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

Skip to comments.

Single mom can't pay $1.5M song-sharing fine
MSNBC ^ | 11.4.10 | Amy Forliti

Posted on 11/05/2010 4:23:36 PM PDT by paudio

A federal jury found Wednesday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, must pay $62,500 per song — for a total of $1.5 million — for illegally violating copyrights on 24 songs. This was the third jury to consider damages in her case, and each has found that she must pay — though different amounts. And after each time, the single mother of four has said she can't pay. "I can't afford to pay any amount. It's not a matter of won't, it's a matter of 'I can't,'" Thomas-Rasset said Thursday. "Any amount that I pay to them is money that I could use to feed my children. Any amount that I pay to them is money I could use to clothe my kids, and pay my mortgage so my kids have a place to sleep."

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: kazaa; p2p; riaa
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last
She doesn't want to pay whatsoever, except perhaps $1, the price of downloading a song from iTune.
1 posted on 11/05/2010 4:23:39 PM PDT by paudio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: paudio
...must pay $62,500 per song — for a total of $1.5 million — for illegally violating copyrights on 24 songs.

ROTF!

Hey, she's a single mom, toss all credibility for responsible living out the window anyway.

2 posted on 11/05/2010 4:27:06 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Zero sympathy for her here.


3 posted on 11/05/2010 4:28:01 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

If only she had heard of Usenet. Or Freenet. Or Tor. Or..or..


4 posted on 11/05/2010 4:28:56 PM PDT by Soothesayer9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS

Maybe Olberman can help her.


5 posted on 11/05/2010 4:29:06 PM PDT by WOBBLY BOB ( "I don't want the majority if we don't stand for something"- Jim Demint)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: paudio

“Any amount that I pay to them is money that I could use to feed my children. Any amount that I pay to them is money I could use to clothe my kids, and pay my mortgage so my kids have a place to sleep.”

Wasn’t too worded about that when you were downloading all of those tunes.


6 posted on 11/05/2010 4:30:15 PM PDT by VanDeKoik (1 million in stimulus dollars paid for this tagline!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

And I have no sympathy for the RIAA. That organization has been known to follow kids home from school making threats that they were going to take their homes.

I hope they don’t get a dime.


7 posted on 11/05/2010 4:30:34 PM PDT by jerry557
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
Hey, she's a single mom, toss all credibility for responsible living out the window anyway.

It's possible that she's a widow or her husband abandoned her. Admittedly, it's not likely, but it's possible.

8 posted on 11/05/2010 4:31:21 PM PDT by John the Savage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Soothesayer9

Yep, SSL over Usenet and the RIAA can suck it.


9 posted on 11/05/2010 4:31:28 PM PDT by The Iceman Cometh (What do Snap-On and Obama have in common? They're both tools.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: paudio
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government power over contracts, file sharing, and allows punative damages?

Congress has the power to issue copyrights. Is the remedy only federal? And should it be so draconian?

Stealing is wrong. Even/especially if it is intellectual property. But $62K/song? That seems like over-reach.

Does the fine make the complaintant whole?

I'm not happy with the outcome here, on either end. 30 days in jail for the perp, and restitution should suffice.

/johnny

10 posted on 11/05/2010 4:32:13 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

she needs a bailout. where are the Dems?


11 posted on 11/05/2010 4:32:37 PM PDT by sappy (criminalibs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio

So does she have to be married in order to pay it?


12 posted on 11/05/2010 4:33:19 PM PDT by dforest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio
She doesn't want to pay whatsoever, except perhaps $1, the price of downloading a song from iTune.

Sorry, but a 1.5 million dollar fine for downloading songs off the internet is ridiculous.

13 posted on 11/05/2010 4:35:27 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

And if she just shoplifted the CD.....

Crazy world...stay safe !

Hope yer well.


14 posted on 11/05/2010 4:36:46 PM PDT by Squantos (Be polite. Be professional. But have a plan to kill everyone you meet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

The song people don’t want the money anyway, they just want to scare the bejeebers out of others who might do the same thing.


15 posted on 11/05/2010 4:38:48 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paudio

What makes a song worth $62,500?


16 posted on 11/05/2010 4:39:02 PM PDT by razorback-bert (Some days it's not worth chewing through the straps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jerry557

Awwwww...she broke the law.
She KNEW she was breaking the law.
She didn’t care.

Now she cares.


17 posted on 11/05/2010 4:39:29 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
"What makes a song worth $62,500?"

It doesn't matter. If my dog takes a crap and I say that crap is worth $5 million dollars and you steal it...you owe me $5 million.

18 posted on 11/05/2010 4:41:09 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: John the Savage
It's possible that she's a widow or her husband abandoned her. Admittedly, it's not likely, but it's possible.

That would be "widow" or "abandoned wife" not "single mother".

It's not splitting hairs it's just proper logic.

19 posted on 11/05/2010 4:43:21 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: razorback-bert
A la Latrell Sprewell, Snoop Dogg has a family to feed.

Perhaps several.

20 posted on 11/05/2010 4:44:32 PM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

It’s not about her. Setting damages she can’t possibly pay and has to appeal shows that this is makework for the lawyers.


21 posted on 11/05/2010 4:44:40 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

And if she just shoplifted the CD.....
______________________

Exactly. The fine should be what she would’ve paid if she’d bought 24 cd’s, about $400. Although she might also be responsible for the legal costs.


22 posted on 11/05/2010 4:45:33 PM PDT by Twotone (Marte Et Clypeo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
I'm a little touchy over IP(intellectual property) right now. I just finished a butt load of engineering that will be required for a start-up. Soup to nuts, turnkey operation, ready to roll out and make money.

I did all that on speculation, and was never paid a dime for the hours. So I own the product (IP). I'm not releasing it until I'm happy with the situation.

And the guys that want it are acting squirrelly.

I don't have the option of suing. So I'm not releasing. But I don't expect more than the product is worth, regardless of how I collect.

/johnny

23 posted on 11/05/2010 4:45:35 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
What part of the Constitution gives the federal government power over contracts, file sharing, and allows punative damages?

The "living/breathing" part.

24 posted on 11/05/2010 4:46:18 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jerry557

Yeah, the raii treats the artist who wrote the song poorly too, so my sympathy for them is thin. And the attorneys are way overpaid (I should know, I am one, believe me, get a female, we work harder and the men are arrogant and overpaid) I agree with the guy who said charge her 2.50 a song. $150 court costs and be done with it.


25 posted on 11/05/2010 4:48:50 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: daler
A la Latrell Sprewell, Snoop Dogg has a family to feed.

That's the makings of a GREAT rap tune just waiting to be stolen via the Internet.

26 posted on 11/05/2010 4:49:05 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

bingo, not makework, make $$$$$$$


27 posted on 11/05/2010 4:49:59 PM PDT by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

If you play a CD in your car and you have passengers, you owe the record company a penalty for the passengers hearing the song.


28 posted on 11/05/2010 4:51:38 PM PDT by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Not sure why people would pay anything to download a bunch of crap music. Buy a kazoo and learn to whistle.


29 posted on 11/05/2010 4:53:34 PM PDT by tickmeister (tickmeister)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway
If you play a CD in your car and you have passengers, you owe the record company a penalty for the passengers hearing the song.

Don't blame the passengers, ban speaker manufacturers and the legal ownership of them!

30 posted on 11/05/2010 4:53:59 PM PDT by EGPWS (Trust in God, question everyone else)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
Stealing is wrong. Even/especially if it is intellectual property. But $62K/song? That seems like over-reach.

Stealing is, indeed, wrong. My problem with this kind of copyright litigation is that they have redefined the term "stealing". "Stealing" to me means taking something of value from somebody without just compensation. The RIAA's argument is that downloading a song takes revenue from them, but it is theoretical revenue. They theorize that you might have cost them some money. We're not talking about people who download songs and then resell them - we're just talking about people who download and listen. If their only access to the song was to buy the album, it is highly debatable whether most people would bother.
31 posted on 11/05/2010 4:58:00 PM PDT by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

The ridiculousness of the fine is a form of bullying to make “an example” of her. I think the price per song on itune is reasonable, and I have been thinking of buying a couple hundred songs for a while. However, just the thought that I would direcly or indirectly be rewarding the music industry bullies and their shameful tactics have so far kept me on the side line. The hateful nastiness of the political speach of most artists does not make me feel like contributing to their well-being either.


32 posted on 11/05/2010 4:59:35 PM PDT by winner3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: paudio

While, stealing is wrong and such. And I am not sure what her being a single mother has to do with this story. I feel this is a violation of her Constitutional right. The Eigth Admendment. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. I feel that 1.5 million to pay for illegally downloading songs is extremely excessive, especially when they particular person may never earn that amount in their entire life. If I stole 20 CDs, and was prosecuted, I seriously doubt that would be the punishment I face.


33 posted on 11/05/2010 5:01:01 PM PDT by castlegreyskull
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos

I am with you on this one. IF she shoplifted the CD how much of a fine would she have received? This is way too much of a fine. This is just beyond belief.


34 posted on 11/05/2010 5:01:39 PM PDT by Wile E Coyote Genius (IQ 206....more than all Democrats combined)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Venturer
The song people don’t want the money anyway, they just want to scare the bejeebers out of others who might do the same thing.

That was the original intent but people who illegally download music look at these judgements the same way that drivers look at car crashes; everyone does it but occasionally bad things happen to a small few. Those are the chances one takes. Verdicts like this aren't stopping downloading.

In fact, I've read the RIAA has stopped pursuing legal action towards individual downloaders and is now strategizing to go after the deeper pockets of ISPs.

35 posted on 11/05/2010 5:01:43 PM PDT by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: paudio

Stealing is wrong! She stole the songs and now nobody else can hear them, right?


36 posted on 11/05/2010 5:04:39 PM PDT by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Doesn't matter why they steal it. Stealing is stealing.

But 62K per song is over-reach.

/johnny

37 posted on 11/05/2010 5:04:59 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: paudio

On as side note, iTunes are scum. They refuse to cooperate with me or with the police to give us the addy that downloaded songs or whatever using my credit card number. They are of the opinion it’s not worth it and they can write it off. Excuse me, I’m the one wanting to press charges, not them. It’s my bill the charges showed up on. But hey, they don’t care. They might lose that criminal as a customer if they cooperate with the cops. Good to know that all of you are paying more for your downloads for all the countless times they’ve “written it off” in other incidences.

I will NEVER use iTunes. Never did before and certainly won’t now.


38 posted on 11/05/2010 5:06:04 PM PDT by bgill (K Parliament- how could a young man born in Kenya who is not even a native American become the POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sappy
she needs a bailout. where are the Dems?

The Federal Reserve is coming to her aid with QE 2. By the time hyperinflation kicks in, she won't have a problem paying the fine.

39 posted on 11/05/2010 5:07:43 PM PDT by Ol' Sparky (Liberal Republicans are the greater of two evils)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: EGPWS
That would be "widow" or "abandoned wife" not "single mother". It's not splitting hairs it's just proper logic.

People don't use that much logic anymore. Since the year I was born, my mother was a widow, and people were always referring to her as a single mother.

40 posted on 11/05/2010 5:08:33 PM PDT by 668 - Neighbor of the Beast (Save the liver!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

Now that’s funny!


41 posted on 11/05/2010 5:09:18 PM PDT by pepperdog (Why are Democrats Afraid of a Voter ID Law?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: paudio

The RIAA sucks. Also, the Mom shouldn’t have been sharing songs. Regardless, the RIAA should be concerned about flushing their goodwill down the john by suing single moms for sharing songs.

Before anyone asks/accuses, I purchase lots of digital music and video content from iTunes. Why? I could download it for for free, but I appreciate the convenience of being able to buy from any of my iOS devices when I want. I feel that the $0.99 is worth it for the convenience and legality.


42 posted on 11/05/2010 5:10:17 PM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!
She stole the songs and now nobody else can hear them, right?

Someone could take my recent IP and use it, it would still be available to me, but they wouldn't have to pay me for my efforts. Is that right?

I think not. I'm going to hold the IP and protect it and only release it on my terms.

You don't like the terms, don't sign on. I did too much work on it to give it away, unless I release it under a GNU licence. And I don't want to do that right now.

/johnny

43 posted on 11/05/2010 5:13:24 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: paudio

My daughter is a songwriter. That is part of how she earns a living. Theft of anything is wrong. She should be charged what it normally costs per song and possibly a small fine, not some exorbitant figure that makes lawyers and RIAA richer.


44 posted on 11/05/2010 5:14:25 PM PDT by manic4organic (We won. Get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paudio
"$62,500 per song"

That's totally insane! I couldn't see charging her more than what it would have cost to buy them on iTunes. Glad they never caught me... Back when I might have downloaded media, I would have had to pay around $93 million at those rates.... LOL

45 posted on 11/05/2010 5:19:51 PM PDT by KoRn (Department of Homeland Security, Certified - "Right Wing Extremist")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VanDeKoik
Easy enough for you to say that but with the kids starving and nowhere to live, YOU and I will end up paying for it.

Makes me wanna' go out and violate some music copyrights, or maybe just not spending any money on music DVDs.

Then those pukes wonder what happened to their business ~ could be the advertising and their misuse of the courts for otherwise trivial violations that certainly do not call for this level of brutality.

I'd look for jurors being paid off by the plaintiff. It's simply not possible to find a jury that could be unanimous in a situation like this ~ someone would see what an abuse of public institutions these show trials are, and would simply not vote for conviction.

46 posted on 11/05/2010 5:21:03 PM PDT by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: manic4organic
RIAA is pursuing this case as an example to the rest of you.

Frankly, we should be more concerned with the obvious ease with which slick shyster lawyers are able to subvert the judicial system to abuse a poor woman with several young children.

There should be somebody horsewhipped here ~ the judge? Perhaps the lawyers? An RIAA puke? Maybe some recording company executives? No doubt this is a target rich environment.

47 posted on 11/05/2010 5:23:53 PM PDT by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Artemis Webb

>”It doesn’t matter. If my dog takes a crap and I say that crap is worth $5 million dollars and you steal it...you owe me $5 million. “

Actually, no. Not at all the case. Probably just a bad analogy, though.

I’m going to go ahead and side with the people who are saying that $62,500 for downloading an mp3 is ridiculous. The law may be the law, but I think it is fair to point out the absurdity of the situation. Especially since we have many stupid laws on the books.


48 posted on 11/05/2010 5:23:55 PM PDT by cbudding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: paudio

On the one hand, I NEVER downloaded any copyrighted material, by stealing it for free.

On the other hand, “the Internet is different crowd” joined forces with ignorant and illiterate Libertarians and Liberals in the pretense that just because technology makes it possible, it must be allowed and accepted in what ever fashion it is functioning, who joined forces with pseudo Conservatives to de-facto legalize theft by doing nothing about it, under the misguided notion that NOTHING about the Internet can be regulated.

The political class has not banned the ‘downloading’ activity nor have they passed laws to actively go after all the sites that - if its really “illegal” - are operating illegally, the same way that a “community garage” stocked with stolen goods is an illegal operation.

Unless the political class is going to actively work to prevent and stop the Internet businesses that provide the activity this woman was allowed to do, with laws to that affect, this woman should have to pay nothing.


49 posted on 11/05/2010 5:26:57 PM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bgill
I had that problem with AT&T "way back when the internet was new". They wouldn't tell me who'd billed his stuff to my number.

I went to MCI and never went back. Along the way I told everybody that AT&T was in cahoots with the criminal class so don't trust them.

BTW, AT&T is still in cahoots with the criminal class so don't trust them.

50 posted on 11/05/2010 5:28:11 PM PDT by muawiyah (GIT OUT THE WAY ~ REPUBLICANS COMIN' THROUGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-83 next last

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