RIAA wins first-ever file-sharing case to go to trial, awarded $222,000

The first RIAA file-sharing case to go to trial just wrapped, and sadly, the outcome isn't a positive one. Regardless of the incredibly asinine and consumer-hostile comments made by Sony BMG's head of litigation the other day, the jury found Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, liable for willful copyright infringement and awarded the RIAA plaintiffs $222,000 -- that's $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was alleged to have made available on Kazaa, for those of you keeping track at home, and probably something like, oh, say, $222,000 more than she should have had to pay, since the RIAA plaintiffs weren't required to show that Thomas had a file-sharing program installed on her machine or that she was even the person using the Kazaa account in question. Of course, this is just one case and there's always the possibility of appeal, but anything that emboldens the RIAA's litigation team is never good for the general public.

Disclaimer: Although this post was written by an attorney, it is not meant as legal advice or analysis and should not be taken as such.

[DigDug @ Oct 4th 2007 6:27PM]

Time for EVERYONE to boycott buying music online or off-line for the next 6 months!

[Mitch @ Oct 4th 2007 6:35PM]

Actually stop buying music untill she can pay a reasonable price.

[LJKelley @ Oct 4th 2007 7:39PM]

Wish I could my favourite artist has a new album coming out in November. Oh well I'll only but the album, besides it will be imported from the UK or AUS.

[rando @ Oct 4th 2007 10:29PM]

I agree that its a pretty crazy price to have to pay for such a minor crime. But what the hell guys. I would be pissed if I made something with the intention to sell it and everyone just copied it and spread it around for free. How about instead of boycotting music purchases, you start paying for the music you like and support the businesses and musicians that made it possible for you to enjoy.

[Xzavier @ Oct 5th 2007 12:28AM]

Ok then, so lets start already, NO BS'en either...

I just finish setting something up at http:// boycottthem DOT blogspot DOT com/
Engadget server was blocking that link for some reason?

We can raise funds for Jammie start an online community in educate ourselves, create strategies and tactics, let these big ass corporations know that we are not going to be taking their crap anymore and we are beyond fed up! Simply put... to create an online community to really stick it to da MAN! (notice how I did not mention any names for legal purposes.)

Their are plenty of bright people that read engadget everyday and lots of people really fed up from these corporations going to far with what they are doing and the law seeming to be in favor of corporations making more and more profit and less freedom for the average individual who is simply trying to make ends meet.

No BS... this is the REAL DEAL!!!

[sk8rpro @ Oct 5th 2007 2:28AM]

Well, I probably won't boycott them since I haven't bought much music to begin with from the major labels, for a while.

But of course, there are still legal alternatives to listen to the music you love which are affiliated with them.

Like eBay - you can buy used CD's from there.

[rip @ Oct 5th 2007 4:55AM]

@ p-diddy:

Some people are self employed and either can not afford financially or responsibly sacrifice the time to do jury duty. And that would encompass a lot of highly educated professionals like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc. Of course, the lawyers wouldn't want intelligent people capable of highly analytical thought on the jury anyway.

Like it or not, the actual available pool of jury candidates tends to be an unfavorable one.

If you don't believe me, I only have two words: Phil Spector.

And since when was voting and jury duty considered a "freedom?" Please use that word properly. Those things are rights, and possibly privileges, but not freedom. You have the freedom to choose to vote or not vote, do jury duty or not (well not really, since your obligated to do it). The actual act of voting or performing jury duty is not freedom.

I kind of sick of GW and his cronies butchering that term for the sake of pandering to the ignorant.

As for legal experts paying more attention to their area of expertise as opposed to technology, well duh. But when they are addressing technology issues, don't you think they should have at least a basic understanding of what they are dealing with? I've seen many cases where it almost is a theater of the absurd. Granted, they have gotten better as technology has become more familiar, but like I said, the legal world in general is woefully deficient.

[daveyjones @ Oct 5th 2007 9:40AM]

Although I don't agree that we have a right to other peoples work for free (unless they want it so) I REALLY REALLY believe consumers should hit these greedy bastards in the pocketbook and stop buying any type of music at all. SOMEONE should REALLY get something going on this. DAMN I hate sony, so much for getting a Ps3...

[p-diddy @ Oct 5th 2007 12:52PM]

@rip: Fair enough: voting and trial by jury are a right. I misspoke.

re: everything else, FWIW, I am an (almost, waiting for bar results) attorney. With a CS undergrad degree and 5+ years experience as a software engineer. I, and most people at my firm, have a decent if not good grasp of technology. But technological understanding usually has little to do with "did she do X?" The only one that asked for a technology expertise was the defendant who, let's be honest, was trying to use smoke and mirrors to cast doubt on her liability. Cases rarely actually come down to technical nuance.

And I've always been happy to sit for jury duty, even when I was a software engineer.

[Calviin @ Oct 5th 2007 1:20PM]

Actually, I've been doing that for the last 5 years. I have not bought an album, single or anything involving the RIAA. I listen to terrestrial FM radio, which is still free because of the ads, and I sometimes go to concerts of bands I like, which I don't think buying tickets to concerts really supports the RIAA, does it?

[JM @ Oct 5th 2007 2:21PM]

"You guys forget: They confiscated her modem (wifi) and saw that only her PC had been connected to it (MAC Address) in the last 6 months, and that she was sharing songs on her PC, and they checked the MAC address of that too. It was her PC, it was from her house, it was her."

Not that it would have helped in this case, but if that is true, that the 'unprotected wifi' defense might actually work for other people. If they confiscate your cable modem, they should only see the mac address of your wireless router connecting to it. Unless of course wifi is built into your modem...

Also, I would want to know how they know somebody didn't hack the modem and alter the logs, or is that impossible with some wifi cable modems?

[holyschmidt @ Oct 4th 2007 6:27PM]

un.
flippin.
believable.

[spass @ Oct 4th 2007 6:32PM]

Now multiply $9,250 with some 5000 of my songs...

[McGinley @ Oct 4th 2007 6:43PM]

Thats 46250000 US Dollars.

Whats the point of having a computer if you cant do it yourself?

[mark @ Oct 4th 2007 6:44PM]

erm... $9,250 x 26 doesn't equal $222,000. However 24 songs would.

[Joseph @ Oct 4th 2007 6:58PM]

You would think her lawyer would have taken the
It wasn't her, she left her wifi unprotected.
It wasn't her, Her friend came over and did it.
She bought the computer used and it was on there like that.

[TriZz @ Oct 4th 2007 7:18PM]

@Joseph

It was pretty obvious that she did it. According to the case, the IP matched her address/account and her username on KaZaa was one that she uses all over the web. So, unless her best friend/previous computer owner/children are using her favorite SN to create accounts in KaZaa, she was pretty much out of it from the get-go.

[Alexander @ Oct 4th 2007 7:52PM]

@Trizz: Or, god forbid, someone had the same username as her. because, you know, its impossible to have two people with the same username.

They didin't have to prove she had the songs on her computer. That means that they can say ANYBODY has/have/had songs on their computer. That is the entire point of the article, which you missed.

That is like saying, "Look. That guy is listening to music. His name is Bruce. He obviously downloaded Bruce Springsteen. Lets sue him."

Here's the sixty-four-thousand dollar question: How can they convict someone, if there is no evidence that they actually did it. Names are NOT proof. Bits leaving my computer are.

[Joseph @ Oct 4th 2007 8:23PM]

@ Alexander has a good point.

Innocent until PROVEN guilty. Even if they can prove she has a Kazaa account, how can they prove she had that song.

Seems like if OJ can get off, then there is a way this lady could have gotten off.

She just needs to write a book, "If I had stolen the songs, this is how i would have done it."

[TriZz @ Oct 4th 2007 9:29PM]

@Joseph and Alexander:

How dense can you be?! I are you implying a lack of guilt because of what you want to think that it is or are you looking at the evidence?!

The files were shared NOT ONLY from her user name but ALSO by the IP address that her ISP assigned to her.

...I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that the combination of those two pieces of evidence prove that she did in fact share those songs. It's not hard in today's society to completely wipe out files off of your hard drive. But those two things, she was incapable of disproving. Therefore, guilty. It sucks. I'd like the RIAA to lose. I don't like them, but the fact is...this lady is obviously guilty.

[uagent @ Oct 4th 2007 10:46PM]

@Joseph:

Ugh, I know I'm going to hell for this, but I have to play devil's advocate according to the rule of law in this country.

"Innocent until PROVEN guilty" beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases in the United States. Having served on a Murder2 jury pool, we had this explained to us as follows:
"In a civil trial, there only needs to be a 50/50 proof of damages. For example, in a medical malpractice suit, someone could sue the lead surgeon that worked on them for leaving a sponge inside them. They show that the surgeon was the lead surgeon who worked on them, and that there was, in fact, a sponge left inside them when they were sewn up. The plaintiff asks for a summary judgment against the defendant, and it is then reasonable for the judge in the case to assume that a)the sponge was not in the person's body prior to the operation and b)that it was the lead surgeon's fault the sponge was left inside the patient. Unless the defendant can reasonably prove otherwise, the trial could then move on to the award phase. This doesn't hold true in criminal cases, where the defendant is required only to enter a plea of 'not guilty'. It is then up to the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the defendant IS guilty. The defendant can then appear at trial to attempt to poke holes in what the State believes to be a solid case, but is not required to do so. If, at any point, there arises a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt, it is the job of the jury to declare the defendant innocent. If the State succeeds in their attempt to prove a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the job of the jury to declare the defendant guilty."

The sad, but important, truth is that part about the defendant reasonably proving otherwise (putting the burden of proof on to the defendant). Since it was proven damages occurred in the case, the only other way to not be found "at fault" would be to prove it was someone else.

What really sucks ass about this is that the comments about ripping legal copies of music you bought for personal purposes being equivalent to stealing now becomes part of winning precedent, meaning it can be referred back to should the RIAA decide to sue us all for just that. :(

[fischju @ Oct 5th 2007 12:13AM]

You guys forget: They confiscated her modem (wifi) and saw that only her PC had been connected to it (MAC Address) in the last 6 months, and that she was sharing songs on her PC, and they checked the MAC address of that too. It was her PC, it was from her house, it was her.

I hate the fucking RIAA.

[greatslack @ Oct 5th 2007 5:05PM]

@ TriZz:
Yes, she obviously made the songs available over Kazaa, but the point is, would sharing 24 songs (that's about 2 CDs worth) really cost the record companies $222,000 in revenue? A CD costs about $20, and that's if it's brand new and and you get it from the mall. From that, I'd say maybe half goes to the record company. So that's $10 per CD she stole in revenue from the record company.

So by sharing the songs over Kazaa, she prevented 22,200 CDs from being sold? Let's see how long it would take to upload 22,200 CDs worth of data. Let's say her songs were each 128 kbps bitrate, and 3 minutes long, or 180 seconds. 180 * 128 kbps = 23040 kb. A normal CD had 12 songs on it, so that's 276480 kb per CD. 276480kb*22,200 CDs = 6,137,856,000 kb. My broadband ISP has an expected upstream bandwidth of 384 kbps (48 kB/s), which means it would take 15,984,000 seconds, or 185 days on non-stop uploading at full speed in order to accomplish this feat.

This is of course ridiculous, because only hardcore pirates keep a computer on with a sharing program open 24 hours a day, and even then a sustained transfer of 48 kB/s using Kazaa is a pipe dream at best.

Let the punishment fit the crime.

[Ryhan @ Oct 5th 2007 11:18PM]

@greatslack

Let me put this in laymen's terms;

Over time, a shitload of ppl will download her 24 songs, taking away a shitload of money from the record companies.

[greatslack @ Oct 6th 2007 11:00PM]

Yes, I realize that eventually thousands of people would download the songs, but should you put a thousand-person punishment on one person? Don't think so.

[JLH @ Oct 22nd 2007 9:40PM]

A significant debate is underway in the courts, the Congress and federal regulatory agencies regarding decisions that are being made within the electronics, content and computer industries - about how to best protect copyrighted material in a digital world. Right now the internet is not safe for users to view or download files without potentially infringing on copyrights and suffering large fines, penalties or even worse.

An ever-increasing number of unlicensed downloads are taking place in private homes all over the world. According to recent data, over twelve million people are simultaneously sharing 1.08 billion music, movie, and software files on the Internet at any given moment.
Imagine a person or child sitting down in front of a Television with a remote and selecting a few dozen channels or video on demand selections and finding out later that they have committed copyright infringement and are being asked to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines. What makes this even worse is there is really no way to determine if a certain piece of content is appropriate for use, copyrighted or not, until the damage is already done.

A typical internet user does not build the internet applications, program the search engines, or manage the internet networks that they use. More could be done with these key elements of the internet to insure that standards are set that provide a higher degree of safety from copyright infringement or exposure to inappropriate content. We live in a society that requires people to wear seat belts; Why?, because they provide an additional layer of protection from unnecessary injury.

A national copyright and rating database could serve as a seat belt for the internet to protect users from injury as well. Copyrighted materiel could be registered along with an associated audience rating of the content allowing internet applications, search engines and network operators to establish national standards for digital rights management.
Now is the time for us all to work together to provide a level of protection from unnecessary injury and make the internet safe again for average citizens in their homes.
Thank you for your leadership in this important social and technological issue.

[Otologic @ Oct 4th 2007 10:01PM]

Someone please setup a legal fund for her. I think thousands of people would gladly donate $10 to $100 to her. You know the price of 1 to 10 iTunes albums.

[Mark @ Oct 4th 2007 6:29PM]

Crazy! I bet the RIAA could afford better lawyers than the single mom which is probably what this came down to.

[kballs @ Oct 5th 2007 12:55PM]

I bet the RIAA had to pay their lawyers $10 million just so they could win $222k, LOL, screw them.

[Xavier @ Oct 4th 2007 6:29PM]

this is absurd. where is the community rushing to help this girl??? i want to help. someone needs to organize a response to this. almost 10k a song. are they f'ing kidding me????

[Michael C. @ Oct 4th 2007 11:29PM]

Wow i am in so much trouble if it is almost 10k a song, i am going to end up owing millions so wait to see me in the newspapers robing a bank or something

[dsgamer21 @ Oct 4th 2007 6:29PM]

Ummm...the jury voted guilty even though there was no evidence it was her kazaa acount?

I hope I get a brighter bunch if I'm ever tried for anything.

[Mecharine @ Oct 4th 2007 6:54PM]

This is a civil case, there only needs to be a "preponderance of evidence". And , her lawyer wasnt that great in the first place. His closing statement was really weak.

[paul34 @ Oct 4th 2007 8:30PM]

The thing is, 80% of smart people get out of jury duty simply because they're smart enough to research and get out of doing jury duty.

The ones that are left over (and cherry-picked by lawyers) are ones that are easily impressionable - a.k.a., the sheep of this country who are the ones responsible for driving it straight into the ground.

[rip @ Oct 4th 2007 9:08PM]

Seriously, your talking about people on jury duty. We are definitely not talking about the brightest crayons in the box.

Besides, most judges, virtually all law makers, and the majority of attorneys have no clue when it comes to technology. At best, they seem to lag about 5 years behind reality.

While it does seem that she actually was guilty, most of the evidence appeared to be of the "guilt by association" kind. Signs pointed to her, but as far as I can tell, there was no actual proof. However, as another stated, this was a civil trial. The standards are much lower with civil trials.

[p-diddy @ Oct 5th 2007 1:20AM]

You people make me sick. One of the GD best things about this country is that you have a trial and that the plaintiff/prosecutor has to convince 12 people to side with them (as said above, there are different standards of proof for civil and criminal cases, but the plaintiff/prosecutor still has to prove the elements of the tort/crime). That you all a) obviously try to get out of jury duty and b) think only idiots actually sit for it is disgusting. Being on a jury is one of the most patriotic things you can do. I hope if you're ever on trial, for your sake you don't have 12 people listening that are pissed they couldn't come up with a good enough excuse to be dismissed.

I don't wave the flag for much, but I always vote and I always am happy to go to jury duty. How many other countries give their citizens these privileges and freedoms?

-p-

[p-diddy @ Oct 5th 2007 1:32AM]

>> Besides, most judges, virtually all law makers, and the majority of
>> attorneys have no clue when it comes to technology. At best, they seem
>> to lag about 5 years behind reality.

Maybe it's because they are constantly paying attention to the changes in the law instead of people bricking their iPhones and the BRD v. HD DVD format wars.

-p-

[kballs @ Oct 5th 2007 1:00PM]

What I'm perplexed about is not that the jury found her guilty in the civil trial, but that they think she was $222k guilty?! WTF? Were the jurors all millionaires who thought that was pocket change?

[JDizzle @ Oct 4th 2007 6:31PM]

That's just terrible, shame on both the jury and the RIAA.

[AndrewNeo @ Oct 4th 2007 6:43PM]

There are no juries on civil court cases.

[JDizzle @ Oct 4th 2007 6:49PM]

"After just four hours of deliberation and two days of testimony, a jury found that Jammie Thomas was liable for infringing the record labels' copyrights on all 24 the 24 recordings at issue in the case of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas. The jury awarded $9,250 in statutory damages per song, after finding that the infringement was "willful," out of a possible total of $150,000 per song. The grand total? $222,000 in damages."

Source: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-verdict-is-in.html

[JohnBoy @ Oct 4th 2007 7:16PM]

Actually, there can be juries in civil cases. All a party needs to do is demand a jury trial in their pleadings. My guess is that the RIAA not only demanded a jury trial, but also paid tens of thousands of dollars to jury experts on voir dire to ensure that they had sympathetic greedy businesspeople sitting as jurors. Heck, the RIAA probably poured multi-hundreds of thousands of dollars into winning this case. They needed a victory to scare all of the other people courageous enough to stand up to their gestapo-esque tactics into settlements.

Oh, and by the way, all it takes to find a person liable in a civil case is generally a simple majority of jurors, though the exact number varies between jurisdictions.

[Richard @ Oct 4th 2007 6:34PM]

I am not buying ANYMORE music. I'm done. Screw the RIAA.

Someone definitely needs to start a campaign to help this woman out. I would gladly donate money to help her pay this ridiculous fine.

[TJ @ Oct 4th 2007 6:57PM]

Forget the fine, lets help her sack her rubbish attorney and get a new one for the appeal...

[YouFaceTheTick @ Oct 4th 2007 6:47PM]

Yeah, darn that RIAA for protecting their property. how dare they try to get people to pay for goods people obviously want!

[fm @ Oct 4th 2007 7:32PM]

@Yourfacethetick

The point is how many single mothers do you know who use kazaa? They usually don't. Have you seen any unsecured networks around? I'd bet you have. It's not always as simple as you seem to think. It might be the child and in that case she is responsible. OR it might be a neighbor. I don't know this Mrs Thomas' age or the child's age, and I don't think you do either.

[Zorque @ Oct 4th 2007 7:55PM]

Yourface, that kind of thinking is exactly what's wrong here. They didn't write the music, they didn't play it, and they pay the people who did a pittance. Then they sue fans against the wishes of the people who made it, and keep all the winnings for themselves. It's only their property because people like you allow it to be.

[Michael H. @ Oct 5th 2007 3:50AM]

@Zorque.

Are you kidding me?

As much as I despise what the RIAA is doing, what got these artists where they are were their contracts with their labels - and in turn, their labels' involvement with the RIAA.

No legislation is necessary to solve the RIAA's collective business model(s). If you have a problem with the statutory fines, write your congressman or run for office.

[iRobot @ Oct 5th 2007 2:32PM]

@Yourfacethetick

If that's true then the RIAA should start paying the ARTIST!!!!! How many musician and recording artist have had THEIR copyrights stolen?

Staring with Mozart

[TJ @ Oct 4th 2007 6:57PM]

If you read the court transcripts, you'll find that the jury members had hardly any computer experience whatsoever. If I'm not mistaken, more than one juror had never used a computer before and another refused to purchase one because she was afraid she'd be on it all the time. Sounds like a basis for appeal to me. And where the f*ck to they come up with such absurd rules to rule someone as being liable? The judicial system is seriously going to sh*t.