Music downloader ordered to pay $222,000

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
Illegal sharing
Jammie Thomas of Brainerd, Minn., is on the third day of her civil trial for alleged music pirating through illegal sharing of song files. Some 26,000 lawsuits have been filed over alleged misuse, but the case against Thomas, a 30-year-old mother of two, is the first to go to trial. (AP/Julia Cheng)



The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.

Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined to comment as they left the courthouse. Jurors also left without commenting.



"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.

In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a ***** file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a ***** account.

Record companies have filed about 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.

The Recording Industry Association of America says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March this year.

During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a ***** user under the name "tereastarr."

Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Toder said in his closing argument that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."

Gabriel, the music industry's lead attorney, called that defense "misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors."

He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders.

"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful."

Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages of $9,250 per song; Gabriel said they did not explain to attorneys afterward how they reached that amount.

Thomas, of Brainerd, works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe's Department of Natural Resources.

Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.

Illegal downloads have "become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits.

"This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."

Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place - and later than she said in a deposition before trial.

The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party, though Thomas used her new one to show the jury how fast it copies songs from CDs.

That was an effort to counter an industry witness' assertion that the songs on the old drive got there too fast to have come from CDs she owned - and therefore must have been downloaded illegally.

Record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005, warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004, as she said in the deposition.

The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
 

Ruimixx

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 1
It's a joke. I feel the same as this comment I cut below that article.

"The same RIAA will allow a song to be downloaded for 88 cents. So for 24 songs her fine should have been closer to $22.00"

Sounds fair to me.
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
It's a joke. I feel the same as this comment I cut below that article.

"The same RIAA will allow a song to be downloaded for 88 cents. So for 24 songs her fine should have been closer to $22.00"

Sounds fair to me.

I think they based it on how many times the songs that she uploaded had been download by others to date. If you multiply $22 x 10000 it comes real close to the mount awarded.
She obviously was uploading songs on a large scale and the songs were being downloaded on an even larger scale compared to the average user. She was a habitual music uploader...lol You better be able to wipe your hard drive clean if you're doing this on a consistant basis! Putting it in the "trash" will not remove it from your hard drive.

I actually don't think it's about the money. I think it's sending a message to these torrents who set the file sharing up in the first place. They're the ones making millions from advertisers, the same way the napster dude did. They're hitting the little man in hopes that the little man will turn on the torrent sites. It's like the fat people trying to now sue fast food joints. They're hoping the people that use the torrents will sue them for creating the avenues for sharing files in the first place!
 

Ash Holmz

The Bed-Stuy Fly Guy
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 207
It's a joke. I feel the same as this comment I cut below that article.

"The same RIAA will allow a song to be downloaded for 88 cents. So for 24 songs her fine should have been closer to $22.00"

Sounds fair to me.

werd .. i dont get the whole 200k thing.. even if she stole 24 cds from the record store lol, I still dont see how the numbers match up.
 

Ruimixx

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 1
werd .. i dont get the whole 200k thing.. even if she stole 24 cds from the record store lol, I still dont see how the numbers match up.

Right? But I didn't think of it like Drama B broke it down. She must have been a big big time uploader. Which I don't do just in case any RIAA folks are reading this. *looks over both shoulders* But if she's a single mother making just 36 thou a year. Shouldn't she be doing something else with her time. That's crazy. But if she's just the common computer/music lover, they did her dirty.
 

manguino

Pressure Makes Diamonds
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 7
not a good look for riaa, do they really think this is going to make people start buying CD's again? kids these days don't buy CDs, music industry seriously needs to stop targetting downloaders and change their business model.
 

dacalion

Hands Of FIRE!
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 259
not a good look for riaa, do they really think this is going to make people start buying CD's again? kids these days don't buy CDs, music industry seriously needs to stop targetting downloaders and change their business model.

i cosign, thats really some stupid ish.
 

Low G

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
I bet not a penny of that cash will be going to any of the artists whose songs she had... so after shaving off the artists share yeah she should be paying less mind you just a bit less cuz artists are dirt anyways especially once you allready own their souls. This whole incident is rediculous tho... I tell you the world we live in...
 

Fade

The Beat Strangler
Administrator
illest o.g.
It's complete bullshit. The bottom line is that because of the internet, the music industry has drastically changed but the music industry + the laws have not changed. Because of that, they try stuff like this which makes no sense to me at all. All the court fees just to hear this case, what a waste. And what if a person didn't want to pay? Would they put them in jail? So spend more taxpayers' money, sure why not. The whole legal system is fucked. The government should tell the RIAA to take a hike, meanwhile the gov't should be focusing on more important issues.
 

LDB

Banned
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 73
She can opt not to pay but everything she owns will have a lean placed on it. Her bank accounts can be frozen as well. It's best for her to just keep fighting it in the form of appeals and drag it out for the next 15 years. Since it's a personal lawsuit,t she can't get any help from the state or gov't should she file bankrupt or anything like that. They'll probably resettle it and she'll end up having to pay about 10G's. They can make her liquidate her assets to pay which is jack'd up!
 

Ash Holmz

The Bed-Stuy Fly Guy
ill o.g.
Battle Points: 207
still .. she had less than two thousand songs in her system .. i know of cats that i went t o college with that had literally tens of thousands of songs plus video and cracked software up the ass lol. it seems like they are just finding someone to pick on rather than really targeting the individuals who do it on a mass scale. like fade said, RIAA just needs to focus on changing there business model and stop these petty attempts. Prohibition never worked. And u cant arrest everybody for jaywalking, feel me?
 

TheDragon

ILLIEN
ill o.g.
This just makes me hate the RIAA even more. It's like cops who arrest people in the city for buying "illegal" drugs than the dealer themselves. This is sending a message to no one really. It's just showing how much of a bully the RIAA really is. They just need to up the options for MP3 downloads from sites like I tunes then. Why is it that the porno industry knows what the fuck to do with technology for maximizing profits?
 
Top