RIAA v. Jammie Thomas, Take Two - HotHardware
RIAA v. Jammie Thomas, Take Two

RIAA v. Jammie Thomas, Take Two

For the defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, she had to be thinking that perhaps a retrial was not such a good idea after all, after hearing the verdict.The trial, which began Monday, concluded Thursday with Thomas-Rasset found guilty of willful copyright infringement.  She must now pay the recording industry $1.92 million.

The jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, a huge $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was found guilty of illegally sharing.  The original 2007 verdict saddled Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 in damages, or $9,250 per song.

According to Ars, upon hearing the verdict, Thomas-Rasset gasped.

The RIAA stated that the jury's decision reaffirms industry's contention about the legality of its copyright claims. Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman said:
"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do. We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so."
The implication, acknowledged by Duckworth, is that the industry would be willing to settle for far less.

Thomas-Rasset is the only person among those threatened with a lawsuit for illegal file-sharing to go to trial.  Last year U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Duluth, Minnesota, declared a mistrial in the original case, ruling that he erred during jury instructions.

Late in 2008, the RIAA indicated it would no longer pursue file-sharers through legal threats, instead opting to attempt to get ISPs to join a "three-strikes" movement to halt broadband services for someone who has been warned three times for such activity.
0
+ -

Unless 80,000 people downloaded each song completely from her, there is no way in hell that she should have to pay that much.

This is the reason why everyone hates the RIAA and MPAA so much.

0
+ -

Well, what they are doing now is making her pay to the fullest extent of the law.  Usually, they would make you pay $700 per song, which is the minimum.  What I really never understand about cases like this is that they try and get people who barely download anything.  There are tons of people out there who have terabytes of movies and they arent the ones getting caught.

0
+ -

How do they justify a song being worth $700? The maximum it is on iTunes is $1.29 so why should they be able to charge her more?

0
+ -

They're not suing her for illegal downloading of the songs, they're suing her for making them available to others.

Even given the best Internet connection, the fine is preposterous.  If you look at the songs in the list they were suing over, some of them are 20+ years old and should not by right be entitled to copyright protection (if Disney hadn't bought the lawmakers and gotten them to pass bills extending copyrights everytime Steamboat Willy is about to expire).  This is one of the reason I shirk bands affiliated with the RIAA, even if I like their music (We don't *need* it).

Go to RIAAradar (www.riaaradar.com) to find bands not associated with this mafia. I suggest "Stuff" by Very Large Array.  If you have Amarok or some other client that supports Magnatune, you can even listen to the whole thing before buying (and downloading in a non-DRM-encumbered format of your choice).

0
+ -

I believe Radiohead has also made a split from the record industry, in fact I think they now release free albums.

0
+ -

I'll start listening to Radiohead when they pay me for it.

Then again, I'm a creep.

Login or Register to Comment
Post a Comment
Username:   Password: