A woman in Minnesota was charged today for illegally downloading music to her computer.; $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was sharing on Kazaa.... And music labels wonder why people illegally download music.
(DULUTH, Minn.) — The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her. 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 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. 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.
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 Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.
Record companies have filed some 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 (RIAA) 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 2007.
During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa 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 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 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's 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, a town north of Minneapolis, works for the Department of Natural Resources on the reservation of belonging to the Ojibwe tribe Mille Lacs Band. Her testimony and defense were 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. 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 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's 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.
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 RIAA, 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 and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined 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. 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.
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 Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.
Record companies have filed some 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 (RIAA) 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 2007.
During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa 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 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 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's 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, a town north of Minneapolis, works for the Department of Natural Resources on the reservation of belonging to the Ojibwe tribe Mille Lacs Band. Her testimony and defense were 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. 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 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's 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.
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 RIAA, 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."
Burn the witch
saw that on the news
they made it clear that no matter the outcome of the case, RIAA is gonna keep bein a d-bag
they made it clear that no matter the outcome of the case, RIAA is gonna keep bein a d-bag
yea they busted a few college kids up here in maine too.
Well usually they bust people and settle out of court for a few thousand dollars.... but $9k for each song, thats just ridiculous.
Quit buying music from RIAA labels. Support your independent artists.
news last night said she was looking at like 3 million dollars or something
Actually, the title of this thread is wrong.. It wasn't because of the downloading it was the distributing (sharing) of the music..
independent artists
The ultimate end-around. Quit doing business with these fools.
It wasn't because of the downloading it was the distributing (sharing) of the music..
allegedly.
Well she was found guilty of it ..
I suppose the fact that most of the music being sold now sucks minature donkey balls, prolly wasn't mentioned during the trial... I've downloaded stuff (years ago) but don't feel a bit guilty as I was replacing all of the stuff I'd already bought - hell, I've purchase 3 LPs and 1 cassette of "Back in Black" w/no means of digitizing it - so I don't get the argument that I should've purchase the CD instead of downloading. I think the .99 pr song thing works, although I've yet to buy any that way...
Who pays .99 cents for a song? Amazon's price is 89 cents now.
i just dont see how they can charge ONE person like that when there are THOUSANDS online doing the same thing at the same time with the same program.
it just seems like random targeting. enforce the law or dont. how come they get to pick adn choose?
it just seems like random targeting. enforce the law or dont. how come they get to pick adn choose?
It wasn't because of the downloading it was the distributing (sharing) of the music..
Ah well either way, the price is still steep. I always wondered why they spent so much time going after downloaders and it never seemed like they aimed for the uploaders. If theres no one to upload the music, theres no music to be downloaded....
changed the title.
THOUSANDS online doing the same thing at the same time with the same program.
The RIAA has been sending out lawsuits by the thousands with each go. Not many have made it to trail. Most cases are settled out of court. But Billions are downloading every day so currrent tactics are about as successful as using a thimble to empty the ocean would be.
i just dont see how they can charge ONE person like that when there are THOUSANDS online doing the same thing at the same time with the same program.
On the other hand, I've been speeding for years, I usually go about 80mph down the freeway when the speed limit is 65mph. Some people have been ticketed for this. I haven't.
Anyone know the protocol for people who get busted? Do they just send you a letter or something? Or do they send something to your ISP?
The problem is that it is illegal in the first place. The only reason these "laws" exist is to protect an obsolete industry.
Technology has made it possible for artists to create, promote and distribute their own music. But the record companies are doing everything in their power to prevent that. Artists don't need to make money from record sales, they can earn a living by performing. Only recording companies NEED sales to stay in business.
Instead of record companies deciding what gets played on the radio, which artists get promoted, when artists should release their music, etc., it should be the artists and public making those decisions.
I'd be happy if they took all the record company execs out into Yankee stadium and shot them.
/rant
Technology has made it possible for artists to create, promote and distribute their own music. But the record companies are doing everything in their power to prevent that. Artists don't need to make money from record sales, they can earn a living by performing. Only recording companies NEED sales to stay in business.
Instead of record companies deciding what gets played on the radio, which artists get promoted, when artists should release their music, etc., it should be the artists and public making those decisions.
I'd be happy if they took all the record company execs out into Yankee stadium and shot them.
/rant
what is the justification for nine grand a song? how did they work that one out?
If someone owns something they own the right to distribute it on their own terms. If they decide it should involve money, that is their prerogative. If they decide people can have it for free, that's fine too. It's when people take for free that which was not authorized to be taken for free that you have stolen and broken the law.
This is basic justice, people. Get over it.
This is basic justice, people. Get over it.
Not really as I understand it, the far greater injustice is the fact that because this is a civil suit, the woman need only be considered guilty by a preponderance of the evidence, not guilty beyond reason of doubt.
The prosecutions case was not only shaky on its facts, but the jury in this trial had many individuals that simply don't understand technology.
In other words, the RIAA has the power to simply invent evidence and then fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars just on their own whim.
Scary.
The prosecutions case was not only shaky on its facts, but the jury in this trial had many individuals that simply don't understand technology.
In other words, the RIAA has the power to simply invent evidence and then fine people hundreds of thousands of dollars just on their own whim.
Scary.
Surely, you aren't implying that our justice system is flawed?
I'm glad someone is standing up for the disenfranchized millionaires whose voice doesn't get heard in the matter.
Caboose said:
what is the justification for nine grand a song? how did they work that one out?
what is the justification for nine grand a song? how did they work that one out?
if you read the article it said something to the effect of it being shared "x" amount of times, times the .99 cents per song charge formula
I'm glad someone is standing up for the disenfranchized millionaires whose voice doesn't get heard in the matter.
It doesn't make any sense that it becomes alright to steal from someone once they already have a certain amount of money. It seems like the argument I hear over and over again is, "They are rich, so they don't need my money." It's not a matter of need. It's a matter of ownership.
Capitalism FTW.
My whole issue with illegal downloading of music isn't as much the money thing, it's the fact that many of the musicians who I support and love today, I never would have even heard of were it not for soulseek or napster. Sure, they had a couple albums illegally downloaded. But then later I turned around and saw them live 6 times, bought limited edition vinyl, a shirt, and a their latest CD.
On the other hand, I've been speeding for years, I usually go about 80mph down the freeway when the speed limit is 65mph. Some people have been ticketed for this. I haven't.
but in some places they take a pic of all plates that violate a law...and IP address' are much easier to track for the most part, so i still say charge all you can not just here and there.
That's a big part of the rub right there, emipou. These fuckers don't seem to appreciate the public.
IMHO, I like buying a $10 cd from a dude you just saw playing a drum set made out of trash cans and plastic buckets.
Buy local. May be shit, but its honest shit.
IMHO, I like buying a $10 cd from a dude you just saw playing a drum set made out of trash cans and plastic buckets.
Buy local. May be shit, but its honest shit.
Now that there are feasible alternatives I see no reason to illegally download music. There's no valid excuse for it, it's stealing from the artists that you should be supporting.
From: haxor M AX is not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with him
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:17 PM
32
isn't $9k cruel and unusual punishment?
Record labels, not artists in many cases.
Buy independent.
Buy independent.
so wait is the RIAA giving this money back to the artists?
Is Bryan Adams considered an artist? Give me the fucking trashcan man.
1) Not all file-sharing programs are 100% legit. I had one ages ago. Left my 'shared' folder empty, and turned off upload. But people were still somehow downloading off my machine.
2) If you buy a song or album once, you should have an eternal license for it. If I paid $15 for the cassette back in 85, MC ADE should just let me download the album again and not consider it 'theft'
2) If you buy a song or album once, you should have an eternal license for it. If I paid $15 for the cassette back in 85, MC ADE should just let me download the album again and not consider it 'theft'
r a j a holick said:
so wait is the RIAA giving this money back to the artists?
so wait is the RIAA giving this money back to the artists?
Probably not. It's going to go to legal fees, even though they have their own lawyers on staff.
When showbiz comes at you with jewish lawyers, don't fight back with a legal team that works at the mall. No matter how tasty that Orange Julius look.
They'll get you for sharing, but not for downloading. I think they're hoping that everyone will become a leech instead of a source because it's 'safer', thereby killing the community. Fat chance.
The RIAA needs to learn that their business model is no longer technologically defensible, and that they have to find another way to make money if they want to stay alive.
The RIAA needs to learn that their business model is no longer technologically defensible, and that they have to find another way to make money if they want to stay alive.
They have. Sue fans.
From: haxor M AX is not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with him
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:25 PM
41
someone tell me whether or not the 9k is cruel and unusual
Yes it's cruel and unsual, but it's not congress deciding the price so they can do it.
Big business, big whoop, stop downloading music, get iTunes.
/hypocrite.
Big business, big whoop, stop downloading music, get iTunes.
/hypocrite.
I'd wager this gets appealed and the fine reduced.
Why did the RIAA settle for so much less with others who didn't go to court?
That'll be an issue during the appeal.
Why did the RIAA settle for so much less with others who didn't go to court?
That'll be an issue during the appeal.
From: jpkeates Error: Information for this account is currently unavailable
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:43 PM
44
r a j a holick said:
so wait is the RIAA giving this money back to the artists?
so wait is the RIAA giving this money back to the artists?
not the artists directly.
So, it goes to the people who own the music rights
at least indirectly.
...b-b-b-but I thought it was about supporting the artists?
From: jpkeates Error: Information for this account is currently unavailable
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:46 PM
46
Naah.
The artists sell their souls to the companies
in exchange for the appearance of money and the change to be a star.
They're actually the people who stop us downloading the music.
The publishers are just parasites with connections.
The artists sell their souls to the companies
in exchange for the appearance of money and the change to be a star.
They're actually the people who stop us downloading the music.
The publishers are just parasites with connections.
From: jpkeates Error: Information for this account is currently unavailable
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:46 PM
47
"the change" is "the chance"
obviously.
obviously.
If I paid $15 for the cassette back in 85, MC ADE should just let me download the album again and not consider it 'theft'
That is my issue.
I have a hell of a lot of vynil. I should be able to obtain an electronic copy for my own personal use since I already payed the record company for the right to listen to the album once.
well you CAN buy the equipment to transfer vynal to CD...its your choice to do that as if buying a cassette deck or whatever.
From: jpkeates Error: Information for this account is currently unavailable
Date: 10/5/07 @ 1:49 PM
(more) 50
You paid for the right to listen to it on vinyl.
The record company agreed to reimburse the musicians for each copy so sold.
The record distributor made a cut
and so did the retailer.
The artist didn't licence it so it would be free thereafter or in other media.
The record company agreed to reimburse the musicians for each copy so sold.
The record distributor made a cut
and so did the retailer.
The artist didn't licence it so it would be free thereafter or in other media.
| forum | login | new user | top |