Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case ($80,000 per song = $1.92 million)

[Newsjock]

Source: Associated Press

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.

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

[tomhayes]

1. INSANITY

Just insane.

[saigon68]

50. Next stop-- Chapter 7 Bankruptcy

If it good enough for Lehman Bros-- Its good enough for her

[Ms. Toad]

80. Probably not the kind of debt that ca be discharged

in bankruptcy.

[pepperbear]

2. the most frightening part of this article....

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.


Only 4 Major Record companies worldwide.

Oh and if you think I'm being melodramatic and that there are all kinds of indy labels, look at the back of your CDs to find out who distributes and owns those "indies".

[Buzz Clik]

4. What's a CD?

;)

[jmowreader]

12. It's what they distribute software on

[Blandocyte]

53. It's like an lp, but sounds better

is what my younger friends have told me, but none of them work on my turntable, so I don't see the charm. I can never find an adapter thingie to go into the hole so that my spindle will make the damn thing stable as it spins. ;-)

[WriteDown]

57. Technically, not true....

LP's are a more accurate representation of the sound wave :).

[Occulus]

85. I wouldn't know.

I stoped buying CDs AND stopped listening to any and all radio music broadcasts when all this started, back in the Napster days.

No recording artist will ever get a dime of my money ever again, period. I'm disgusted beyond belief and, like a roommate evicted for the pot another roommate was found with, I'll never touch the medium again.

FUCK. EVERYONE. INVOLVED. Even the indies.

I'm sorry, but the RIAA has ruined it for me. I'm never buying a music CD or track again, ever.

[Buzz Clik]

3. 24 songs? There are those out there of terabytes of illegal downloads.

[MercutioATC]

6. She had over a thousand. They only filed on 24.

[MilesColtrane]

25. Technically she was convicted of copyright violation because she made those songs...

...available to others to download.

They didn't go after her for the music she had downloaded from others.

[merwin]

33. Any time you are downloading over Bittorrent, you are making files available

to others... technically.

[tomm2thumbs]

5. this kind of ruling gives folks like Pirate Bay more support - hope the industry chokes on it n/t

[MidwestTransplant]

7. Great PR for the RIAA. NOT. Now everybody will hate them even more.

[ixion]

8. pathetic

one can only hope the 'big 4' record companies choke on that settlement. :grr:

[frog92969]

14. What settlement?

Few people have 2 million to pay a fine.
What they just did was destroy a person's life.

[MercutioATC]

20. The $3k-$5k original settlement that the RIAA offered her...and are still willing to accept.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Jury-rules-against-Minn-woman-apf-510228957.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

There's more to this story than some outlets are reporting.

[tabasco]

21. That's not what your link says.

A rep said they are still willing to settle but nowhere does it indicate for the original amount.

Did you miss this part or are you a liar?

"Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case."

[MercutioATC]

22. I revise my statement. They were willing to settle for $3k-$5k and are still willing to settle

for an undetermined amount.


...and what's with the hostile "liar" question?

[crim son]

55. I was wondering the same thing.

To some people, rudeness and aggression are necessary components of opinion. Weird, eh?

[frog92969]

29. I guess that's not a ruined life...

but still a harsh kick in the teeth.

[MercutioATC]

66. The RIAA's average settlement offer is $3500. That's be $2 per download.

A lot of money to many people, but really only about twice what she'd have paid if she bought them.

[Realityhack]

71. More attention needs to be given to this information.

I don't think most people would see paying double for stealing something as unreasonable or even paying a $2-3,000 fine and paying for the product. That seems in line with what one might get for shoplifting a basket of CDs.

The problem is when we see $80,000 per song (which is simply silly) and nobody reports the other figure.

I don't know about the details of this case but the RIAA also has a history of being less than reasonable about burden of proof.
All in all I think they suck but a settlement in the two or three thousand range is very reasonable IMO.

[MercutioATC]

72. They have IP proof that she was file-sharing 1700 songs on Kazaa.

This isn't about downloading, it's about sharing those stolen files with tens of thousands of users.

I agree that the RIAA's behavior is generally atrocious, but they always sue for a ton of money while offering a reasonable settlement (the average is $3500).

This woman stole files and distributed them. When caught, she refused to pay $2-$3 for the songs she's stolen, choosing to roll the dice in court. She lost.

I find it difficult to muster a great deal of sympathy or outrage in this case.

[frog92969]

73. Sharing stolen goods with the world

I don't think there should be punishment for collecting copies of art,
but to share them openly with the world knowing it's illegal...

The fine should be for stupidity.

[ecstatic]

77. What happens if someone connects to someone else's wireless router

without his/her knowledge and then "illegally" downloads songs? Just curious.

[merwin]

83. Are you sure about that? It's more like $350 per song minimum.

http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/lis/help/p2p/RIAA_settlement.htm

I still don't understand how they can say the damages are valued that high, especially when there are ZERO physical damages. It's all virtual damages, which is even crazier.

What is stopping people who get these letters from going to a CD shop somewhere, buying the CD's in cash and then arguing that the downloads were fair use.

[Ms. Toad]

81. From having handled a few of these on behalf

of the targeted individuals - there was almost certainly an offer to settle for a couple thousand dollars. Generally a low enough amount that it is cheaper to pay than handle an attorney to defend you.

[MilesColtrane]

24. She wouldn't agree to a settlement. That's why they prosecuted her.

[jgraz]

9. It's her own fault for not starting a hedge fund

Now *that's* how you get away with stealing shit.

[Politicalboi]

11. LOL!

Yes if your gonna do it, do it BIG. LOL!

[clixtox]

49. I love DU!

Exactly!

[saigon68]

51. See post 50 above

LOL

[Politicalboi]

10. This shit is crazy

I could see if she were D/L for A LOT of money then yes, but how the fuck is she ever going to pay it? Does she have to go to jail for years? I bet some on the jury have done the same or worse.

[jgraz]

82. Welcome to Feudalism, 2009.

Steal a fig from the nobleman's tree and you're likely to wind up missing a hand. Or worse.

[MadMaddie]

13. Well this is what happens when you give corporations

the rights of personhood.

This is insane. These companies were not hurt $$$$ by this woman. Yes, she broke the law but this outcome is ridiculous.

Maybe instead of looking soley at Healthcare Malpractice suits maybe they should be looking at these ridiculous payouts to multi-billion dollar companies. These companies are crushing individuals and they are getting off on it.

[WriteDown]

58. I'll disagree with one point....

This has nothing to do with the corporations and everything to do with how stupid juries can be.

[AsahinaKimi]

15. $80,000 per song

Yeah right, like she even has that much. There is no such thing as debtor prison, how do they expect to collect?

[eggplant]

16. It's not about collecting.

It's about precedent. They couldn't give a shit about the money.

[Psephos]

17. In other news, Psephos rules against personally buying another CD ever again. eom

[daleo]

18. Dinosaurs,thrashing their giant tails about

Still, the asteroid approaches.

[truthisfreedom]

19. All the way to the Supreme Court.

Or bankruptcy. Whichever suits her.

[RedCloud]

23. How much is that Duckworth?

Seems like they are trying to squeeze the last red cent out of her as no one else probably listens and is willing to pay to those oldies which are played ad nauseum on many stations.

[AlphaCentauri]

26. Let's take a look at the judge and the jury's laptops n/t

[Endangered Specie]

28. how about the judge's kids?

[AlphaCentauri]

31. if they do that those kids are toast n/t

[TroubleMan]

27. Absolutely ridiculous.

I can't believe this.

[Jack_DeLeon]

30. Fortunately I live in Texas...

if such a thing were to happen to me, wages cannot be garnished here to pay a judgment.

However I think these record company assholes probably only sue people who live in states where they can get at their wages.

[New Dawn]

32. Benito Mussolini would be very proud of that ruling.

[villager]

34. Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case (Ordered to pay $80.000 per song)

Source: AP


Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer

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.

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.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

<snip>

Read more: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

[MADem]

35. Link? nt

[Rebubula]

39. Cnn.com N/t

[47of74]

36. I just shook my head

And thought to myself that the recording industry and the jury are a bunch of F-you-know-what-sicks.

[villager]

37. too many cowardly jurors refusing to use "jury nullification" against corporations...

n/t

[cabluedem]

45. If you know about J-N you wont get picked as a juror. nt

[clixtox]

47. Of course you will get picked!

No prosecuting attorney is going to be asking potential jurors if they "know" about Jury nullification. They will say things, and ask rhetorically, about following the judges instructions and the law, etc.

I was recently a juror on a minor, although felony, "hit & run", etc. case and you can be sure I am very aware of jury nullification.

As I have written on DU before about this recent experience, the one system that still works, as if on greased rails, is the so-called "criminal justice" system. These institutions efficiently lock up the poor, the ignorant, the mentally impaired, the drug and alcohol addicted, recent arrivals, those politically unpopular, free-thinkers and lots and lots of completely innocent, uniformly poor, or close to poor, folks.

Completely innocent prisoners on "death row" are routinely released when eventually exonerated. You can be sure that there are many other disadvantaged but innocent prisoners still incarcerated today. How did this ultimate injustice become so tragically common?

One of the many horrible, ugly results of the dumbing down of the younger generations is their subservience in the face of authority.

We have become a nation of "sheeple". Fear and loathing motivate our alienation and isolation.

Critical thinking, especially having different opinions than the dominate, conventional wisdom is actually dangerous.

The "presumption of innocence" is too abstract a concept for many of us.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a baffling idea! It is pretty much a case of the defendant must be guilty or else why would he/she be here in court?

The public defender was almost totally inept, this very well might have been her first jury trial. I sure hope so. If she ever watched Perry Mason, or Court TV, she must have not been paying attention. She allowed the state's law enforcement witnesses, without foundation, to testify authoritatively at length about scientific and evidentiary arcana.

The defendant had little idea about what was happening in court although he did have a court appointed interpreter.

It turned out to be a split/hung jury, 11 to 1 for conviction.

A great experience, I fulfilled an important responsibility to the best of my ability as a citizen, and I earned almost a hundred dollars!

I am in California so you can be sure that I cashed that check immediately, while I still could!

[WriteDown]

59. Deleted, wrong spot

[villager]

79. wow! What a tale! This should be its own post, Clixtox!

n/t

[clixtox]

48. Duplicate post...

[azurnoir]

38. From CNN

A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each -- a total of $1.9 million -- for 24 songs.
Illegal downloads of musical files will cost a Minnesota woman $1.9 million, a jury has decided.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.

Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents.

She plans to appeal, he said.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the RIIA was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.

Thomas-Rasset is married with four children and works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html

[MichaelHarris]

40. I wonder

if there might be a Constitutional question here considering that Ms. Thomas-Rasset, a natural resources coordinator for the Mille Lacs Band of the Ojibwe tribe is Native American and resides on tribal land where the downloading occured.:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3; The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes

There is the 1885 Major Crimes Act that regulates crimes on tribal land and crimes committed by Native Americans:
# Murder
# Manslaughter
# Kidnapping
# Maiming
# Felony under ch. 109A
# Incest
# Assault with intent to commit murder
# Assault with a deadly weapon
# Assault resulting in serious bodily injury
# Assault against a minor under 16 years old
# Arson
# Burglary
# Robbery
# Felony crimes under (18 U.S.C. § 661)

It was a federal jury http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/business/media/19music.html?ref=media They may be able to appeal this and say it should have been in a Tribal Court. Not sure, anything is possible, it may have began in Tribal Court and worked it's way up.

[azurnoir]

41. I had wondered

if either Ms. Thomas-Rasset or her husband was Native American, Brainerd is not exactly a bastion of liberalism and the record industry picked this case in this back water Mn town for a reason

[MichaelHarris]

42. If

the Supreme Court can say the growing and cultivation of pot in California is Interstate Commerce in Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. 1 (2005)352 F.3d 1222 then a person could almost say that illegal downloading of songs across state lines could also be commerce. If pot is commerce and illegal then why can't song-downloading also be commerce? I know it was in a Federal Court but I wonder if these things were considered? If the Court considered it to be commerce then it went to the Federal court, if not it would have been in either a state court of tribal court.

[onenote]

54. she wasn't convicted of a criminal offense

She was convicted of a civil offense. She wasn't ordered to pay a criminal penalty (which would be paid to the government), she was ordered to pay statutory damages to the copyright holders. I think the amount of the judgment is a crock, but I suppose it could've been worse. For "willful" copyright infringements, the maximum statutory damage amount (per work infringed) is $150,000.

[autorank]

43. An industry and court picking on a mother of four

I would expect nothing less.

[cabluedem]

44. America: Kick people when they are down and work or die. No healthcare either. nt

[depakid]

46. And a United States Justice Department under a Democratic President seemingly 100% behind them

[WriteDown]

60. They couldn't have done it without a....

moronic jury though.

[HughBeaumont]

52. "She can't do that to our artists! Only WE can do that to our artists!"

Runaway corporatism at it's worst.

Between this and their recent statements that putting a CD YOU PURCHASED on YOUR computer for the purpose of putting it on an mp3 player/iPod should be considered "theft", you gotta wonder if someone in the higher echelon isn't thinking "is this REALLY worth it or as futile as the 'War on Drugs'?". Talk about putting a sign on your product that says "steal me". This is only going to piss more people off, not encourage them to purchase your product legally. They're holding on to a dying business model that needs to be revamped in the worst way.

[riverdeep]

62. "and that they (jurors) were angry with her"

What does being angry with someone have to do with ruling on the law? As a juror you're supposed to merely interpret the law, and mentally throw out anything not directly related to the case.

[Odin2005]

56. Geez, is the RIAA intentionally making people hate them or are they just stupid?

[WriteDown]

61. And people wonder why I am for tort reform....

Juries are idiots.

[jayfish]

64. And You Think Tort Reform Would Go Both Ways?

:rofl:

Jay

[WriteDown]

65. I'm hoping....

it would limit juries from ridiculous sentences like this. Maybe I'm a dreamer, but something has to be done.

[riverdeep]

63. And yet, the beat goes on.

http://thepiratebay.org/

This case was a loose end from years ago, even the corporations realized going after individual file sharers was futile and bad publicity. Now, they're going after the people who run the file sharing sites as much as possible. Most people settled these cases quietly, most were settled for $3000-5000. Imagine having to pay that large chunk of change to get these people off your back.

They're trying to put the genie back in the bottle, and regardless of where you stand on file sharing, the genie ain't going back in.

[Coventina]

67. My contempt for the RIAA knows no bounds.

There are not enough bad words in the English language to describe them.

I can't wait for them to die.

[Umbral]

68. I wonder what dickhead(s) made it possible for the RIAA to get away with this shit? nt

[treestar]

69. But what chance do they have of collecting the judgment?

She's hardly deep pockets.

[Buenaventura]

70. the RIAA wrote the law, so the RIAA wins

so long as we have a system that values property and money more than human beings we will continue to witness this kind of travesty.

the RIAA and its attorneys care nothing about creativity, artistry or even intellectual property. they are interested only in protecting and increasing their vast wealth.

it's tragic and telling that obama has filled the justice department with former RIAA attorneys and that biden pushes to increase federal penalties for copyright violations. let's lock up more single moms while the real criminals laugh all the way to the bank.

[mvd]

75. If anything, copyright and the RIAA need to adjust to the internet environment

It's really the new "taping from radio" scenario, only more visible. The RIAA has already had to decide not to undergo more lawsuits at this time. I'm still old fashioned and prefer to pay for music, but I also can understand the dynamics at play here.

[SKKY]

74. Wow. How does this kind of thing work. Does she work out a payment plan?

[ecstatic]

78. Her response is the correct one:

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

They overplayed their hand and hopefully won't get a dime! Greedy bastards!

[ecstatic]

76. total, utter bullshit! Shame on that jury!! nt

[reggie the dog]

84. I have hundreds of not thousands of stolen songs

Hell, we passed them around between friends long before computers came into the fold. Next thing you know old folks will be sued millions for bootleg cassets of albums they had actually bought but had become too scratched or broken.