Jammie Thomas to appeal $222,000 RIAA file-sharing suit

Nothing's been filed yet, but Jammie Thomas and her lawyer were on CNN today discussing that ridiculous $222,000 damage award for sharing songs on Kazaa and confirmed that they will, in fact, appeal. The exact nature of the appeal is still up in the air, but Thomas' lawyer says it'll have to do with whether or not Thomas actually transferred a song to another Kazaa user or just made it available on the network. That's a pretty unsettled part of the law and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case, but we'll have to wait and see what the actual appeal says before we'll have an idea of how this will play out. Peep the full interview on CNN at the read link.

[Via TG Daily]

[narco @ Oct 9th 2007 4:34AM]

I love how the newscaster was reading out all of the places she uses her name and had to include 'internet dating.' John Roberts, you is messed up. Homegirl has needs.

Fishes,
narco.

[Brien Mizell @ Oct 9th 2007 10:55AM]

a friend of mine came over yesterday and stole a cd from me and it has 12 songs on it. Can i sue them for 111,000$? Hey, RIAA, will you help me sue him? Make an example out of him!

Makes about as much sense, right?? Right???

[decypher44 @ Oct 9th 2007 11:14AM]

Brien,

Actually, the RIAA would sue YOU for allowing the CD to be shared. And if that pisses you off, imagine how Jammie feels!

[trigatch4 @ Oct 9th 2007 4:48AM]

Give me an effing break. There are people transferring GIGAbytes of data every HOUR and they nab this girl for a handful of songs? Shame on them. They're simply trying to make an example out of an "everyday person" to scare the rest off. I understand the concept but $220K? It could ruin this girl's life.

I have a website called Music Leech - http://www.musicleech.com - but it is NOT developed. Not sure how I can take best advantage of it with all the file sharing issues... you can be sure after hearing this story I won't have anything illegal up there (not that I ever was going to). So... maybe their little plan actually worked.

[W00ter @ Oct 9th 2007 5:10AM]

The "example" is kind of the point. The RIAA is saying, if you don't settle for the $1000 like they initially offered, then we take you to court and get a $200k+ judgment against you. Remember people, she had the option to settle early on like most others and she declined.

Also, my opinion is that the lawyer is doing this pro-bono...for a number of reasons. He announced on TV that he would be appealling the case PRIOR to consulting with his "client." It's a little obvious that he's just after fame.

Also, I'm no RIAA fan, but let's stop injecting baseless claims into the blog posts; Nilay, what legal opinion have you consulted to state that "...and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case"?

[Jagannath A @ Oct 9th 2007 8:03AM]

@W00ter

'....Nilay, what legal opinion have you consulted to state that "...and a fairly weak part of the RIAA's case"?....."


Himself

[Chris @ Oct 9th 2007 8:59AM]

hah.... could you imagine the fine for someone who demonstrably shared gigs of music every hour? Then you would see ridiculousness... it would be in the billions!!!!

[PA @ Oct 9th 2007 12:24PM]

I agree fully with U on that and yes "It could ruin this girl's life", 1000$ could have been enough but 220 000@ !!!

[Toru @ Oct 9th 2007 3:32PM]

I just thought I would clip a portion of JET's post below for better perspective on this case. She clearly wasn't one of the "everyday people" you're speaking of, unless you share thousands of songs daily.

"Don't misunderstand what happened here: the RIAA wanted to go after her for 2000 songs but Media Sentry only had screen captures showing 24 songs. She irritated the judge by repeatedly stating she's never heard of Kazaa despite writing a researching paper on file sharing and despite her Kazaa name matching her online identity she'd used for over a decade. She was pretty obviously lying; the judge reminded her after one of her denials that she was under oath. He could have ruled the $9250/song penalty excessive, but I'm sure he wasn't motivated to."

While I don't agree with the amount, she was pretty clearly guilty (at least, in my mind). When you commit an illegal act, whether you agree with the law or not, you should ALWAYS be prepared and willing to pay the price of disobedience. It's a good rule to follow.

Also, when in court facing the possibility of several million dollars worth of fines, it's best to leave the judge with a truthful and honest impression of your testimony.

[IndiaTech @ Oct 9th 2007 4:21PM]

I have couple of questions here... Nilay are you there?
1. If the appeal is upheld then wouldn't it kind of create a legal precedent? I mean this judgement will be used as a bench mark for all such future litigation involving not just RIAA but any DRM or copyright issues.
2. Frankly, doesn't Constitutional Protection apply here. I mean, Come On, she "stole" like $24 dollars worth? (99 Cents times 24). So isn't this "cruel and unusual punishment". Sorry if I mixed up Civil and Criminal laws.

The only party to loose here is RIAA. Bad PR and all...

This kind of reminds me of the South Park episode where RIAA raids, SWAT style, Stan's house for stealing music....

[lettcco @ Oct 9th 2007 5:05AM]

you go girl

[kuzu-b @ Oct 9th 2007 5:18AM]

What exactly is the RIAA's goal here? To completely destroy any loyalty to the music industry it's customers may have? I know that I will only buy songs directly from an artist or artist owned independent label from now on, no corporate record label will ever see a penny of mine again.

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 10:08AM]

to make a couple extra bucks on the side.

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 9th 2007 11:16AM]

there goal seems to be to 'scare' people into never downloading again.

I though will NEVER buy again because of the RIAA. simple as that. I won't support an industry that acts that way, I'd rather see every musician go bankrupt and starve on the street. I have no more patience of tolerance for such childish behavior.

[IgnorantTechie @ Oct 9th 2007 5:36AM]

How about instead of appealing, a very public fund raising be set up to pay her fines? It wouldn't do much but it would sent the "F"(censored) you to the RIAA and send a point that consumers will stand together.

Also, the only other way to "fight" is to stop being consumers and pumping money into their corporations. Are we really willing to do this? All you iTunes users ready to cancel your accounts? All you CD buyers willing to boycott? I don't think so and therefore the RIAA will continue to have funding...

[Jamar @ Oct 9th 2007 8:08AM]

I'd like to think that I don't support the RIAA with my money since I buy Japanese music from iTunes Japan, since, you know, one of the As in RIAA stainds for America (Japan's is called JASRAC, and on the whole, they're not quite as silly; also, Sony Music in Japan doesn't use DRM on its CDs, rootkit or otherwise).

[Jamar @ Oct 9th 2007 8:11AM]

I'd like to think that I don't support the RIAA with my money since I buy Japanese music from iTunes Japan, since, you know, one of the As in RIAA stainds for America (Japan's is called JASRAC, and on the whole, they're not quite as silly; also, Sony Music in Japan doesn't use DRM on its CDs, rootkit or otherwise).

[omf @ Oct 9th 2007 10:49AM]

I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but: set up a web site asking people to donate to Thomas what they would've spent on their next music album. Get the media to report on the site. Send a little message to the RIAA.

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 9th 2007 11:18AM]

omf, then the money still goes to the RIAA.

instead, I'd rather start a fund to hire a hitman to go break some knee caps on anyone involved with the riaa.

and no, I'm not kidding.

[draterrojam @ Oct 9th 2007 6:12AM]

this whole case just makes me sick. At least go after someone that is sharing gbs worth of stuff not some single mother sharing twenty + songs or something like that.

[Trent @ Oct 9th 2007 6:20AM]

Does 26 songs really cost the RIAA $222K? Please, one can get 26 songs off iTunes or any other place for less than $26. Yea I know, she broke the law (depending on how it is read).

So let me get this straight from the RIAA...

If one simply makes their songs available for sharing, that in and of itself equates to $222K fine? According to her lawyer, and THIS is where the weak case comes in, she didn't transfer any songs. People simply accessed her pc. Which makes me wonder...

If I or YOU were to send a song to friend via basic email, is that illegal now? If I give a CD to my friend and he decides to make a copy(rip then burn), is that illegal?

WHAT does the law say exactly? Regardless, she should fight that ridiculous fine.

[Jyncus @ Oct 9th 2007 9:31AM]

http://www.chillingeffects.org/topics.cgi

The copyright and fair-use sections have quite a bit of information regarding your rights in this matter - or "the law" as you put it.

[paul34 @ Oct 9th 2007 10:21AM]

What's even sadder is that there are plenty of people in this country - I like to call them "sheep" - who will agree with this 100% and say she deserved it.

I bet they'd call for people who share a single song or rip a CD for personal use to be thrown in jail for ten years.

People in this country really scare me. Especially the ones who just lie down and take this, and not see what is going on. Hello, the RIAA and a lot of corporate America has *taken over* the government that's supposed to be YOURS!

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 10:38AM]

First off it was 24 songs.. not 26.

2. Because there there was no data as to how many people had downloaded those 24 songs... no one knows what it "really" cost the RIAA.. but even if they could show only 3 songs had ever been downloaded it doesnt matter because in the law it states that the damages are a minimum of $750 per infringement.

3. "Yea I know, she broke the law (depending on how it is read)." Wrong.. No matter how it is read.. she broke the law. She used P2P file sharing application and was sharing copyrighted music. She willingly installed the software and willingly used the software and willingly infringed upon the law.

4. This is why its better to be a leech and not a person who shares.

5. The law exists in writing and is there for anyone and everyone to access it and find out their rights. Instead of going on a rant about not knowing your rights.. go out and find out what your rights are.

I'm no fan of the RIAA or their tactics but come on people.. while we are at it.. I really like robbing banks... so can we bitch about how robbing banks shouldn't be against the law either. Thanks

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 10:50AM]

@Paul34

I agree the lobbying and influence that the corporations have upon public policy is disgusting. The DMCA needs to be revised, because it was written by corporate lawyers/entertainment industry and passed into law by a bunch of old men and women who have no idea what the language was really doing to consumers' rights. But lets not forget she isnt squeeky clean here and knew what she was doing. $222,000 is a pretty hefty penalty for 24 songs, but there still needs to be a significant penalty for people that choose to break the law. Lastly, survival of the fitest. A user sharing songs on Kazaa isnt really the smartest thing to be doing.

[dj-kenpo @ Oct 9th 2007 11:26AM]

nick, first of all, there's no such thing as just a leech these days. you download+ upload to construct the file.

second. give me a break with all the she broke the law so she deserves it. the world isn't black and white unless if you have the intelligence of a gnat.

I'll continue to 'break the law' gladly and if anyone wants to call me on it we can get physical.

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 12:34PM]

@dj-kenpo

#1 No where did i say she deserves the $222,000 fine... I said "$222,000 is a pretty hefty penalty for 24 songs".

#2 No its not black and white.. When a person purchases the media they should be able to make backup copies for archival purposes or rip the files for personal use and be used as other forms for other devices (which the entertainment industry doesnt like).. I though (unlike you) dont believe that I should have the right to rip those files and then spread them to other people that are cheap asses and dont feel like paying for something.

#3 The reason why the DMCA hasn't and isn't getting reviewed and reconsidered is because of the public's heinous abuse of copyrighted material. All the government keeps hearing is "if this is how these people are acting with strict regulations imagine what will happen if we were to ease up a bit on the regulations". So go on and be proud about ruining shit for everyone else.

PS ~ How would you feel about people taking your ability to make money out from under you, just simply cuz they didnt feel like paying for it.. or property that you paid for? i wonder how "charitable" you would be then. Im not gonna be Mr.HighAndMightyFullOfBullShit like you. I want my money and to get paid for the work that I do. Anyone who says otherwise either is Mother Teresa, or completely full of shit; and the mojority tend not to be Mother Teresa.

[Trent @ Oct 9th 2007 12:38PM]

Nick,

What a load of crap from you. Give me a break. According to your bank analysis and sharing songs(no software or individual is making money), my dad just gave me his Gary Fisher bike. According to YOU, Gary Fisher should have the right to SUE cause my dad is "sharing" preventing me from going out and buying a bike myself.

Just because the a-holes up on capital hill have made p2p sharing online illegal does not make it right or fair.

I am just trying to joggle people's mind and ask...

Where does the slippery slop stop? i.e. bike example above.

And is sharing music offline illegal? If so, everyone one of us should be fined cause we ALL have done it. Offline, online, does it really matter?

I guess I am not ready to say...baaaaaaaaaah!!!!

[LJKelley @ Oct 9th 2007 1:16PM]

A bike? A bike? Come again, A bike? You gave your bike, you didn't share it. You don't have two bikes, you have one bike. You see with sharing music, you still keep your copy will countless others get a free copy. Now if you gave your CD or gave you copy of Windows or Digitally Downloaded Music to someone and kept no copies yourself that would be okay. But you are COPYING it and thus breaking copyright law. Now Fair Use does generally say its okay to copy for your own use (i.e. to your MP3 player) though some corporations are idiots in this regard (Sony).

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 1:38PM]

Trent

Unfortunately, like my analogy many fail because it is almost impossible to have an analogy that covers all the different angles/ faces this argument takes on. Unfortunately the bike analogy doesn't fully work either because you dont posses the ability to make an almost instintaneous carbon copy of the bike your dad just handed to you and start giving it away. Also your dad purchased and owns the physical bike.. with IP.. you purchased the CD and own the CD but do not along with the CD purchase all the rights that go along with being the "owner" of the content on the CD. Part of the problems that arise with discussion of this is due to us all trying to make analogies for a situation that is unique which is why this is such an important and hot topic.

I didn't believe that my posts were leading to the assumption of no ones making money. Record labels/software companies are still making money as you mentioned. The "a-holes up on capitol hill" havent made it illegal to do p2p file sharing. It is still legal for you to file share over a p2p network files that you own the rights to or that are in the public domain. However, it is illegal for you to be "giving away" content that you do not "own". Which is what the controversy is over. Offline or Online doesn't matter to the content owners. Just like how they want you to have to purchase a DVD to play on a TV..and a DRM'd digitalfile for a PMP... and a certified ringtone for cellphones.

Personally, I think it should be a middle ground. You purchase the DVD/CD and you can rip and re-encode for playback on what ever personal device you have and be able to make a copy for archive. I just dont think that by law you should be able to rip it and give it away to people without any kind of consequence.

Technically sharing offline is the same as sharing it online.. you're sill sharing, but its nearly impossible for them to find out about unless we have some serious Big Brother tech instated. The only reason, in my mind, why online matters so much more is the exponential increase of exposure that online brings; instead of 25 of my friends have the cd.. now who knows how many hundreds or thousands of people now have access to it.

Owners of restaurants that have jukeboxes had to pay royalties on the music inside the jukebox because of it being deemed a "public performance" of the content. Is a phones ringer set to a song a "public performance"? Chamillionare made a couple million dollars in ringtone sales alone. So, you cant say that the content creator wouldn't be missing out on potential income or gains by making it legal for people to use the CD's track as a ringtone, instead of purchasing the track over again as a ringtone. The slippery slope is very slippery and ever changing.

Everyone wants everything to be free.. they dont want to have to pay for it..or work hard for it.. and they act like it is owed to them.

[LEXX911 @ Oct 9th 2007 2:09PM]

Hey Nick, how about STFU?

There's no doubt in my mind you probably have steal some mp3, movies, softwares ect. over the internet. So shut up with your preaching.

[James Cameron @ Oct 9th 2007 3:40PM]

Laughing @ NICK

All that ranting coming out of your mouth. I guessed you're the few lucky one they haven't caught yet.

Try practice what you're preaching...

[Burkanov @ Oct 9th 2007 7:50AM]

I know its against the law and the reason, but when I hear this story about $222K for 24 songs I fell like making a CD with all those songs (Jammie Thomas Hits would make a good label) and then spread like 222000 copies of it on the streets.

[Mike @ Oct 9th 2007 8:14AM]

It really is time that the public reminded the music industry that WE really are the ones that are in control of this. If enough of the public writes to their representatives at the local and federal level we can get the laws changes to remove all of this crap that they keep pulling on us.

They are using the laws that we have written against us. It's time that we had those laws re-written to protect us and toss their entire business plan out the window. The music industry puts a lot of pressure on congress to vote one way, we can certainly play the same game. If everyone who reads this site sent a letter to their members of congress and voted for people who support consumers instead of the music industry this could all change quickly. Complaining online does exactly nothing, write to your representatives and get something done.

[Marty @ Oct 9th 2007 8:21AM]

This is somewhat off topic... but what I think a lot of people fail to see is that people share and steal because there is more CRAP being released. It's true. People are not afraid to buy something if they know it's good. I still purchase the CDs (or at least pay iTunes) for the bands I'm loyal too. But the industry is pumping out these cookie-cutter, fad, one-hit wonder pop/R&B/country/ne-metal sensations and expect people to drop $8 or $13 for it? It occured to me... I don't buy less CDs. I still buy as many CDs as I did before because I would only buy the stuff I liked, just like now. The difference is that I have more music from downloading... crap that I would have NEVER purchased if I hadn't been able to download it.

[gregkingston @ Oct 9th 2007 9:23AM]

Exactly. I think for the most part, that is what most people do. The vast majority of the music out there is garbage and not even worth .99 for a song. I like go buy a new CD if it is from a band I know I will like, but to drop $10.00 on 1 good song and 10 fillers, no way.
Stop selling garbage and people will pay for it.

[JET @ Oct 9th 2007 8:34AM]

I'm sure the question presented on appeal will be whether the judge erred on instructing the jury that the availability of the files was a violation of copyright law without proof that an actual transfer of the files (to anyone other than Media Sentry) had taken place. Unfortunately for Miss Thomas, that won't work; she shared the songs to Media Sentry and I imagine that will prove sufficient.

Don't misunderstand what happened here: the RIAA wanted to go after her for 2000 songs but Media Sentry only had screen captures showing 24 songs. She irritated the judge by repeatedly stating she's never heard of Kazaa despite writing a researching paper on file sharing and despite her Kazaa name matching her online identity she'd used for over a decade. She was pretty obviously lying; the judge reminded her after one of her denials that she was under oath. He could have ruled the $9250/song penalty excessive, but I'm sure he wasn't motivated to.

According to NPR, "Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages in a middle range." $9250 isn't really that bad when the potential liability could have been $150,000. She could have wound up with $3.6m judgment against her.

The risk she faces in the appeal is that the court could uphold the ruling and require her to pay the RIAA's costs for both the appeal and the original suit.

JET

[Bill @ Oct 9th 2007 4:20PM]

Won't she just file for chapter 7 if they move to collect, appeal or no appeal?

Single mother, Native American - bet she's under the median income for her state.

[Robert @ Oct 9th 2007 8:46AM]

How about if we find out the names of the 24 songs and boyott their artists?

[Nick @ Oct 9th 2007 2:28PM]

I always thought that the RIAA was representing the Record Companies.. not really so much the artists.

[andyg8180 @ Oct 9th 2007 8:50AM]

Listen to the interview... The lawyer is intent in stopping the RIAA completely in its tracks... He said that this has never been challenged in a court of appeals, and it may be possible to stop all harvesting of monies forever...

I wish that girl so much luck, jeezus thats a lot of money...

[Galley @ Oct 9th 2007 8:51AM]

Perhaps she should sue her parents for $222,000 for naming her Jammie!

[Trent @ Oct 9th 2007 9:03AM]

HOLY CRAP...

Great news for me as I LOVE all these musicians...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/09/nradiohead108.xml

[yoshi @ Oct 9th 2007 9:30AM]

How would that be great news for you? Just wondering if you are planning on being a leech and not paying them anything for their music. I HOPE you mean that it's great news for you because all the money you pay will go directly to the bands so they can continue making more music.

[Trent @ Oct 9th 2007 9:52AM]

Oh piss off...

It does not cost that much money to make music.

GEEZZZ and apparently you did not read the article in regards to how they plan on making money or the differences. Besides, it is their choice if they want their fans to be a "lech" NOT YOURS!!!

[John @ Oct 9th 2007 11:58AM]

you could have at least quoted it correctly... "leech", not that difficult. Also, it costs a good deal of money to make music... studio costs, mixing... and lest we forget, musicians have living expenses too.

[DG @ Oct 9th 2007 10:31AM]

I don't get that line of reasoning. The music industry releases some bad CDs, so we're entitled to steal whatever we want? Or are we entitled to just steal the bad stuff? And if it's bad, why do you want it anyway? I don't get that.

There is as much crap being released now as there ever has been, just like if you dig, there's as much good stuff being released. Myspace, Pitchforkmedia, and a host of other websites have made discovering worthwhile artists easier than ever. "So much crap" is a very lame defense for stealing music.

[Luke @ Oct 9th 2007 7:21PM]

I agree,if you like the music surely you want to support the artist who made it???

I'm not sure of the law in the states, but the law here in australia was amended (I believe) to allow single personal use copies of music (ie copy a cd you purchased to mp3). Previously for us it was technically illegal to record tv to vhs...

Obviously this does not include distributing said copies of music over the internet, with a maximum $50000AU fine and 10 years imprisonment.

If she had personal copies of music for personal use, sure the RIAA are totally in the wrong and need a kick up the arse. But this chick distributed this music over the internet. And lied to the judge about it. The fine is a little excessive, but this is theft, and RIAA should have the right to prosecute anyone stealling music.

If no one stole music, we wouldn't need DRM now, would we?

[Ryan P @ Oct 9th 2007 10:32AM]

She's the worst possible person to take this to court. It doesn't sound like they deny any of the facts of the case such as the IP address or that a Kazaa user had her net handle(though she says someone stolez it!) Anyone, anyone, else would have been better. She didn't even have a router. I don't understand how she has a case.

That being said. The amount is outrageous. They should have to prove that transfers happened the exact amount for the loss (going by 99 cents a song). That would stop this "harvest".

[axionjaxon @ Oct 9th 2007 10:45AM]

Bitch is guilty and she is a bad liar. She will lose on appeal.