Releaselog

OMG: RIAA wins, woman has to pay $220k

Posted on 05.10.2007 at 10:15 in Tech News by Martin

A Minnesota woman must pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels after a federal jury found on Thursday that she violated their copyright. Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of court for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury. Since 2003, many of the 26,000 persons sued by the Recording Industry Assoc. of America (RIAA) have avoided litigation by agreeing to pay a few thousand dollars. Thomas, who could not be reached for comment, has always maintained her innocence. Accused of sharing music through the use of peer-to-peer service, Kazaa, she told the jury that she didn’t even own a Kazaa account.

The jury didn’t buy her argument. Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs. The decision is important in that it sends a message to file sharers that Internet anonymity won’t protect them from lawsuits, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and longtime music industry executive. This is likely not the end of the case, according to Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet users. Late Thursday evening, von Lohmann said that he had heard from several copyright attorneys who had expressed interest in representing Thomas should she want to appeal the decision. “There are a lot of copyright lawyers who would be interested in helping her if she wants to continue this,” von Lohmann said. “I’d imagine that she doesn’t want to pay $200,000. We’ll see what she wants to do.”

The recording industry has claimed that Internet piracy has cost the industry billions of dollars. Ever since the original Napster emerged in the late 1990s, the RIAA has been playing–and some say losing–a game of cat and mouse with file sharers. The RIAA has always said that suing individuals is a last resort. The group battles file sharing through a combination of tactics, including educational programs and taking legal action against sites that help file sharers locate unauthorized music files. When the RIAA does sue individuals, any money it receives from settlements and judgments are generally reinvested into the group’s antipiracy program, said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. “This is not a money-making venture,” he said. Yeah, sure, we all believe in this. Anyway, this sucks, I can imagine many more companies will decide to start filling lawsuits against filesharing people…

Source:  CNN, Zdnet 

* Comments(123)

Comments (123)

Feel free to post your OMG: RIAA wins, woman has to pay $220k torrent, subtitles, samples, free download, quality, NFO, rapidshare, megashares, sendspace, filesonic, filefactory, netload, crack, serial, keygen, requirements or whatever-related comments here. Don't be rude (permban), use only English, don't go offtopic and read FAQ before asking a question. Owners of this website aren't responsible for content of comments.
Pages: « 1 [2] Show All
  1. Max
    October 6th, 2007 | 02:33

    To contribute to the debate, I’d just like to note that you all missed the fact that copyright infringement is NOT DOWNloading Music. If it is offered, you are free to take it without any penalty since it is, per se, open domain. Once you get to UPloading it, though, you are violating copyright laws since you are making an unauthorized copy of something which you spread around.
    Likewise, you are allowed to accept a gift CD as a present, but are not allowed to copy the CD and give it away.

    By the way, I highly doubt the cost of leading such a case allows the RIdoubleA to break even, even if they manage to get the woman to pay 220k. Also, she can still file bankruptcy, which most people confronted with these costs probably would have to do, and the RIAA would get nothing but have paid about half a million dollars only in law expenses. I don’t think they will make this a general strategy.

  2. tucker
    October 6th, 2007 | 02:43

    suddenly my 24.99/mo easynews account doesnt seem that costly afterall..

  3. sango
    October 6th, 2007 | 03:00

    Seppuku,and you will purify onself at the same time

  4. Darth Arcon
    October 6th, 2007 | 03:53

    There are currently a large number of powerful vocabulary words I would love to blurt out, but will not for fear of being banned…

  5. rapid
    October 6th, 2007 | 05:36

    I am sending an email to MPAA and RIAA to block rapidshare for US IP …This will help the MPAA and RIAA a lot…No more bruise

  6. Rekrul
    October 6th, 2007 | 06:06

    philly,

    In my opinion, downloading from Rapidshare, whether as a free or premium user is safe, as is downloading from Usenet newsgroups. If you UPLOAD to RS or the newsgroups, you may get in trouble, but as I said before, it’s not worth the RIAA/MPAA’s time to go after someone who only downloads. They’d have millions of people to sue and without any uploads to pin on them, they’d have a much harder time getting a jury to convict them of anything meaningful.

    As for seeding, that’s another matter. If you’re using any kind of P2P software, you run the risk of getting caught. Blocklists can minimize that risk but not completely eliminate it. By downloading a file over P2P, you automatically make parts of it available and according to current court decisions, that amounts to committing copyright infringement. If you get caught…

    RickySlade,

    The original intent of Copyright was to ensure that an author had a limited period during which they could profit from their work before it passed into the public domain. The idea was to encourage authors to create by granting them the ability to profit from their work, but limit it so that eventually they would have to create something new or lose their source of income. The governments today have perverted that idea to the point where copyrights persist for up to 70-100 years after the death of the author. Disney is especially infuriating in this respect. Many of their movies are based on public domain works, but anytime one of their films is about to pass into the public domain, they run to the government and cry until they’re granted a ridiculous extension.

  7. philly
    October 6th, 2007 | 07:25

    Rekrul- Makes sense, both Rapidshare & seeding. Too many downloaders to chase down. Just about too many uploaders as well I imagine!

    Any insight on IRC? There should be many years before that world is known and vulnerable, right?

  8. RickySlade
    October 6th, 2007 | 18:35

    @ Rekrul
    Nobody is saying these laws, or recent decisions are perfect. I know they are flawed, in America and around the world, but the simple fact remains that they are more than necessary. Not only that, strict enforcement is necessary. I am in no way defending this court decision, just the principal. I’m sure there are examples around the developed world that parallel the decision. The problem is that people in America don’t sit around and pick apart the flaws of the rest of the world in such a way that the rest of the world does to us. Its probably just an attempt justify to themselves that the grass isn’t greener in America when in fact it is.

  9. RickySlade
    October 6th, 2007 | 18:36

    parallel the disney decision that is

  10. Rekrul
    October 7th, 2007 | 03:28

    philly,

    I’ve never used IRC myself. I tried, back when RLSLog was down, but the IRC client I tried to use kept crashing on me. The second one I tried complained that it couldn’t connect, or that I was doing something wrong. At that point I gave up.

    RickySlade,

    I download copyrighted material, so I can’t exactly argue that I’m against court decisions like this because I only want to protect people’s rights. However…

    I think that the current laws with regard to copyright are ridiculous. Copyright terms now extend well beyond anything the creators of copyright law ever envisioned. Not only that, but in the USA at least, the subject of copyright infringement is treated as the number one issue threatening the world. In fact, NBC went so far as to say that the FBI’s priorities are wrong and that they should go after copyright infringement first and foremost;

    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070615-copyright-coalition-piracy-more-serious-than-burglary-fraud-bank-robbery.html

    If we’re to believe the RIAA and MPAA, drastic measures need to be taken or the entire economy will collapse and plunge the world into a new dark age! This despite the fact that music sales continue to rise and the movie industry just had their best summer ever.

    What I think should be done (a pipedream, I know);

    1. Reduce copyright terms to something more reasonable, like 30 years max, less for games (which are outdated faster). This would keep corporations from hoarding older works and eliminate the problem where your favorite work isn’t available to buy. It would also ensure that plenty of works are added to the public domain for other creators to draw upon. Finally, it would force corporations to output more works if they want to remain profitable, rather than relying on the sales of their older works.

    2. Force corporations to pay a yearly fee for each work they want to retain the copyright to. Individuals would also have to pay, but a much lower amount. This would force companies to re-evaluate which copyrights are worth hanging onto, so that lesser works could pass into the public domain sooner.

    3. Reduce penalties for copyright infringement to something much closer to the actual amount lost by the corporation. If someone shares something that the corporation isn’t making any money on, the person shouldn’t be charged at all, or a very small amount.

    4. Make digital copies of music and films available in a hi-quality, unrestricted format, for a good price, that provides all the benefits of the illegal copies with none of the risk. Piracy will never be 100% eliminated, but this would entice people who don’t like the current restrictions and who would otherwise turn to illegal sources.

    5. Make the RIAA and MPAA stop opposing every single new technology that comes out related to audio and video and insisting that every new audio/video technology be crippled with DRM. No broadcast flags, no region coding, no CSS, etc.

    These things would benefit consumers, build some goodwill between the corporations and consumers and do more to combat piracy than the current campaign of elevating copyright infringers to public enemy #1. Eventually, that’s going to backfire on them in a big way.

  11. HorizonX
    October 7th, 2007 | 12:41

    Well she was guilty at least… they linked the handle used on kazaa to her identity (she used said handle in many other areas online) as well as providing evidence that no other MAC address was using her broadband modem to connect. Can’t imagine why she went to court :|

  12. Schuffee
    October 8th, 2007 | 00:39

    111 comments read and now I have a bad headake!

    Piracy will exist, allways…

    “If you dont have the cash, you download it” – Poor fellah

    Ok, thats about all I can comment atm.

  13. RickySlade
    October 8th, 2007 | 03:35

    You probably infringed on somebody else’s intellectual property when you cut and pasted that misguided diatribe. All kidding aside, human nature is rent-seeking behavior. You give humans too much credit. You vilify corporations and fail to take human nature into account. The Selfish Rent-seeking behavior of individuals. Your utopian society where everyone holds hands and works together simply would not happen. There is a reason why we need governments, police, and yes LAWs. I am a proponent of deregulation but you can’t be serious. Lets take movies as an example. Lets say they are all now free and you can legally download any movie. You can’t sit there and tell me that future movies would be up to the same standards as they are today (lets not get into a debate over this, you understand my point). There would be no more multi-million dollar budgets, because they would n’t make any money. people don’t do things for free. stuidos don’t make hit movies because of the love of film. They do it to make money.

  14. RickySlade
    October 8th, 2007 | 03:51

    humanity has already experimented with a system in which people do not get justly rewarded for hard work or good ideas. It’s called communism and that wasn’t very Vilfredo Pareto optimal either. Market Capitalism works, it’s a fact

  15. insect1
    October 11th, 2007 | 18:51

    are all these people that get sued using p2p.. havent heard of a case in which torrents were mentioned.

  16. blt
    October 13th, 2007 | 00:18

    RickySlade, you missed a point.
    The actual communist ’system’ like Marx described it has never ever taken place in this world. All were totalitarian regimes which had/have nothing to do with communism at all, apart from the fact the the ideology and the word ‘communism’ have been used to seduce people into this totalitarian regime.

    Back on topic;
    What a bullsh*t, RIAA trying to scare people off. I wonder how many RIAA employees download themselves, or their families, or their friends..

  17. DJ DV8
    October 13th, 2007 | 03:20

    the actus reus of theft is usually defined as an unauthorised taking, keeping or using of another’s property which must be accompanied by a mens rea of dishonesty and/or the intent to permanently deprive the owner or the person with rightful possession of that property or its use.

    For example, if X goes to a restaurant and, by mistake, takes Y’s scarf instead of her own, she has physically deprived Y of the use of the property (which is the actus reus) but the mistake prevents X from forming the mens rea (i.e. because she believes that she is the owner, she is not dishonest and does not intend to deprive the “owner” of it) so no crime has been committed at this point. But if she realises the mistake when she gets home and could return the scarf to Y, she will steal the scarf if she dishonestly keeps it. Note that there may be civil liability for the torts of trespass to chattels or conversion in either eventuality.
    “Theft” – Wikipedia

    of course part of the problem is that historically property has been physical tangible unique, but now sending a copy doesn’t necessarily permanently deprive the original owner/possessor

    I do agree 100% with rslog’s position…imagine Galileo, Newton etc. seeking copyright protection for their ideas?

  18. RickySlade
    October 16th, 2007 | 06:08

    @117
    You’re right. It has not and will not. I believe marx also said that capitalism would eventually fail and there’s no sign of that happening anytime soon. While marx tells a beautiful story, the economics behind it does has been proven to not be solid. All modern economics is based on the fact that incentives matter. If you take incentives away bad things happen.

  19. Marenubium
    October 25th, 2007 | 17:49

    Lot of comments here, didn’t read all of them.
    First I’d like to say to all the lame, acusing, ‘na na na’ and ‘boontje komt om zijn loontje’ people here: if you’re new to filesharing, kazaa is one of the programs you’ll get in touch with if you are a newbie. Don’t judge those users, they don’t know any better. Kazaa will share files even if you’re not aware of it.
    I feel sorry for the lady in question.

    Second. Sharing copyrighted material over the internet is illegal in every country, but only the USA makes a big deal out of it (dutchie here).
    I wonder why :P

    Third. I’ve read some posts here about people who laughs at the poor woman but are proud of not sharing downloaded files. Well, get a life then and buzz off, ’cause this torrent-thingy over here will not survive without sharing. Nice knowing that there are people who still believe in hit and run and laughs at those who do not know much about P2P, torrents, filesharing etc.
    Thank you!!! NOT.

    Fourth.
    Indeed, some people can’t afford buying movies/music although they want to. And guess what! They get in touch with programs like kazaa, napster, limewire, some lucky bastards find torrent programs and PG or friends. Don’t know a thing about it, but hey! They’ve got their movies and music!! Happily ever after..not..Suddenly they got sued.
    Nice..
    It’s not the file sharers this RIAA must go after; because that’s also a very lame thing.
    You catch my drift?

  20. Andrew Duggin
    October 26th, 2007 | 13:11

    $220K… Chit… I’d go to jail rather than give the RIAA and money.. either way you get screwed really hard….

  21. 4121
    November 25th, 2007 | 09:36

    I wonder if there could ever be a a “Possession of Illegally Obtained Intellectual Property” charge. And then maybe a “Distribution of . . .” charge. How about “Intent to Sell . . .” charge.

    Bah, who am I kidding . . . of course there will be.

  22. susana
    March 19th, 2008 | 19:23

    The entertainment industry is nothing but a media whore. Let’s see firt we bought vinly because nothing else was available. Then came the breakthrough of portable cassette players so we bought cassettes. Then came this totally new format called CD’s which had much better quality and did not break. FINALLY, downloads were introduced and so now all of the above forms are OBSOLUTE. Does this mean that we have to PAY 4 TIMES for the same music. How many times will we as consumers be squeezed by these companies trying to maintain their bottom line w/o any thought to people who LOVE music.
    Common sense dictates that if we buy the download it is OURS to do with as we please. WE OWN IT! Now what about these millions What about the vinyl, cassettes, cd’s that will end up in landfill, what about that? WHAT will the EPA do about that, hmmmm?

Pages: « 1 [2] Show All

Leave a reply