Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case - recording companies awarded $1.92 million

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Kadie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 06:56 PM
Original message
Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case - recording companies awarded $1.92 million
Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case
By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

Thursday, June 18, 2009


(06-18) 15:34 PDT MINNEAPOLIS (AP) --

A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result, finding a Minnesota woman to have violated music copyrights and ordering her to pay hefty 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.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

more...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/06/18/financial/f094455D68.DTL&tsp=1




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Turbineguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 06:59 PM
Response to Original message
1. See?
Not everybody get bankrupted by medical bills!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. They are out to prove that we haven't seen yet how evil
corporations can truly be. They are just warming up.

:grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. WTF!
$80,000 per song? How that hell is that any kind of justice, even if you buy into their ludicrous ideas that they've been harmed in any way?

The most they should be entitled to is $1 per song. That's all they have been denied because she didn't buy the songs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. The argument is that she distributed them (via file sharing) on Kazaa.
In essence, she may have given away hundreds of thousands of free copies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:18 PM
Response to Reply #6
13. May have?
Have they somehow proven that she gave away 80,000 copies of each song? If not, then this is a fairytale number.

:grr:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MercutioATC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. I agree that the number is unreasonable.
I was just explaining that it's not about her DLing the music, it's about her distributing it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LostinVA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. Ridiculous
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe the Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:01 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sheesh $80,000 per song....
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 07:01 PM by Joe the Liberal
Where the hell is this lady gonna get that kind of money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dionysus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. she's not, her life is ruined
:(
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
customerserviceguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
18. Well, while it indeed sucks to be her
she can file for bankruptcy, and have it off of her credit report in ten years. There's no way in hell she's ever going to pay them that kind of bucks, is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWatcher Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. She Should. It would be the PERFECT way to say FUCK YOU. You don't get one thin dime.
Edited on Thu Jun-18-09 10:01 PM by TheWatcher
Because if she doesn't have much in the way of assets she can probably screw them that way.

Bankruptcy is NOT the end of the world. You CAN rebuild your credit.

These parasites don't deserve ONE CENT.

FUCK THE RIAA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 12:49 AM
Response to Reply #9
23. Only if you believe money = your life.
She's only 32 years old. A bankruptcy hardly ruins a life.

Thats not to say that this is not a terrible thing that has happened to her. Its also a terrible injustice.

Just saying that money is not your life.

Assuming she is like most folks, the practical effect of a $222,000 judgment is the same as a $10 million dollar judgment.

She'll file bankruptcy and start over.

If she was broke before this case, then the net effect is that she'll pay a few thousand to file bk and have a credit ruined for about 3 years. (bankruptcys have little affect after about 3 years).

btw, I'm talking from experience. I filed bk 7 years ago this month and I would never say that my life is ruined.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RavensChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
7. Yikes!
I hope I can still download on I-Tunes. At least I pay for my songs. 80 grand is way too much for any song, whether it's a hit or a miss.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. not one of those who had a financial stake in those 24 songs will get anything
what ever money they can collect will go to their legal fees.

well maybe those who have a financial stake will get what they are owed on a single play of their work
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
baldguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Deja Q Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Which is the most depressing aspect of them all.
People worked hard to make those songs - even if they're crap, people still made them. I'll respect that.

You don't steal others' livelihoods.

But don't get me wrong; the RIAA will leech off of everybody it can.

Thank goodness for iTunes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Howardx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:13 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. i wonder if any of these defendents lawyers
have ever asked the riaa to prove they represent the artists involved? perhaps show how much money they have returned to the copyright holders over the years?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ThomCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #8
15. If they can't show that any of the money they collect goes to artists
then at some point I hope artists file a class action lawsuit against them and shut them down.

Because if they go to all this effort, sue all these people, and collect money from people to defend the ownership of these songs and the artists don't see any of it then effectively they are saying that they own the songs in their entirety, not the artists. Doesn't that make them the pirates, stealing ownership away from the artists?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pavulon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:24 PM
Response to Original message
14. Time for the supremes and end to end vpn and encrypted files..
these assholes just continue to dig their own graves. Not going to outsmart the collective. cant compel a password turnover.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:27 PM
Response to Original message
17. That's the problem with retrials
In some cases, you end up with a worse result. Though I honestly can't believe how they came up with that number. I hate to say it, she should have paid the $222,000 judgement. The women has been screwed by the Recording Industry and the courts.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yodoobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 10:31 PM
Response to Reply #17
22. As a practical matter, its the same result.
She can probably no more pay $222k, than $1.8 million or 1.8 billion or 1.8 trillion.

The plantiffs will get what they can after shes file bankruptcy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jun-19-09 03:04 AM
Response to Reply #22
24. But as a practical matter, it would have been easier to
say fundraise to help her pay off $222,000. This is 6X that. I think it would have been a hell of a lot less likely she went to bankruptcy had it not gone to retrial. But then again, hindsight is 20/20.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
votingupstart Donating Member (535 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 07:48 PM
Response to Original message
19. that sucks nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech3149 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jun-18-09 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
20. Truly beyond insanity! $80K per song?
If I could get $80K per song from one listener, I'd still be doing music. The term eff them where they breath comes to mind. I've still got my guitars and would rather spend 16 hours a day to get my chops back than support some administrative dweeb or their lawyers.
You know for damned sure the artist doesn't get peanuts. Some days I really hate this world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr 29th 2024, 02:25 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC