Posted on 10/05/2007 10:27:16 AM PDT by southlake_hoosier
San Francisco (IDGNS) - The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) won the first of many digital music file sharing cases Thursday against a single mother, with a U.S. jury finding her guilty of copyright infringement and fining her a total of $222,000.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota could have fined Jammie Thomas as much as $3.6 million, but opted not to. She was found guilty of stealing and giving away via Internet peer-to-peer Internet file sharing Kazaa a total of 24 songs from companies including Capitol Records, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and Warner Bros. Records.
Thomas, a Native American, has two children.
The guilty verdict in its first ever such case is a sign the RIAA may come out victorious on more of the over 20,000 lawsuits it has filed against people in its bid to stop Internet copyright infringement. The industry association has spent millions of dollars on advertising campaigns against Internet piracy and has a zero-tolerance policy against the practice.
People have been able to share music, movies, television programs, and other Internet files for years with peer-to-peer Internet sites and software. Some sites remain open, but many have been shut down by industry lawsuits and work to create laws in countries throughout the world. Companies and industry associations say they are loosing billions of dollars a year through Internet and optical disc piracy.
Hollywood really has their priorities straight.
Well I hate to say it but if she’s downloading music and sharing, it’s illegal.
My problem is that the music industry is so late to the digital party that they’ve missed an opportunity to come up with a way for people to do it legally. Instead, they’ll just create a lot of ill will with consumers with lawsuits and the refusal to allow people to listen to music however they want to.
What will Al Sharpton do? What will the ACLU do? Since she is a native American, will her tribe allow RIAA to actually try to collect anything?
What will Al Sharpton do? What will the ACLU do? Since she is a native American, will her tribe allow RIAA to actually try to collect anything?
Glad these guys have their priorities straight and getting those single moms.
They should spend that money on finding real talent so that the consumer would be more than happy to buy their products. Some of the S*&^ they put out today, they should be paying us to listen to it.
Yeah, but a single mom who traded 24 songs. Doubt she should even be on a target list other then she probably doesn't thave the money to defend herself.
I bet the RIAA gave the thief an oppurtunity to settle early on for about $1,500, but she rejected the offer.
Exactly. When I want a song or an album, I should be able to go online to the music industry's site and download an mp3 file for a price... without having to join a club, without having all sorts of restrictions on how many times I can play the file, what format the file is in, etc, etc, etc. I'm convinced that most people download - not because they want to steal something or get it free but because it's just easier to get the music quicker.
Wonder if we can offer the RIAA money to have the record companies quit producing the crud they do, or sue them for lowering our quality of life?
She WAS guilty, but that fine is insane.
Please lock post or delete. Did a search, and didn't find it. I will repley there. :)
You don't even have to download it to run afoul of the law. Using your own brain, as in listening on the radio to a tune, committing it to memory and then playing it back on your own guitar or singing it---is illegal.
Recently I was ordered by ASCAP to either pay money to them or stop playing the tunes they represent, even though I did not download or record those tunes. I guess if you repeat what I just told you, you are breaking copyright law.
I don’t get the 220,000. She theoretically stole $24 worth of music. Do shoplifters and others who steal small things receive this large a fine?
My guess would be that they calculated the number of copies-of-copies that were made from her “sharing”...
OK I get it.
It is usualy $3,000. Careful calculations were used. Beyond that, it would start to be worth defending. So most people just pay. The best scenario is when it is a student or someone else with little money.
Maybe they could make it easier with an Online Guilty Plea Feature! All you would need is a credit Card, or your bank routing and account numbers! Then they could have a one-click surrender, and it would come rolling in!
Walmart.com offers downloadable music. You buy the license, and you are restricted to playing it on one computer (won't work on others) and if you have a Phillips mp3 player (also sold by Walmart) you can transfer the .WMA file and still enjoy what you bought. The downside is that they are not IPOD compatible.
If you lose your music, due to hard drive crash, you download it again and call them to reactivate the license.
This system, while it has severe limits, affords their users some protection against accusations of piracy from the music industry.
Illegal is illegal; you are taking your chances.
Like speeding with the pack of cars; if you get singled out for a ticket it is pretty lame to say, “but everyone else was speeding too”.
She should have accepted the original deal and made a payment plan arrangement.
Plus, she had over 1,000 downloaded on her machine, they only prosecuted on a couple of dozen.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.