24 songs cost how much?!! - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Glory's Sun · 06-19-2009, 05:07 AM

So this jury finds a woman should pay the RIAA 1.92 million dollars or $80,000 each for copyright infringement. Yet the RIAA is willing to settle for 3,500/per song. Something doesn't add up here to me..

Quote:

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.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.
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.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case - Yahoo! News

They've since stopped these sort of lawsuits.. and are going after "the worst offenders"..

The record companies need to really examine things.... for one, quit with all the crap on the records and people may actually want to pay for the album, and two, quit being so digitally paranoid.

squeeeb · 06-19-2009, 06:42 AM

it sounds to me like the chick is guilty. apparently she had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case but didn't, probably because she thought she could fight it, deny everything, an win. that is where she went wrong. i think the whole thing is stupid, but the music industry wants to make someone an example and they randomly chose her. they have more lawyers and money and they will eventually get what they want. i think 1.92 million is ludicrous and i don't see that woman ever paying it, but she did something illegal, she got caught, and now she has to pay, which makes sense to me.

even if she did manage to pay it, did they make an example out of her? really? is everyone going to stop file sharing? no. but the music industry has to "save face." why don't they just lie and release a story of how they nabbed someone for file sharing, went to court, and won lots of money and the person did some time? this way they can "make an example" without going through all the bullshit.

really, the lack of record sales has nothing to do with filesharing, but that's another thread.

but the record company isn't all to blame. what gets me is when someone commits a crime and they get caught, they get all indignant and upset about it. she was wrong, she got caught, she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with it, instead of trying to fight it and get out of paying for what she did.

reading this story....its like watching a cripple fight.

Glory's Sun · 06-19-2009, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squeeeb

it sounds to me like the chick is guilty. apparently she had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case but didn't, probably because she thought she could fight it, deny everything, an win. that is where she went wrong. i think the whole thing is stupid, but the music industry wants to make someone an example and they randomly chose her. they have more lawyers and money and they will eventually get what they want. i think 1.92 million is ludicrous and i don't see that woman ever paying it, but she did something illegal, she got caught, and now she has to pay, which makes sense to me.

even if she did manage to pay it, did they make an example out of her? really? is everyone going to stop file sharing? no. but the music industry has to "save face." why don't they just lie and release a story of how they nabbed someone for file sharing, went to court, and won lots of money and the person did some time? this way they can "make an example" without going through all the bullshit.

really, the lack of record sales has nothing to do with filesharing, but that's another thread.

but the record company isn't all to blame. what gets me is when someone commits a crime and they get caught, they get all indignant and upset about it. she was wrong, she got caught, she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with it, instead of trying to fight it and get out of paying for what she did.

reading this story....its like watching a cripple fight.

I'm not really arguing that she isn't guilty, but the fact that it can be up to 80k per song is a bit high. I mean.. did the company really lose 80k on her downloading and sending the song to a few people? I highly doubt it. How can they measure how much money they really lost?

Xerxys · 06-19-2009, 09:18 AM

I see what you're saying guccilvr and raise you speeding tickets and NSF fees etc etc etc.

You see squeeeb, People in any establishment have a tendency to inflict overly outrageous penalties if their guidelines aren't followed. It's not so much as being responsible for your actions, its more like "WTF ... even if I killed someone it wouldn't be as bad as you're making it out to be!!!"

I'll even go as far as saying their indignation is very genuine.

flat5 · 06-19-2009, 09:22 AM

It is also about punishment. However it does not fit the crime.
Just listening to pop music is punishment enough.

Martian · 06-19-2009, 10:48 AM

This is an interesting article in that it appears to attempt to put a pro-RIAA spin on this whole debacle.

The verdict in the first case was thrown out in part because the judge (as of his own statements) deemed the penalty imposed to be excessive and cruel. The jury in this case is supposed to be awarding compensatory damages, not punitive, which means it should reflect the real harm done.

It's not illegal to have mp3's on your computer. It's not even illegal to make those mp3's available, although the RIAA is trying to create a precedent for that. What's illegal is the actual distribution. It's a fine point, perhaps, but I believe it's an important one. The 'making available' argument is ludicrous -- under that precedent, Google can be sued if a page they link to contains copyrighted material.

Jammie Thomas is not the best example of a doe-eyed innocent and therefore not the best case to rally around. Other evidence not mentioned within this article indicates a strong possibility that she may be guilty of perjury, among other things. Regardless, if she settles it'll likely be because she can't afford to continue litigation, given that the odds of this verdict standing are slim to none.

The RIAA is engaging Mediasentry as a private watchdog to help them prosecute, which may also be illegal. Whether or not Mediasentry has the right to take the investigative tactics they have is a question that's still in doubt, although it would appear that for the purposes of Ms. Thomas' case their evidence is being allowed.

They can't fabricate a case, because there are lawyers on both side of the argument and court proceedings are a matter of public record. They have to have an actual case that goes to trial and results in a victory. Thomas makes for a good candidate, precisely because she's not a terribly sympathetic character. The decisions clearly show this.

The part that really baffles me in all this is that it seems to me that regardless of the decision, the major labels still lose. They're attempting to litigate technology out of existence. History shows that this simply doesn't work, but rather than adapt to the new landscape, they keep trying to fight progress. I find it difficult to imagine that so many people could be so ignorant, yet the evidence is right in front of me.

Further reading:

Copyrights & Campaigns: The Jammie Thomas Re-trial: Frequently Asked Questions
Recording Industry vs. The People

squeeeb · 06-19-2009, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guccilvr

I'm not really arguing that she isn't guilty, but the fact that it can be up to 80k per song is a bit high. I mean.. did the company really lose 80k on her downloading and sending the song to a few people? I highly doubt it. How can they measure how much money they really lost?

yeah, totally, it's ludicrous. they can't measure how much they lost, and they probably didn't lose any. chances are, if the people couldn't get the songs for free, they wouldn't have bought the albums anyway.

Glory's Sun · 06-19-2009, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by martian

The part that really baffles me in all this is that it seems to me that regardless of the decision, the major labels still lose. They're attempting to litigate technology out of existence. History shows that this simply doesn't work, but rather than adapt to the new landscape, they keep trying to fight progress. I find it difficult to imagine that so many people could be so ignorant, yet the evidence is right in front of me.

this is an excellent point. I mentioned in my points earlier, but I simply cannot understand why record companies are so opposed to technology change. They could easily make money if they adapted rather than fighting.

06-19-2009, 06:42 AM	#2 (permalink)
squeeeb part of the problem Location: hic et ubique	it sounds to me like the chick is guilty. apparently she had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case but didn't, probably because she thought she could fight it, deny everything, an win. that is where she went wrong. i think the whole thing is stupid, but the music industry wants to make someone an example and they randomly chose her. they have more lawyers and money and they will eventually get what they want. i think 1.92 million is ludicrous and i don't see that woman ever paying it, but she did something illegal, she got caught, and now she has to pay, which makes sense to me. even if she did manage to pay it, did they make an example out of her? really? is everyone going to stop file sharing? no. but the music industry has to "save face." why don't they just lie and release a story of how they nabbed someone for file sharing, went to court, and won lots of money and the person did some time? this way they can "make an example" without going through all the bullshit. really, the lack of record sales has nothing to do with filesharing, but that's another thread. but the record company isn't all to blame. what gets me is when someone commits a crime and they get caught, they get all indignant and upset about it. she was wrong, she got caught, she should take responsibility for her actions and deal with it, instead of trying to fight it and get out of paying for what she did. reading this story....its like watching a cripple fight. __________________ onward to mayhem!

06-19-2009, 10:48 AM	#6 (permalink)
Martian Young Crumudgeon Location: Canada	This is an interesting article in that it appears to attempt to put a pro-RIAA spin on this whole debacle. The verdict in the first case was thrown out in part because the judge (as of his own statements) deemed the penalty imposed to be excessive and cruel. The jury in this case is supposed to be awarding compensatory damages, not punitive, which means it should reflect the real harm done. It's not illegal to have mp3's on your computer. It's not even illegal to make those mp3's available, although the RIAA is trying to create a precedent for that. What's illegal is the actual distribution. It's a fine point, perhaps, but I believe it's an important one. The 'making available' argument is ludicrous -- under that precedent, Google can be sued if a page they link to contains copyrighted material. Jammie Thomas is not the best example of a doe-eyed innocent and therefore not the best case to rally around. Other evidence not mentioned within this article indicates a strong possibility that she may be guilty of perjury, among other things. Regardless, if she settles it'll likely be because she can't afford to continue litigation, given that the odds of this verdict standing are slim to none. The RIAA is engaging Mediasentry as a private watchdog to help them prosecute, which may also be illegal. Whether or not Mediasentry has the right to take the investigative tactics they have is a question that's still in doubt, although it would appear that for the purposes of Ms. Thomas' case their evidence is being allowed. They can't fabricate a case, because there are lawyers on both side of the argument and court proceedings are a matter of public record. They have to have an actual case that goes to trial and results in a victory. Thomas makes for a good candidate, precisely because she's not a terribly sympathetic character. The decisions clearly show this. The part that really baffles me in all this is that it seems to me that regardless of the decision, the major labels still lose. They're attempting to litigate technology out of existence. History shows that this simply doesn't work, but rather than adapt to the new landscape, they keep trying to fight progress. I find it difficult to imagine that so many people could be so ignorant, yet the evidence is right in front of me. Further reading: Copyrights & Campaigns: The Jammie Thomas Re-trial: Frequently Asked Questions Recording Industry vs. The People __________________ I wake up in the morning more tired than before I slept I get through cryin' and I'm sadder than before I wept I get through thinkin' now, and the thoughts have left my head I get through speakin' and I can't remember, not a word that I said - Ben Harper, Show Me A Little Shame

06-19-2009, 09:18 AM	#4 (permalink)
Xerxys Junkie Location: My head.	I see what you're saying guccilvr and raise you speeding tickets and NSF fees etc etc etc. You see squeeeb, People in any establishment have a tendency to inflict overly outrageous penalties if their guidelines aren't followed. It's not so much as being responsible for your actions, its more like "WTF ... even if I killed someone it wouldn't be as bad as you're making it out to be!!!" I'll even go as far as saying their indignation is very genuine.

06-19-2009, 09:22 AM	#5 (permalink)
flat5 Very Insignificant Pawn Location: Amsterdam, NL	It is also about punishment. However it does not fit the crime. Just listening to pop music is punishment enough.