Woman Must Pay $1.92 Million In Music Download Case

[envyme]

Full Article At: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

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.


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.

[couture_addict]

Sounds like they decided to make quite an example out of her. Excessive and useless IMO.

She'll probably file bankruptcy and they won't see a dime. They'd make much more of an impact if they kept these judgements at a lower, more "payable" rate.

[Cedes]

I just saw this article, covered over at CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/...ine/index.html

I agree that the punishment is excessive. They should only be able to fine her for the value of what she downloaded, which is all of .99 a song. If she re-distributed, however, I can see how the $ would add up but that's still just insanity. They're more than making an example of her, they're going to outright ruin her.

[caitlin1214]

That's an excessive amount and they're just making an example out of her. I get that they want her to pay the artists and the record companies.

But if each song is $0.99 and she downloaded 24 of them, then $0.99 x 24 is $24.76. Now if you double that, it equals $47.52.


I'm not sure exactly how you'd figure out the penalty for file sharing, though.

[caitlin1214]

For them to say "We order you to pay the record companies $1.92 million" is just as realistic as them saying "We order you to pay a bajillion dollars!"

[envyme]

Lol!!!

Originally Posted by caitlin1214

for them to say "we order you to pay the record companies $1.92 million" is just as realistic as them saying "we order you to pay a bajillion dollars!"

[dreamdoll]

Wow

[Megs]

Originally Posted by caitlin1214

For them to say "We order you to pay the record companies $1.92 million" is just as realistic as them saying "We order you to pay a bajillion dollars!"

Precisely. If that is not even feasible for her, it just sounds like a joke

[twin53]

ridiculous

[bagaholic85]

Originally Posted by caitlin1214

For them to say "We order you to pay the record companies $1.92 million" is just as realistic as them saying "We order you to pay a bajillion dollars!"

thats so true.

i want to know why she in particular was singled out?

[Charlie]

Originally Posted by caitlin1214

For them to say "We order you to pay the record companies $1.92 million" is just as realistic as them saying "We order you to pay a bajillion dollars!"

Funny but true.. :/

[pollinilove]

if she cant pay will she go to prison

[liquiterge]

I didn't think they were still arresting or fining people for downloading music. I mean, I know it's illegal and all, but I hadn't read anything on it in -years-. Like, shortly after the whole Metallica vs Napster thing was the last time I heard about it. 'made for a great South Park episode though.

[liquiterge]

Oh and Caitlin, who is that in your icon??? I remember reading the book with him but have no clue what so ever what his name was!

[Cedes]

Originally Posted by pollinilove

if she cant pay will she go to prison

Therein lies the whole problem. Prisons are so completely overcrowded and should be reserved for violent offenders and predators who aren't fit to interact with others out in the world. Throwing someone in jail because they downloaded a few songs (and while it isn't a completely victimless crime, it definitely doesn't cause physical harm to anyone) and then can't pay an utterly ridiculous penalty is just plain stupid.