gatortom64 1 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 (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.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 the 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 association 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 downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.This was the second trial for Thomas-Rasset. The judge ordered a retrial in 2007 after there was an error in the wording of jury instructions.The fines jumped considerably from the first trial, which granted just $220,000 to the recording companies.Thomas-Rasset is married with four children and works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota. Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I love the USA legal system. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I love the USA legal system.But would you have some form of sex with it? Because you've gone over one post now without telling us about your sexual fantasies. Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hehe, I posted this story in the Army thread last night with the comment "I am so glad I decided to plea versus taking my case to a jury trial!" Link to post Share on other sites
gatortom64 1 Posted June 19, 2009 Author Share Posted June 19, 2009 Hehe, I posted this story in the Army thread last night with the comment "I am so glad I decided to plea versus taking my case to a jury trial!"For some WEIRD reason, you were the first person I thought of when I read this. Glad you didn't get hammered that hard. think she will ever have to pay it all? Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 sad thing is, when the case originally became a big deal a few years ago, people were donating money to help her. it's like, no, don't help this retard. she decided to fight a complete uphill battle against the RIAA's lawyers and got slapped down. this happens in the real world, unlike fairy tale fantasy land where you can swap out the hard drive and all the nasty problems go away. Link to post Share on other sites
dna4ever 2 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 For some WEIRD reason, you were the first person I thought of when I read this. Glad you didn't get hammered that hard. think she will ever have to pay it all?I don't know all the details of this case, but I imagine this will be tied up in appeals courts for many years and could quite possibly make it all the way to the Supreme, where a huge precedent would be set. This case is very very very important obviously as there have not been any previous cases like this taken to court and it will set the precedent for future cases. My gut tells me that RIAA will not back down from this for the reasons listed above, but there will most likely be a compromise on the fine as you cant collect what someone doesn't have.Regardless, will be interesting to watch over the next few years. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I don't know all the details of this case, but I imagine this will be tied up in appeals courts for many years and could quite possibly make it all the way to the Supreme, where a huge precedent would be set. This case is very very very important obviously as there have not been any previous cases like this taken to court and it will set the precedent for future cases. My gut tells me that RIAA will not back down from this for the reasons listed above, but there will most likely be a compromise on the fine as you cant collect what someone doesn't have.Regardless, will be interesting to watch over the next few years.it's a precedent, sure, but it means nothing if they are sticking to their guns about getting ISPs to disconnect people instead of taking them to court.I'm glad they're doing this. this woman was arrogant and a complete idiot at the same time. Link to post Share on other sites
Piddle Duck 0 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I bet she drives a Jeep. Link to post Share on other sites
Dice_3008 1 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Donte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for dui and manslaughter. She gets 1.9 million dollar fine for downloading 24 songs. Seems pretty standard to me... Link to post Share on other sites
Piddle Duck 0 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 My gut tells me that RIAA will not back down from this for the reasons listed above, but there will most likely be a compromise on the fine as you cant collect what someone doesn't have.Pretty much what she said in a bigger story...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." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_do...T1F9J51w9p0fNdF Link to post Share on other sites
Mercury69 3 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 But would you have some form of sex with it? Because you've gone over one post now without telling us about your sexual fantasies.Should I start up a blog for you? Seriously, you should find better things to do with your time.Donte Stallworth gets 30 days in jail for dui and manslaughter. She gets 1.9 million dollar fine for downloading 24 songs. Seems pretty standard to me...My point exactly. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 from digg:Microsoft should start a new ad campaign... "To fill a Zune, it costs $15/month... an iPod is $30,000. To fill a 32MB Creative Nomad, it will cost you 1.9 million!" Link to post Share on other sites
Sal Paradise 57 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 from digg:Microsoft should start a new ad campaign... "To fill a Zune, it costs $15/month... an iPod is $30,000. To fill a 32MB Creative Nomad, it will cost you 1.9 million!"GET THIS MAN A COR... wait, I don't know what a nomad is. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 GET THIS MAN A COR... wait, I don't know what a nomad is.shitty mp3 player from a long time ago Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 Ray Beckerman is a lawyer who posts over on slashdot -- he's an expert on these copyright issues and something of an anti-RIAA activist. I trust him on these issues... part of his comment from yesterday's story: But I should point out that this outsized verdict ( a ) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and ( b ) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack. Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 that may very well be, but I still believe this idiot did a lot more harm than good by taking the stand as she did. maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read the slashdot thread... my friend mentioned it was a lot more clear-headed than digg. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 that may very well be, but I still believe this idiot did a lot more harm than good by taking the stand she did. maybe I'm wrong. I haven't read the slashdot thread... my friend mentioned it was a lot more clear-headed than digg.There are some weird things about the case. The defense had retained an expert witness to challenge some of their technical procedures (which are now well known to be unreliable and have been successfully challenged in other cases) -- but never ended up calling him. Also, the jury instructions seem to have been botched. Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 So....what songs did she download? If she's owes $2m for 24 songs, would somebody with 2400 songs owe $200m? I mean really, it's a joke. This is close to the most retarded thing ever, ever. I feel like she's probably going to end up getting rich off this, what with counter-suing or whatever. It's funny how the RIAA's response to dwindling record sales and the emergence of free music sharing is to act like a bunch of cunts and try to use scare tactics to make people stop sharing freely. Rather than, say, embrace it like many artists have and figure out a new business model to fit the changing demand. People still have money to spend, and will gladly spend it if they feel like they are getting a desirable and reasonably-priced product in return. They could try to figure how to make money off of it. Get every band to start its own free site and advertise their concerts and movies and whatever other shit. Or they could just GO FUCK THEMSELVES and finally let the artists control their own music and profit off it fairly. I really hope that more and more artists start releasing their albums for free with a suggested donation, and I think a lot of people will be surprised at how many people are willing and happy to give money directly to the artists. I mean, how much did Radiohead make off of In Rainbows? And if they were a much-less-famous band, don't you think that a larger percent of the listeners would gladly pay a few bucks for it? If I ship $10 to an artist's paypal, he's probably profiting about 10 times more than he does for every CD he sells. The RIAA is becoming obsolete. Music isn't. The end of the "recording industry" will probably be the biggest musical advance this century. More artistic freedom = better music. $30 concert tickets = lots of moneys. Link to post Share on other sites
chrozzo 19 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 she'll get off on the fines imo....but then pay 5x more for the yearly legal fees..whiich she will pay for from the made-for-tv movie they make over this ideal Link to post Share on other sites
jmkiser 0 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 I really hope that more and more artists start releasing their albums for free with a suggested donation, and I think a lot of people will be surprised at how many people are willing and happy to give money directly to the artists. If I ship $10 to an artist's paypal, he's probably profiting about 10 times more than he does for every CD he sells. The RIAA is becoming obsolete. Music isn't. The end of the "recording industry" will probably be the biggest musical advance this century. More artistic freedom = better music. $30 concert tickets = lots of moneys. DaveElwert.comMy friend back from college is a working musician. Dave's setup is practically a mirror of what you wrote. This what he writes in his Bio about why he works this way."If you hadn’t noticed already, I offer out my music on a “Pay What You Want” basis. I do this simply because I don’t believe that a price tag should ever come between you and the songs. I think too many people have forgotten what really matters in the music business. Is it the music, or the business? I say the music. So here it is, no strings attached. Enjoy! If even a fraction of one my songs resonates with somebody else (maybe you), consider that my “paycheck”. That is so much more important and fulfilling than being “rich” or “famous” or any of that other crap musicians tend to care about these days. It is for this reason that I offer my music out for free. Pay only if you want to. So go tell your friends, family, or that random guy/girl that keeps winking at you in the video store checkout line. Everybody is welcome. " Link to post Share on other sites
timwakefield 68 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 Kiser that's really cool!Record sales (LPs - those big round black ones) are up 36% already this year. Concert ticket sales are up something like 30% overall since 2000. I also just came across a stat from a record producer who said that bands or artists who are signed with a major record label generally average about 6% of their income from album sales. The other 94% is concert tickets and everything else. Link to post Share on other sites
vbnautilus 48 Posted June 20, 2009 Share Posted June 20, 2009 she'll get off on the fines imo....but then pay 5x more for the yearly legal fees..whiich she will pay for from the made-for-tv movie they make over this idealSome people who have beaten the RIAA in the past have received legal fees. In this case the judge ordered them to pay $108K to cover the defendant's legal fees. "An award of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party are ‘the rule rather than the exception’ under the Copyright Act, and ’should be awarded routinely,’" Redden wrote. Link to post Share on other sites
strategy 4 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 maybe it's skewed because it's a college town, but a LOT of fans attended some of the obscure shows I've seen in my few years living in lawrence. unlike a lot of indie music fans, I would actually like to have a lot more people enjoy the music I like. maybe radio might be listenable again someday... Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now