Skip to comments.Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
Posted on 06/18/2009 8:36:30 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
MINNEAPOLIS A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Nearly 2 million dollars for 24 songs on your home PC?
It wasn’t 24 songs,
Try & collect. Ain’t gonna happen.
Though what if she’d bought the CD’s (physical media) containing the music between the indictment and the jury and presented them as evidence that she had the right to download them?
Also there are many musical pieces that you can’t get elsewhere, granted they are usually remixes, original works, and [game] soundtracks.
>The RIAA tramples a citizen with no real benefit for themselves. I guess it makes some sort of sense ...
RIAA thinks it is the government. The problem is when the government starts thinking it’s RIAA. [/sarc][/cynic]
Wiki: In 2001, he became the youngest person to matriculate at Harvard Law School, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 2004
24 songs is what they alleged against her in court. Hell, I know someone(cough) that has gotten thousands of songs over the years. If this jury award is any indicator, they would be worthy of a federal bailout! LOL
Was she involved in re-selling CDs of music, or somehow making money off of this?
What about I-Tunes and similar sites. Did they pay their royalties to the music industry to be legal?
If I recall correctly there were court cases years ago about VCRs and taping movies off of HBO and other such channels. And if I recall correctly, the courts ruled that if you are taping for your own personal use, then it’s legal to do. I thought those court cases made a distinction of your own personal use vs. taping and re-selling movies and TV shows, and making money from it.
Yep, good luck collecting such a judgement. This was probably more symbolic than anything else to take her to court.
Did she down load them or her kids without her knowledge!!!
LOL! That looks like a death trap.
They don’t go into any detail at all. I wonder what the ‘catch’ is. I’m SURE there’s a BIG catch in there somewhere. lol
Legally, I don't' think it matters. The account holder of an internet connection is legally responsible for ALL things that go on with the use of it. Imagine if they started prosecuting people for sending out spam because they have an 'owned' Windows machine under the control of a botnet. Worse yet, what if the bot downloaded music without the user's knowledge, then they WOULD be screwed!
Are these reasonable and customary royalties? Is this what I-tunes pays the artists?
Seems the website was created in April. If no connecting, I wonder if he will challenge them for the rights.
Similiar things are already going on. A teacher in New York, I believe, was prosecuted for exposing her students to porn and contributing to their delinquency when her school computer got spammed and she didn't know it happened or how to get rid of it. I think she lost her license, too.
Obama’s DOJ Sides with RIAA
posted by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 10:45 UTC
IconWe always try to avoid politics like the plague here on OSNews, but sometimes, it’s hard to avoid it. Take the case of Joel Tenenbaum, who could be liable for over 1 million USD if the Recording Industry Association of America gets its way. While many hoped for a change of pace when it comes to these matters, Barack Obama’s Department of Justice has squarely sided with the RIAA.
This case needs a little history lesson, and El Reg thoughtfully provides us with one. In 2003, Tannenbaum (then 16) received a letter which accused him of downloading 7 songs from a P2P network, and the option to avoid further problems by paying a fine of USD 3500. Tenebaum made a counteroffer of 500 USD, but was denied. Nothing happened until 2007, when several recording companies took him to court, where Tenenbaum offered USD 5000 - the RIAA demanded 10500. No agreement was reached.
The case was never settled, and it still ongoing. Tenebaum is now a Physics grad student at Boston University, and is represented by law students from Harvard Law, mentored by Professor Charles Nesson. This is where things get complicated: the law students are not arguing against copyright, nor that Tenebaum has not violated it - they are arguing against what they call unconstitutionally heavy-handed damages that come from the Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999, which states that for each willful act of copyright violation, damages of up to USD 150000 can be awarded.
Obama’s DOJ has now sided unqeustionably with the RIAA. The DOJ’s task is to weigh in on constitutional questions, and it has rejected all of the defendant’s claims. The law students argue that the RIAA is acting as a civil enforcement entity, denying citizens of their right of due process. They argue that the RIAA should act like the private party that it is. The DOJ disagrees.
It’s hardly surprising that Obama’s administration sides with the RIAA. Vice-president Joe Biden is a supporter of the RIAA, and thanks to Obama, RIAA fans have taken over the DOJ.
Despite all the speeches about change, it seems like Obama’s government will not bring an end to the ridiculously overdone hunting down of people who download a few songs off the internet by the RIAA. Sadly, many other countries are moving in the same direction, with non-government organisations having the power to fine people without much of a trial. Organisations like the RIAA should walk along the path of the justice system like any other organisation, and the idea that they can just fine whoever they want is a scary one indeed.
We have to ask ourselves, what is more dangerous: grandmas violating copyright, or rogue organisations like the RIAA which seem to act outside of the justice system?
...nor excessive fines imposed...
She was caught sharing songs, i.e. offering them, not downloading them.
That’s why here in Colorado they impose fines on homeless people with no income and then sentence them to jail for about 10 dollars per day until the fine is paid. Around here sometimes people go to jail for an unpaid fine for jaywalking!
The security bureaucracy industry is one of the few growth centers in the new new American economy.
Every year more laws are passed making what was once liberty, illegal. Also what was once a single crime, baloney sliced up into multiple crimes.
All this provides work for Cops, clerks, legal secretary’s, District Attorney’s and staffs, court officers, Defense attorneys, copy repair men, office supplies, jailers, counselors, judges.
All this ‘economic’ activity filters down to the community thought donut shops, bars, car repairs, prison construction.
Frankly, there is no limit on the ‘wealth’ that with more laws and more arrests can be generated.
Well I think this ruling is outrageous it is like you kid going to the store and shop lifting! They don’t through the parents in jail or fine them $25,000! The kid goes to juvenile detention center! No wonder nobody buys CD’s anymore and most of them have copy protection on them!!!!! I don’t buy them haven’t bought any in years!
This is not a fine, but a civil award.
I haven't either.
Nearly 2 million dollars for 24 songs on your home PC?Wasn't exactly '24'. She had 1,700 songs on her pc. They just sued over 24.
And 1,700 songs isn't exactly 'for personal use'. She was guilty as hell.
Well then, that makes the claim that much more outrageous if the DID have the media legally beforehand.
Except it was $80,000 each!
Lots of people have iPods with a heck of a lot more songs than that on them.
Unfortunately, most civil suits don't have such outrageous criteria. Lots of civil cases might have extra awards of 3 times damages or something. For some reason the music industry has special protection and is about to get thousands times any provable damage. So much for equal protection under the law.
i WONDER . . .
did that jury realize they had wholesale authority to rule as they saw fit?
What’s that technically called?
I believe that you’re thinking of the term “nullification”.
I don’t really recall.
I just understand . . . or think I understand! LOL
that essentially, Juries in our system . . . have more or less overwhelming carte blanche to decide a case and the consequences thereof
but that they are snookered to believe otherwise
Ah! That makes more sense.
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.