Woman fined to tune of $1.9 million for illegal downloads
Updated 9:50 p.m. EDT, Thu June 18, 2009
By Elianne Friend
CNN
(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.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.
Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at the fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents.
She plans to appeal, he said.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the association was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."
"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.
Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.
This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.
The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.
Thomas-Rasset is married with four children and works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota.
The CNN story is very short on details. The CBC story is a little better, so if you want a more thorough report, click on this link:
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Seriously? That's some pretty fucked up standards of evidence regardless of what the "crime" was. The fact that the jury apparently thought $1.9 million was an appropriate amount is insane. Though if nothing else this is more than enough proof that you shouldn't touch Kazaa if you ever want to download anything.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
In the CBC story it also says that the judge in this re-trial explicitly ordered the jury to fine her only if they believed the songs had been downloaded, and that simply making them available for download was inadequate evidence.
It seems to me that they must have ignored that directive, given the incredibly flimsy evidence presented. Since when is supposition a form of evidence?
For other readers, here's the relevant excerpt from the (superior) CBC article on the same story:
For the retrial, Davis instructed the jurors that in order to find Thomas-Rasset infringed any copyrights, they had to determine that someone actually downloaded the songs. He said distribution needed to occur, though he didn't explicitly define distribution. Before, Davis said simply making the songs available on the Kazaa file-sharing network was enough.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
dragon mentioned this in the "Sony demands $150K per song" thread and I'll ask the same thing here that I did there: How the hell is she ever supposed to pay this off? The average American makes around $32k a year IIRC, which against $1.9 million is nearly 60 years to pay off, if she never has to pay for rent, food, etc.
The Gentleman from Texas abstains. Discourteously.
PRFYNAFBTFC-Vice Admiral: MFS Masturbating Walrus :: Omine subtilite Odobenus rosmarus masturbari Soy un perdedor.
"WHO POOPED IN A NORMAL ROOM?!"-Commander William T. Riker
The RIAA/MPAA always go after poorer people who they know can't put up a real fight with good lawyers. The corporate lawyers clearly won their victory through jury selection. By picking say, tech-illiterate conservatives who'd rail against 'theft', they can win without even providing a shred of real evidence because the jury won't understand what that takes.
In that other thread for example, the Jury had no idea what 'IP Addresses' were, and were expected to understand evidence involving MAC Addresses, digital signatures, checksums, etc.
Perhaps as a result of the whole distribution angle. The jurors might have been persuaded that the value represented by her downloads wasn't just the .99 value of the individual file, but the potential value of all the sales that were supposedly lost as a result of however-many people downloading the song as a result of her participation in distributing the illicit copy.
Maybe.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Even if you're the most computer-illiterate person in the world, who the fuck would justify an $80,000 fine on a $0.99 purchase??
Under the theory that the average song on Kazaa is downloaded about 80,500 times and that each download represents her stealing from RIAA and fencing the goods.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Pint0 Xtreme wrote:Even if you're the most computer-illiterate person in the world, who the fuck would justify an $80,000 fine on a $0.99 purchase??
Under the theory that the average song on Kazaa is downloaded about 80,500 times and that each download represents her stealing from RIAA and fencing the goods.
But does the theory state that the average song is downloaded about 80,500 times off of each person? Wouldn't the responsibility of a song being downloaded X many of times distributed amongst ALL its users?
I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing. If it's exactly the same as stealing, then why is there a "fair use" law? There's no such thing as "fair use" for stealing a car.
Somebody has to explain in no uncertain terms that intellectual property is not on the same level as tangible property.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Darth Wong wrote:I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing. If it's exactly the same as stealing, then why is there a "fair use" law? There's no such thing as "fair use" for stealing a car.
Somebody has to explain in no uncertain terms that intellectual property is not on the same level as tangible property.
It's taking something of value for your own use and enjoyment, without compensating the owner of that thing in the legally provided-for way (well, or in any other way) and further - in this case - distributing that thing of value to others free of charge, thereby denying the owner of that thing the compensation to which they're legally entitled from *those* recipients, too.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it converts owned material like theft, and denies the legal owner compensation like theft, it's theft.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Darth Wong wrote:I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing. If it's exactly the same as stealing, then why is there a "fair use" law? There's no such thing as "fair use" for stealing a car.
Somebody has to explain in no uncertain terms that intellectual property is not on the same level as tangible property.
It's taking something of value for your own use and enjoyment, without compensating the owner of that thing in the legally provided-for way (well, or in any other way) and further - in this case - distributing that thing of value to others free of charge, thereby denying the owner of that thing the compensation to which they're legally entitled from *those* recipients, too.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it converts owned material like theft, and denies the legal owner compensation like theft, it's theft.
Address my point, shithead.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Kanastrous wrote:Perhaps as a result of the whole distribution angle. The jurors might have been persuaded that the value represented by her downloads wasn't just the .99 value of the individual file, but the potential value of all the sales that were supposedly lost as a result of however-many people downloading the song as a result of her participation in distributing the illicit copy.
Maybe.
The "potential value" argument is a retarded angle. If you're arguing "potential value" every single time a radio station plays a song, people who decide not to buy the album after listening to it are costing a potential sale. It doesn't matter if they legally hold the rights to broadcast or not if you're just basing it off "potential" here, because "potential value" does not make a distinction of the source the listener hears it from.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
I'm responding to I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing by suggesting that it's sufficiently analogous to stealing that the distinction is unimportant.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
Kanastrous wrote:I'm responding to I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing by suggesting that it's sufficiently analogous to stealing that the distinction is unimportant.
Go fuck yourself, you stupid asshole. You completely ignored the point about how intellectual property is not the same as tangible property. How can you address an argument about stealing by completely ignoring the question of how "real" the property is which is being stolen?
On this board, you are expected to answer arguments honestly, not to snip out opening sentences and ignore the meat of the argument.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Kanastrous wrote:Perhaps as a result of the whole distribution angle. The jurors might have been persuaded that the value represented by her downloads wasn't just the .99 value of the individual file, but the potential value of all the sales that were supposedly lost as a result of however-many people downloading the song as a result of her participation in distributing the illicit copy.
Maybe.
The "potential value" argument is a retarded angle. If you're arguing "potential value" every single time a radio station plays a song, people who decide not to buy the album after listening to it are costing a potential sale. It doesn't matter if they legally hold the rights to broadcast or not if you're just basing it off "potential" here, because "potential value" does not make a distinction of the source the listener hears it from.
Sure it matters whether or not they have the rights to broadcast it; the legal owner of the property has had their say in how it's utilized.
And, hearing a song off the radio speaker is different from downloading yourself a free copy, because the radio play is transitory and under the station's control, while the downloaded file lasts on your hard drive and is under *your* control.
I find myself endlessly fascinated by your career - Stark, in a fit of Nerd-Validation, November 3, 2011
I'm responding to I'm sick of the way these people treat copying as if it's precisely analogous to stealing by suggesting that it's sufficiently analogous to stealing that the distinction is unimportant.
So I guess killing in self defense is sufficiently analogous to murder that the distinction is unimportant, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Kanastrous wrote:
Sure it matters whether or not they have the rights to broadcast it; the legal owner of the property has had their say in how it's utilized.
And, hearing a song off the radio speaker is different from downloading yourself a free copy, because the radio play is transitory and under the station's control, while the downloaded file lasts on your hard drive and is under *your* control.
Don't give me this bullshit. If you're arguing that if it's wrong because it costs a sale, then that means anything that costs them a sale can be analogous to piracy regardless of who has the rights to broadcast it. You can record something off the radio just as easily as downloading something onto your hard drive, and anything on your hard drive can be gotten rid of with a simple delete button. Your transitory argument is nonsense.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Kanastrous is a classic example of someone who just makes up whatever argument will suit his predetermined conclusion. It's not as if he consistently uses that kind of logic elsewhere.
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Kanastrous wrote:It's taking something of value for your own use and enjoyment, without compensating the owner of that thing in the legally provided-for way (well, or in any other way) and further - in this case - distributing that thing of value to others free of charge, thereby denying the owner of that thing the compensation to which they're legally entitled from *those* recipients, too.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If it converts owned material like theft, and denies the legal owner compensation like theft, it's theft.
And this case is also being debated on SB where they state that of the large fine amount here, not one red cent would go to the artists. How is the RIAA compensating the owner after the case then?
Don't Move you're surrounded by Armed Bastards - Gene Hunt's attempt at Diplomacy
I will not make any deals with you. I've resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own - Number 6
The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done.
Assuming it takes a minute to download a song from a computer on a home internet connection, a dollar a song... Two million dollars worth of music is 3.8 years of downloading 24/7.
I don't know of a planet where you could justify that as damages.
I'm surprised RIAA doesn't try to bring counterfeiting charges against people who put these songs up on Kazaa and so on, since that seems to make a lot more sense than theft to me.
The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. -- Wikipedia's No Original Research policy page.
Kanastrous wrote:
And, hearing a song off the radio speaker is different from downloading yourself a free copy, because the radio play is transitory and under the station's control, while the downloaded file lasts on your hard drive and is under *your* control.
And if I record it on an old boombox I'm stealing? Are you that stupid?
Next thing you know the RIAA will start suing people who whistle, hum or sing a song without paying extortion money royalties.
