Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industry

[babylonsister]

Damages of $1.9 million could backfire on music industry
Sat Jun 20, 2009 11:23pm EDT

By Ben Sheffner


LOS ANGELES (Billboard) - The recording industry secured a resounding victory last week when a Minneapolis jury awarded the four major labels $1.92 million in damages after unanimously finding that a 32-year-old mother had willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network.

But a question arose after the verdict about whether the sheer size of the damages could lead to a backlash against an industry that is already portrayed in some quarters as overreaching. Sony BMG attorney Wade Leak, who testified at the trial, said he was "shocked" by the damages award.

No one expects that the labels will collect the entire amount from Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old Brainerd, Minn., mother of four who testified during the retrial that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs. Thomas-Rasset lost her previous trial in 2007 and was ordered to pay $222,000, only to achieve a now-pyrrhic victory when the court tossed the verdict because of a faulty jury instruction.

Even for law-abiding citizens who believe that labels have every right to protect their copyrights, a verdict of almost $2 million could be hard to swallow. Indeed, the Recording Industry Assn. of America said it was willing to reach a settlement with Thomas-Rasset, as it had been all along.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/article/musicNews/idUSTRE55K07E20090621

[hobbit709]

1. What's worse is the RIAA will never give a penny of that money

to the artists allegedly involved. The bastards keep the money for themselves.

[grannie4peace]

2. it's an insane verdict

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

3. Why they chose to do this to a woman that has 4 children...

to provide for, I have no idea. I don't think she deserves to be financially ruined over this.

[ejpoeta]

5. they don't care who they do this to. they want theirs and they don't give a crap.

the problem as i see it is that i think they are just going to piss folks off. they don't care about the artists... how many of them are screwing the artists over. it's just ridiculous.

[RC]

7. This womans crime was to stand up to them and call them what they actually were.

Therefore she has to pay for her insubordination. They thought they could intimidate this woman because she was on the lower end of the economic scale, without many resources and would just pay their fine and not even go to court. But she stood up to them and made them look foolish. She had to be made an example of for others. The Mafia could learn a thing or two about shake downs from this group.

[malaise]

4. It's a ridiculous verdict

Meanwhile the bankers walk free.
Fugging fascists.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. The thing is that it was never clear that she personally downloaded the songs

and distributed them. The verdict should send a chill down the spine of any computer owner--I can imagine a vindictive ex-lover or a sullen child downloading stuff illegally just to get the computer owner in trouble.

If the court had directed the woman to pay money directly to the artists I would feel better about this (though not much-too much money involved). But the kicker is that the artists won't see a dime of it--just the greedy SOBs. Haven't purchased music in years, except through used CD stores (will the music moguls be shutting those down next?)--now I'm wondering if I'll even do that.