RIAA wins first-ever file-sharing case to go to trial, awarded $222,000
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 4th 2007 6:21PM
posted October 4th 2007 6:21PM
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.
These numbers the RIAA likes to pummel us with, the ones about their declining sales I mean, why does no one question it when they blame everything on interweb pirates? Maybe, just maybe, the boycott from pissed off individuals is starting to be felt already, but they'd rather have John Q Public believe that it's all the pirates fault.
The RIAA can suck it, I'm never buying a CD again unless I'm handing the cash directly to the artist/band. Our culture belongs to the people, take it back!
The dependent knowingly and with intent stole and disseminated music. There may be a valid argument about RIAA's tactics and the amount of the judgment, but to argue that she didn't violate copyright is being deliberately stupid.
If you don't like how copyright works, and I don't, campaign to change the law! I've written my Senators and Congressman about copyright and patent reform. The current law goes way beyond the original intent behind copyright.
(One more note; the woman shared over a thousand songs, not downloaded them, but the case concentrated on only 24. This is quite common in court cases--it simplifies the trial, let's the prosecution focus on the most egregious violations and gives them the opportunity to prosecute a second time for a different set of violations without causing double jeopardy to come into play.)
I hope the legal fees from all the RIAA's lawyer goons sums up to or exceeds $222,000.
The thing that a lot of people forget is...
Do you know how EASY it is to change your Kazaa name on there? There's no conformation or anything last I checked.
You know, if the RIAA were doing this because they cared about the music labels and the artists, I MIGHT have called this a good victory. However, all they care about is money. They've shown time and time again how greedy they are. Any money they DO recover will go right into their pockets.
They're going about this wrong, because if they didn't insist on trying to get an arm and a leg out of people for simple shit, then maybe people wouldn't pirate music.
And lets not get into what they consider "pirated". Seems like any person who listens to a song for free somehow is a pirate...could be on the radio or borrowing it from a friend.
This is crazy.
"...anything that emboldens the RIAA's litigation team is never good for the general public."
Flame me if you will, but what's illegal, is illegal. As a small business that regularly has our digital products illegaly shared on networks like Kazaa - I applaud the RIAA's efforts to bring these criminals down.... and yes, if she shared the songs, she's a criminal.
Alright lets clear something up here:
MOST music which is created under a record label is not the property of the person(s) who(m) created it. Their label contract dictates that all music created and sold, is exclusively the record label's property. This means that the record label has the decision to sue.
I do believe, however, 9.2K per song is absolutely ridiculous. Now the US constitution states in the VIII Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." How can the grand jury or US government impose a fine that is 1000X greater then the damage inflicted. While I am not an attorney I would love to know in a civil suit how this does not constitute both "excessive fine," or "cruel and unusual punishment.
I am disappointed that the US people cannot fix its more serious problems, and bitch about something so small.
Lets face it, you all know, in your heart of hearts, that she almost certainly did share those files charged. My only doubt could be that the older versions of file sharing would automatically share stuff you downloaded - and other stuff on your system, rather like Bit Torrent does now. Since actually downloading copyrighted content isn't illegal, as far as I know, then she could have just been screwed by a software setting. Regardless, it doesn't matter - although I guess she could go chase what remains of Kazaa to seek damages - then she'd have to prove they were to blame...
However, the more important problem is the ridiculous damages. How can they possibly figure almost 10,000 times the going retail rate per track??? Did they really come up with some calculation to justify that? What if, say, CEOs were fined 10,000 times the damages they do for corporate crimes - or Martha Steward was fined 10,000 x for her little trading "mistake" - wouldn't that be like a billion dollars or something?
Clearly this is a case of damages gone wild...
I'd like to know the names of the tunes and the artists of the songs she was actually fined for "ripping off". Then I'll be writing to each of these artists and seeing what they think of these penalties. See if the artists belive the penalty befitted the crime. See how REAL some of these musicians really are. Maybe they can create waves to reduce the fines here but also increase awareness of the wrong done by both the law and the offender in this case. I'm sure that a fine of say $50 per song downloaded would be reasonable and fair warning to others.
Was ist damit möglich: http://www.heimarbeit-cd.de/paidmailer.php?ref=MoWeBo
Ist das möglich?
Can anybody explain to me how a friggin song can be worth 10k in the first place???? Surely a sign that things are going a bit wrong in the great old US of A...
is it possible to donate to help her getting the 222K USD? if donating by the general public became a common practice in such cases it would show a certain disrespect towards the RIAA and of course make it far easier for people being sued for crimes everyone is commiting anyway...
Or you could donate to the people that make the music instead?
I think I'll start by saying that I quite like downloading music. Unlike some deluded individuals, I don't claim to do this because I think CDs are too expensive or downloads are too pricey. I do it because it's free and I save money, whilst reaslisitcally incurring little risk in the process.
The fine for this woman is steep. But she played the game like we all did and got caught.
I find it hilarious that people are willing to pay money to help the woman (who has been convicted and is certainly 'guilty'), when they aren't willing to pay for the music music in the first place. Some of you guys are acting like it's actually your right to steal music - it's not, it's illegal and you run the risk of being caught. Like this woman. So stop moaning, claiming that all artists are happy to release records for free and do something worthwhile with your lives. LOL at the guy who says he'll commits crime to make a point or will crowbar people in the face in court. Haven't you ever heard of metal detectors?! I find it very unlikely that some internet brave dave is going to start crowbarring innocent people in the face in a court house just because they tell him he shouldn't be breaking the law. Pathetic.
just a suggestions to the ones that live in contries that sue file shares and actually succed with it.
make your connection anonymous.
there are several ways to do this.
one of the best i think is found here https://www.relakks.com/
Andreas Larsson
Member of the Swedish Pirate Party
I have not bought a new record in years. I have produced two of my own that I self-distribute, both filled with my original songs about chemistry that I use in my classroom. If a record label affiliated with RIAA came knocking on my door, wanting to take it on, I would tell them to go to hell. Publishers and record labels take in the lion's share of the money produced by the folks with the real talent. In today's world, the internet can empower recording artists like never before. They don't need the record labels, and they don't need the RIAA. It's time for recording artists to take matters into their own hands and become their own record labels, bypassing those vampires who suck the teat of other people's talents. The RIAA labels would take every last penny from the recording artists if they could, but they can't, so they are going after everyone else instead. If recording artists produced and distributed their own work, sure they might lose a few to file sharing, but they would gain an audience. And they certainly would be no worse off than having a record label siphon off their money.
You wrote 2 whole albums about chemistry that you use in your classroom?
27 songs about everything from how to round off answers to math problems to acids and bases to properties of ideal gases to dealing with stoichiometry problems to organic chemistry...here is one of my tunes on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHRhEF91Zh8
I have turned all but one of the songs into music videos on my computer, and I intend to finish that one up this weekend. There are hundreds of teachers around the world that now use my music in their classroom. "Rock Me Avogadro" and "Schrodinger's Cat Strikes Back" are the names of the CDs. I recorded them in my upstairs bedroom using a little studio I made by making a partition with bookshelves loaded with books, and I recorded it on a Mac Mini running GarageBand, using MAudio interfaces and studio monitors, a Behringer mic and a Yamaha keyboard, a recorder, PRS guitar and MusicPole MIDI interface. Anyone with a shred of talent can put together their own stuff nowadays and promote and distribute it themselves. It is the Empowering Of America. We need to take back our talent from those who would exploit it and do for ourselves.
Wow, imagine if the artists who have been ripped off by these record companies for years could sue for these types of damages....
Record companies are pure evil. I won't give them a cent the rest of my life.
"Schrodinger's Cat Strikes Back", hmmmm? It's possible the RIAA won't come knocking begging for a deal just yet so don't get too het up.
Say what you like about labels but if you were signed to a big label, a lot more people would know about your music and "Rock Me Avogadro" might be a best seller. I think you'd have got more money too. And probably some senior record exec fired.
if the artists of the songs she was sharing would pay her fine for her, that would be touching.
(plus the artists get some sweet press advertisment)
I WILL NOT be buying any more albums PERIOD. This lawsuit is ridiculous. If sharing is illegal online, god knows it is not offline, why didn't Sony go after the software developer who enables such sharing? Why go after the "little guy", in this case a SINGLE MOTHER, who do nothing more than what is done offline...share songs online.
Again, I will NOT be buying another fuckin album again. I will stick with my Sirius subscription and maybe do an "all you can eat" subscription service online for my mp3.
What has the fact that the accused is a "SINGLE MOTHER" got to do with anything?
There are many quite affluent single mothers out there and this one in particular managed to afford a computer and an internet connect and a lawyer.
Some of you guys seem to suggest that she was living in slums feeding her kids watered down oatmeal. And if that was the case, she should have sold her PC a longgggg time ago.
WTF are you talking about?
We are talking about average people vs those who design the software to "steal."
Sony choose to go after the average person. My comment was that they should have gone after the developer.
Geezzzz some people are so sensitive and overlook the main post. I never implied anything about single mothers. YOU DID!!!
I wouldn't mind contributing for her to get a decent lawyer for the appeals process. Not so much for her to win, but for them to drag it out and make it as costly as possible for the RIAA. Maybe not even big shot lawyers, but even law students that can put the time in for questioning every bit of evidence, to force big wig CEOs to fly out to the court room, to get access to any source code to any program they used. How about getting each artist to have to show up… they might rethink there next contract if they have to cancel a couple shows to deal with this stuff.
If we could drag out each case, costing the RIAA hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars in lawyer fees for each case only to get 5-10 k before the person declares bankruptcy, they might think twice before going after the poor single moms.
Why does everybody think a record company is inherently evil. Essentially they give artists interest free loans to create their art, promote their art, and distribute their art. Yes they do take a geat deal of the money usually 90% or more but they are also assuming 90% or more of the risk. While it is seems unfair, the fact is that record companies loose money on almost every artist they sign as hit songs are rare and the cost of getting a song recorded and to the radio is very high. If you have a problem with people making money or turning a profit in a fair market then maybe you should move to Russia where communism is making a big come back. We live in a capatilist country that means that profiting is encouraged, as long as don't take advantage of people in need, and art is a luxury purchase. File sharing is the worst thing to happen to art since MTV.
Whew! I'm glad it happened to this woman first instead of me. Now I'll have time to go purchase some Vaseline for the impending ass-rape the RIAA is about to lay down on me.
Someone should assemble a tribute CD filled with covers of all the downloaded songs donated by "less draconian" individuals. We could all buy the CD and send the proceeds to help pay this ludicrous fine.
Someone should assemble a tribute CD filled with covers of all the downloaded songs donated by "less draconian" individuals. We could all buy the CD and send the proceeds to help pay this ludicrous fine.
bad news c paid so heavy price for her love for music. record companies have to understand they cant say they lost so many $ due to piracy. that many people would not had bought it in the first place.
I would like to donate. Someone set up a site!
"... regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
So... wait... if I go to a coffee and join their open WiFi network... and allow iTunes to publicly stream the 5,000+ songs that I keep on my laptop (100% purchased by me) or if I simply leave my music collection in my public folder (user/Public/Drop Box) I am potentially liable for $46,250,000 in damages?
Sure. Right. $46-million. Let me write the RIAA a check.
And wait... if I leave my front door open and someone walks in and takes my book collection... am I also guilty of THEFT? Or is it only if they bring a xerox machine instead of cleaning me out?
Forget snaqgging albums over P2P... this seems to be a lot larger.
I wonder if the RIAA has any kind of stakes or financial investments in any companies that are involved in the creation or production of computers/networks/network transmitting devices/cd, dvd media or recording or writing devices or for that matter audio tape or audio tape recording devices of any kind. If they are involved in any of these products doesn't that make them culpable in the act. If it weren't for the existence of the hardware and software to do such things then no one would do it. I mean essentially they allow this behavior - nay they beg for the public to do this.......I SAY IT WAS ENTRAPMENT.
I should have gone to law school.
the RIAA is in its death throes as long as the 'Net remains neutral. only the very top earning artists ever see a cent on record sales, almost all money the band sees comes from touring and merchandise. as recording and distribution gets cheaper and cheaper, real artists will start to gain more and more of the playing field. with the internet, underground music is more accessible than ever. Even if bands give away their recordings for free, well, they basically are today anyway.
the tightening grip of the major labels will eventually be its undoing - the iron fist of Clear Channel radio, the deplorable service of MTV, and payola systems involving the playlists of each produce an insane amount of money in the short term, but as a longterm business model it is un-sustainable. the creative artists are driven into an increasingly visible, dangerous underground, as the labels invest themselves in a pubescent, fickle fanbase.
The RIAA is doing this because it is scared shitless. And it damn well should be.
I must be the only guy here who does not download tunes illegally. I buy vinyl and lots of it. Yet, the punishment does not fit the crime here. I hate the RIAA. Give a freaking break to that mom.
If only she had killed someone. Then she would have been found innocent.
I say they have to much fun with all there fucking money ....they need to leave the poor lady alone and stop messing around with the mother........what its not like they done make money. they make millions and they throw it every where buying lots of pricey stuff and doing every thing every one could ever want... so why make the poor kids suffer for 24 songs. they dident do any thing but when the mom gets it they do to ...... good job government kick all the little ones in the balls when your at it.
Hey I read somewhere she is a part-time musician. So if she has that many supporters she should just record a song make it available on iTunes and as long as 370,000 people acquire the song she be able to pay her bills. Get my point!!
Read more and voice your opinion at http://alexmercer.blogger.com/
Hmmmm...3400 songs x $9300 apiece...I'd be on the hook for $31 million. At that point, I'd laugh at the verdict, and walk down the hall toward bankruptcy court.
This is just getting foolish. The problem is that the RIAA puts out crappy music. What are we hearing about now? Britney's new album? I didn't buy the first 3 (or however many)!
Does anyone remember the days of hearing a song on the radio and then buying the CD? Then when you get said CD, there are a total of 15 tracks on there, 12 of which are utter bullshit. Am I the only one who remembers this?
I remember jumping for joy when Blockbuster Music came to my area, and you could listen to whole CDs BEFORE buying them...to determine if it was worth it. The internet is my Blockbuster Music.
So, RIAA, come sue me. You won't get anything. I don't have any assets or a garnishable wage. Fucking retards.