Woman Fined $1.92 Million For Music Downloads

[WheresMickey]

Found this on the news today.

What do you think? I think they are using her as a example.

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.

More here: http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktl...,5755829.story

Copyright © 2009, KTLA-TV, Los Angeles

[Sambo]

What do I think? I think it is a perfect example of why the average citizen has less respect for the law and for the legal system.

[Disney Wrassler]

Stop downloading illegally. It'll save you money .

[krystledm]

My opinion? Isn't this excessive fines as per amendment 8 of the constitution?

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Bill of Rights Transcript

[disneytim]

Originally Posted by krystledm

My opinion? Isn't this excessive fines as per amendment 8 of the constitution?

Amendment VIII Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Bill of Rights Transcript

This was a civil case, not a criminal trial. The government did not impose an excessive fine on the defendant, so protection under the 8th Amendment doesn't apply. The RIAA sued Thomas-Rasset in federal court and the jury ruled in their favor.

That said, the settlement does seem a bit much. Guess she should have settled out of court.

[krystledm]

Originally Posted by disneytim

This was a civil case, not a criminal trial. The government did not impose an excessive fine on the defendant, so protection under the 8th Amendment doesn't apply. The RIAA sued Thomas-Rasset in federal court and the jury ruled in their favor.

That said, the settlement does seem a bit much. Guess she should have settled out of court.

OH! Ok, guess I should have read the article just a little slower.

Still think it's too much.

[sailerm]

Guess she should have settled out of court.

No I think more people should have gone to court and fought the RIAA.

This was the RIAA' s heavy handed attempt to stiffle the mp3 market in favor of selling little shiny discs. Had the RIAA not closed down Napster, and had learned to create a new selling model (like iTunes for example) it would never had to get to a point where it's sueing the people it's trying to sell product to.

Poor form on the RIAA. (sore winners)

[KAN]

**uninstalls LimeWire**









--KAN

[Jazzman]

Utterly absurd, and a perfect example of how hopelessly clueless, out of touch and arrogant the recording industry is. A lot of people are in line for a hue karmic kick in the a$$ for this. It also shows how ridiculous the notion of "justice" is in America. You can murder people, burglarize homes, sell drugs, etc and face less severe consequences than if you download a three minute song. Lame.

[Zooropa]

The fine print is always missed. She had offered more than 1700 songs. The plaintiffs chose to simplify and only go after 24 of the 1700. She was wrong and took a gamble and lost...twice.

[FigmentFruitcake]

I can't speak for everybody but I LOVE music. And before the whole iTunes style of purchasing music I was always disgusted that I just paid $20 of my hard earned money for a CD with ONE good song on it and a bunch of fillers! The RIAA is going about this the wrong way. Nothing like sending the message "If you like music you're going to pay out the wazoo for following a fad." I smell a revolt if you ask me LOL.

[aashee]

I don't steal music so I'm not worried.

[Solz]

Oh to be canadian, where its legal to download music but not upload it. For at least a little longer anyways. Eat it RIAA.

[sailerm]

I smell a revolt if you ask me

The writing has been on the wall for years for the major labels. Piracy aside, the bigger problem for them started way before Napster and mp3's.

Prior to the mid 1990's record labels were known to find an nurture talent, and make investments into artists that they found promise in. Mind you none of this came 'free' to the musicians in question. Most advances and bonus' paid to the artist would have to be payed back, usually by the label owning the masters, publishing rights, and distribution reducing the percentage that the singer (and/or songwriter) of any given song or album received being a TINY amount compared to the overall grosses amassed by an album that hit it big. MC Hammer believe it not was making better money selling his CD's out of the trunk of his car before he singed with a major label (too bad he pissed it all away).

Anyway I digress. When the labels nurtured an artist and made an investment in time, it was OK it the first one, or two albums released by a new act were not commercial successes because if they got 'the next' "Beatles" or "Rolling Stones" or "Elvis" they new that over the long run they would have a catalog of everygreen music that could sold and resold, and resold over the years once an artist hit it big. The problem is that it take money and time, potentially lots of time, and more a lot of artists, never.

But, in the mid 1990's, thanks to the Britney's and Boy Bands, and (most) rap/hip hop acts record labels found that they could make big money faster but using producers that would just follow and established template and just farm new talent, for nothing more that a quick buck. So what replaced the singer/songwriter/musican was a string of quicky written and produced pop tunes by the likes, of the Spice Girls, N Sync, and scores of others. Though this is nothing new (think Monkees) what was new is that the labels focus severely shifted to only the quick buck. You first (and maybe only) single didn't hit number one the first week of release? Buh Bye!

The unintended side effect of this is that music industry has become the McDonalds of the entertaiment industry. A lot of empty calories. Songs that only have short term appeal. The music industry was already starving itself out when people started to shift to MP3's, and after 10 or so years of one hit wonders, why would anyone by a whole album by anyone?

$20-$25 a pop for any CD was good money for a label, doesn't matter to them what's on it. But now with iTunes and other legal methods to buy music (and even a lot more less than legal ways to get it) it now matters what the MUSIC is, because people will only by what they like, and this burns the RIAA to it's core, because they are no longer in the $20 per CD business, but in the nighty nine cent per song business, and they don't control it.

This lawsuit was just a way to lash out at somebody....anybody, and lay blame on everyone but themselves. Does this make illegal downloads OK? Of course not, but it sure is a crappy way of trying to make new converts to keep them afloat.

The best part of all of this is that with places like Napster, MySpace, Facebook and iTunes, you as an artist no longer really "need" a major label to promote and distribute your music.

(insert free plug for AJ Croce here)

So hopfully this will make the music industry leaner and better, with a greater variety of music getting a greater audience.

[HighLeveller]

Originally Posted by Solz

Oh to be canadian, where its legal to download music but not upload it. For at least a little longer anyways. Eat it RIAA.

Which is how it should be. A person should be able to consume the content of the public internet how he/she fits. Things that aren't licensed for public distribution don't belong online, period. Those who make these things available are the ones truly at fault, if anyone. To me it sounds the one being sued was for making those 1700-odd tracks available online more than anything else.

Originally Posted by sailerm

The writing has been on the wall for years for the major labels. Piracy aside, the bigger problem for them started way before Napster and mp3's.
...

And little bad can come from it, with it being easier than ever nowdays to do your own publishing. And you have those who have chosen to give the cold shoulder to the usual busines model and copyrights and stuff with Creative Commons-type licensing, allowing for public distribution and such. Of course most of these independent acts will probably never have same the exposure and prestige of those from major labels (whether this big-label prestige is deserved ot not).