Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
Associated Press ^ | June 18, 2009 | STEVE KARNOWSKI

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 8thamendment; excessivefines; lping; riaa

1 posted on 06/18/2009 8:36:31 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ShadowAce; bamahead

Nearly 2 million dollars for 24 songs on your home PC?

INSANITY!!!


2 posted on 06/18/2009 8:41:50 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

It wasn’t 24 songs,


3 posted on 06/18/2009 8:43:41 PM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Try & collect. Ain’t gonna happen.


4 posted on 06/18/2009 8:45:19 PM PDT by lilylangtree (Veni, Vidi, Vici)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

To: Free ThinkerNY

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2274872/posts


6 posted on 06/18/2009 8:45:50 PM PDT by devane617 (Republicans first strategy should be taking over the MSM. Without it we are doomed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Yep.
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.


7 posted on 06/18/2009 8:46:12 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Baynative

>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]


8 posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:10 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: devane617
High flying prodigy did his client a dis-service.

Wiki: In 2001, he became the youngest person to matriculate at Harvard Law School, from which he graduated magna cum laude in 2004

9 posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:54 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
"It wasn’t 24 songs

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

10 posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:55 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

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.


11 posted on 06/18/2009 8:52:16 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Very Interesting website......

www.kiwicamara.com

12 posted on 06/18/2009 8:52:30 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

And?
Did she down load them or her kids without her knowledge!!!


13 posted on 06/18/2009 8:55:15 PM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Orange1998

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


14 posted on 06/18/2009 8:55:50 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
"Did she down load them or her kids without her knowledge!!!"

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!

15 posted on 06/18/2009 8:59:42 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Are these reasonable and customary royalties? Is this what I-tunes pays the artists?


16 posted on 06/18/2009 9:09:14 PM PDT by optiguy (Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.----- Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

Seems the website was created in April. If no connecting, I wonder if he will challenge them for the rights.


17 posted on 06/18/2009 9:11:34 PM PDT by Orange1998
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
Imagine if they started prosecuting people for sending out spam because they have an 'owned' Windows machine under the control of a botnet.

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.

18 posted on 06/18/2009 9:14:42 PM PDT by Talisker (When you find a turtle on top of a fence post, you can be damn sure it didn't get there on it's own.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

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?

http://www.osnews.com/story/21190/Obama_s_DOJ_Sides_with_RIAA


19 posted on 06/18/2009 9:15:23 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY ((((Truth to a Liberal, is like a crucifix to a vampire))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
I agree. Not that such things matter these days, but there is this:

...nor excessive fines imposed...

Amendment VIII

20 posted on 06/18/2009 9:40:31 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: KoRn; Abathar; Abcdefg; Abram; Abundy; akatel; albertp; AlexandriaDuke; Alexander Rubin; ...



Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
(View past Libertarian pings here)
21 posted on 06/18/2009 9:52:42 PM PDT by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

She was caught sharing songs, i.e. offering them, not downloading them.


22 posted on 06/18/2009 10:17:34 PM PDT by iowamark (certified by Michael Steele as "ugly and incendiary")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ken H

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!


23 posted on 06/18/2009 10:46:16 PM PDT by LuxMaker (The Constitution is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, Thomas J 1819)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LuxMaker

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.

/sarc


24 posted on 06/18/2009 11:30:15 PM PDT by Leisler ("It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged."~G.K. Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

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!


25 posted on 06/18/2009 11:46:10 PM PDT by tallyhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
...nor excessive fines imposed... Amendment VIII

This is not a fine, but a civil award.

26 posted on 06/19/2009 2:56:43 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
"I don’t buy them haven’t bought any in years!"

I haven't either.

27 posted on 06/19/2009 4:18:11 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
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.

28 posted on 06/19/2009 5:11:18 AM PDT by Condor51 (The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: iowamark

Well then, that makes the claim that much more outrageous if the DID have the media legally beforehand.


29 posted on 06/19/2009 7:36:59 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
This is not a fine, but a civil award.

Good point.

30 posted on 06/19/2009 8:09:51 AM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: tallyhoe
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!

Except it was $80,000 each!

31 posted on 06/19/2009 8:16:59 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Condor51
And 1,700 songs isn't exactly 'for personal use'. She was guilty as hell.

Lots of people have iPods with a heck of a lot more songs than that on them.

32 posted on 06/19/2009 8:20:22 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Good point.

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.

33 posted on 06/19/2009 8:22:35 AM PDT by Always Right (Obama: more arrogant than Bill Clinton, more naive than Jimmy Carter, and more liberal than LBJ.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

i WONDER . . .

did that jury realize they had wholesale authority to rule as they saw fit?

What’s that technically called?


34 posted on 06/19/2009 8:33:35 AM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quix

I believe that you’re thinking of the term “nullification”.


35 posted on 06/19/2009 9:57:08 AM PDT by 2nd amendment mama ( www.2asisters.org | Self defense is a basic human right!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: 2nd amendment mama

Thanks.

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

????


36 posted on 06/19/2009 10:01:54 AM PDT by Quix (POL Ldrs quotes fm1900 2 presnt: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2130557/posts?page=81#81)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: KoRn
24 songs was a misprint from that article, it was 24 different publishers., 1700+ songs.
37 posted on 06/19/2009 10:05:16 AM PDT by org.whodat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Ah! That makes more sense.


38 posted on 06/19/2009 10:13:26 AM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson