarded, just make her pay the couple dollars per song like you would have had to. this is like making someone pay 2 million dollars for stealing a candy bar. come the fuck on, what happened to the justice system.

"Welcome to America! The rich rule, and the poor can GTFO."
Why not just post that at the statue of liberty?

 

[Varine]

i think its fucking retarded, just make her pay the couple dollars per song like you would have had to. this is like making someone pay 2 million dollars for stealing a candy bar. come the fuck on, what happened to the justice system.

Government regulation.

 

[GooS]

i think its fucking retarded, just make her pay the couple dollars per song like you would have had to. this is like making someone pay 2 million dollars for stealing a candy bar. come the fuck on, what happened to the justice system.

Sooo, someone that has stolen money should just.. give it back when caught and then it's fine?

No, I agree the fine is ridiculous, the fine for one song is more than a rapist would have to pay for pain and suffering to his victim in Sweden..
So it's cheaper to rape someone than download a song for entertainment if you get caught.

That's it, human lifes are now worthless!

//==GooS

 

[DDRtists]

Lets face it, the music industry is one of the larger ones in the country and pay far more taxes to the government, meaning all the really have to do is bitch about filesharing a bunch and the US will push some shit forward. It's ruled by the rich sadly, because I'm sure some songs that should be freely shared are worth $80,000 a piece. I'm all for free music, because I find it as an freely exchangeable thing in life much like an extended form of conversation.

 

[Vestras]

I thought the police only could be arsed to get those who sells illegally downloaded music? I mean, like, fencers?

 

[FireCat]

i think its fucking retarded, just make her pay the couple dollars per song like you would have had to. this is like making someone pay 2 million dollars for stealing a candy bar. come the fuck on, what happened to the justice system.

Yeah, I agree on that... It's getting a bit ridiculous now.

 

[free_killing]

Wouw! in denmark we have to pay 8 dkk for each song downloaded ;P
and 5 dkk for buying a song on itunes
1 dkk is about 1,5$

 

[Jackal]

Epic post on this issue from wc3diplo:

Rabble rabble pirating iznt bad wtfzzzxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxquack

I liek musak

wtf musak cumpaniz r gey wtfz.

Buy it or gtfo.

Despite what Andrew might tell you after taking a smoke, stealing is bad karma regardless of what form it takes.

*insert whining about record/music companies* *insert elaborate logic as to why it isn't stealing* *insert "pirating shit is cool"* *etc*

Mr. Revolver does not want to hear your excuses.

Girl got what was comin' to her.

 

[konerboy]

and 5 dkk for buying a song on itunes
1 dkk is about 1,5$

1 dkk is only 0,19$, and i've heard that it was rather 20 $ per song,

 

[jonadrian619]

$80,000 is equivalent to PhP3,860,000 (Philippine Peso). To us (and to me), a thousand dollars is already a huge sum.

That $80,000 is more expensive than the worth of a two-storey home in our country (expensive appliances and furniture included).

One authentic album cd in our country only costs $5.2. Say if I want to buy 5 albums of Metallica then I just pay for $26.

That filesharing fine is uber crap, I tell ya.

 

[free_killing]

1 dkk is only 0,19$, and i've heard that it was rather 20 $ per song,

ohh, sorry, i meant that 8 dkk (the fine) was 1,5$.. my fault ;P

 

[Effane]

While pirating kinda sucks for producers of media it also sucks that the new way for the poorly performing music industry to get money is via lawsuits. Granted they will never see this money since there is no way she can pay for it so they lose this time.

I use filesharing to sample albums myself. Lets be honest, most of the music these days SUCKS. I dont feel that my 15-20 dollars is well spent on a gamble of a good or bad album.

Good example, heard a song from Otep that was pretty good. I downloaded the entire album and didn't like the album at all. There wasn't any decent way for me to sample the entire album without that initial pirating which did save me money from buying a product I wouldn't want.

In the end the music industry will just have to change the way they do business. They cant sue the tens of millions of downloaders, and stories on excessive lawsuit judgements dont slow people from downloading music. A poor business model that doesnt adjust to the way people use technology isnt a good reason to resort to only legal paths and attempts to change laws.

The music industry should be grateful that they had over 100 years of selling copies of music, before then it was travelling bands and orchestras. In the scheme of history the time they sold music copies was just a fad.

 

[xxxtrickyxxx]

you wont get questioned when downloading songs, only when you share them to others. but then you still have lottery winning odds of being contacted by your ISP/ however, i dont believe this is always the users fault but the application they are using having file sharing enabled by default which most users wont know about. quite a few of the defendants who were subject to file sharing were not aware they were doing so but verdict decided otherwise.

 

[free_killing]

While pirating kinda sucks for producers of media it also sucks that the new way for the poorly performing music industry to get money is via lawsuits. Granted they will never see this money since there is no way she can pay for it so they lose this time.

I use filesharing to sample albums myself. Lets be honest, most of the music these days SUCKS. I dont feel that my 15-20 dollars is well spent on a gamble of a good or bad album.

Good example, heard a song from Otep that was pretty good. I downloaded the entire album and didn't like the album at all. There wasn't any decent way for me to sample the entire album without that initial pirating which did save me money from buying a product I wouldn't want.

In the end the music industry will just have to change the way they do business. They cant sue the tens of millions of downloaders, and stories on excessive lawsuit judgements dont slow people from downloading music. A poor business model that doesnt adjust to the way people use technology isnt a good reason to resort to only legal paths and attempts to change laws.

The music industry should be grateful that they had over 100 years of selling copies of music, before then it was travelling bands and orchestras. In the scheme of history the time they sold music copies was just a fad.

Agreed, i dont just spend moneys on a album, and hope that it is good,, i download it, if its good enuf, i buy it,, that shud be legal Thus i dont think it is

 

[Exide]

Hearing this makes me want to download even more.
Let's screw the music companies over big time everyone! :thup:

 

[Karawasa]

Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, I think we can all agree that $80,000 damages per song is outrageous.

 

[konerboy]

atleast Slipknot dosn't care if you download it.