Filesharing mum ordered to pay nearly $2m

[Noreen]

The first person to be successfully sued for illegal filesharing in the US has been ordered to pay a fine of nearly $2m (£1.22m) after a retrial. A court awarded the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the increased amount of $1.92m after Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of wilfully violating the copyright of 24 songs. The 32-year-old single mother told reporters outside a Minneapolis court that the verdict was "kind of ridiculous" and "there's no way they're ever going to get that".

Thomas-Rasset was originally found guilty of copyright infringement in 2007 and was ordered to pay a fine of $222,000. She was one of around 30,000 individuals to be fined by the RIAA, typically for amounts between $3,000 – $10,000, for illegal filesharing via peer-to-peer sites such as Kazaa, used by Thomas-Rasset. A new trial was ordered after the judge in her original case said he had "erred in giving the jury instruction". Unfortunately for Thomas-Rasset, a new jury decided her crime warranted a much larger punishment, to the tune of $80,000 per song.............

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/filesharing-single-mother

[Simon]

OK, so she was in the wrong, and got caught, but it seems a hugely exaggerated amount for only 24 songs.

[Noreen]

It's laughable considering that they haven't a hope of getting it.

[Simon]

Indeed, Noreen.  The music industry doesn't exactly seem to be skint anyway, does it?

[Noreen]

This is one of the posts on the American forum that I belong to, I wouldn't dare repeat some of them.

Enforcing copyright law is one thing, but fines way beyond the scale of the crime another. The jury might as well put a pinky to their mouths and proclaimed "One BILLION dollars!" The law was written at a time when copyright infringers were operations looking to make a quick buck off other peoples' work. It was never meant to be applied to some home user who shared out their music directory. There should be a fine for commercial infringement (current fines are ok for that) and non-commercial infringement (10x market cost would be good for that). This way the fines will still sting a bit, but won't result in life-destroying bankruptcy. Jammie Thomas would have faced a lower fine if she walked into Best Buy and tucked 2 CDs into her jacket pocket. (24 songs = ~2 CDs' worth)

[zappaDPJ]

I saw that this morning and couldn't help but laugh. I think I'll have some of whatever the judge was on when he awarded that sentence 

[colonelsun]

Well if they were all Britney Spears' songs she did the world a favour.

[john]

Just possibly the judge awarded such a ridiculous amount because he/she knew that she hasn't a hope in paying it and therefore the record companies probably won't even get a cent. If he had awarded say $1000 then she might have been expected to find and pay such an amount and that would have been some deterrent to others. As it stands I can see that those on very low incomes will just say sorry, but they can't pay and enforcing any action like prison will end up costing the state more.

[Noreen]

Not that it makes a great deal of difference but the penalty was actually awarded by the "grand jury" not the judge.

[zappaDPJ]

Well spotted, I'd forgotten they have a somewhat different legal system in the U.S.

[Sebby]

$2m for 24 songs? I'd hate to think what the majority of illegal downloaders would have to pay if they were caught. It sounds to me like this was just an easy target to make an example out of.

[Odos]

$2m for 24 songs? I'd hate to think what the majority of illegal downloaders would have to pay if they were caught. It sounds to me like this was just an easy target to make an example out of.

Surely it would have the opposite effect. If people are gonna get fined that amount for just a few songs they are going to decide they may as well get fined for 10000 downloads as just 100.

[colonelsun]

If this judgement is designed to scare off regular and new illegal downloads...then it's failed. If you're downloading free songs then you're definitely not rich. As for the music industry thinking it's got one over the consumer...then i fear the industry is out of touch.

If you're even going to begin to educate the public about illegal downloads then you begin with the young. Stop handing out free music CDs with every teen magazine, the kids think everything is for free. The industry could try cutting out some of the 'fat'..for example large recording studios are an anathema when you can do the same thing on a computer, how about making the cost of the CD the same wherever you go and do the same with downloads....why should the UK be paying 2 dollars more than the Americans?

The music industry could get itself out of this mess through education, unfortunately they're looking at the problem in the short term.

[Simon]

for example large recording studios are an anathema when you can do the same thing on a computer

Ah, we disagree there.  Sure, you can make throwaway pop pap on a laptop (and god knows, the pop charts are full of it), but decent music requires a proper recording studio, and you can never replicate on a computer, the organic sound of real musicians, playing real instruments, together. 

[gizmo71]

but decent music requires a proper recording studio, and you can never replicate on a computer, the organic sound of real musicians, playing real instruments, together. 

You can build a half decent recording studio in a garage these days.

Besides, 'decent' music with lasting appeal requires good songwriting above all else and there's precious little of that in the mainstream music industry.

[colonelsun]

I agree with you both but the music the kids listen to today usually starts off in a kids' bedroom or as a basic demo tape. Commercial, throw away music, such as is in the charts, may have cost little to produce in a studio it's the promotion that's crippling to the industry. In a world where popular, throw away music, has less and less relevance, the kid's want it for nothing, why keep the huge studios that no longer accommodate the big acts of yesteryear.

[Gary]

I agree with you both but the music the kids listen to today usually starts off in a kids' bedroom or as a basic demo tape. Commercial, throw away music, such as is in the charts, may have cost little to produce in a studio it's the promotion that's crippling to the industry. In a world where popular, throw away music, has less and less relevance, the kid's want it for nothing, why keep the huge studios that no longer accommodate the big acts of yesteryear.

The same thing is said as each generation gets older I am sure, the music is as relevant to "the kids" as it was to us when we were young, just because we may not like it does not mean its less meaningful, or rubbish compared with "stick your preferred style of golden oldie here"  The process is called getting old, and if we can't listen to music without floundering in the past then we are missing the point of the greatest form of communication on the planet. Digging our heels in and refusing to hear whats out there is something we can all do at times. I still find relevance in today's sounds though, not chart based material really as its very mainstream and I never was one for the charts even when I was young, but the occasional song would stir great feelings never the less. Commercial throw away music to you or I is to another the greatest sound around, and no less relevant than what we enjoyed. I find a lot of the Breakbeat dance scene to be damn uplifting and full of energy and that's created on laptops, I guess I listen to a song on the merits of how it makes me feel now, not how I felt twenty years ago though, keeping your ears tuned to the wonders of many forms of music is a great way to explore the world around us. 

[colonelsun]

Well one thing's for sure:if i were burgled tomorrow no thief would waste his time with my CD collection. Alma Cogan, show tunes from Broadway, 70s & 80s pop, classical, blues and German experimental synth. Dig a bit deeper and you get to old fashioned LPs, though i'm sure a young burglar today would dismiss the LP as some kind of table mat.

[Simon]

Or a Frisbee.

[dujas]

She allegedly was sharing just under 2000 songs at the time, but for reasons unknown they selected to sue her for only sharing 24. She also was found to be somewhat selective with the truth whilst under oath, so the jury slapped her with wilful copyright infringement, which means higher fines. Nevertheless I can't see how financially ruining someone is justified.

[colonelsun]

Or a Frisbee.

Yeah....that's what my 3 year old niece used my Blondie LP as.

[colonelsun]

She allegedly was sharing just under 2000 songs at the time, but for reasons unknown they selected to sue her for only sharing 24. She also was found to be somewhat selective with the truth whilst under oath, so the jury slapped her with wilful copyright infringement, which means higher fines. Nevertheless I can't see how financially ruining someone is justified.

Playing Devil's Advocate for a moment.....i wonder just how much of the trial the jury understood....the music industry is well known for confusing juries and presenting inaccurate testimony.

I also wonder just how many people on the jury have used file sharing sites themselves? And how many of them were parents who went directly to their kids' computer the moment the trial ended?

[dujas]

The RIAA were surprised at the size of the fine. I guess her defence didn't do a good enough job of educating the jury about how widespread 'copyright infringement' can be on the net. Joel Tenenbaum must be chewing his fingernails

[colonelsun]

It's all so un-necessary and really proves that the music industry is wanting a short term fix for a long-time problem. I would have hoped the industry might include the music fan in combatting piracy, instead they seem intent on alienating them. Both sides need to come up with an answer to file-sharing otherwise nothing moves forwards.

[glen]

As far as I'm concerned it's all about control.  A touch of big brother if you like, just letting you know the authorities are stiil in charge, and you're right there is no need for it, it's pathetic, but then again big criminal organisations do like to have control over everything. Just my opinion from a bit of research.