Court orders Jammie Thomas to pay RIAA $1.92 million

Note Legal experts now say that Jammie Thomas-Rasset may avoid paying damages to the recording industry by filing bankruptcy. Read the story here.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset now owes the RIAA $1.92 million.

(Credit: Jammie Thomas-Rasset)

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of willful copyright infringement on Thursday in a Minneapolis federal court and must pay the recording industry $1.92 million.

In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused of sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing.

In 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America claimed in a lawsuit that Thomas-Rasset pilfered 1,700 songs. The RIAA eventually culled that number down to a representative sample of 24.

Thomas-Rasset lost a previous trial in October 2007 when a jury rendered a $222,000 verdict against the Minnesota native. U.S. District Judge Michael David threw out the decision after acknowledging he erred when giving his jury instructions.

According to Ars Technica reporter Nate Anderson, Thomas-Rasset gasped when the dollar amount was read in court.

For the four largest recording companies, the jury's decision is an affirmation of the legality of the industry's copyright claims.

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do," said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. "We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so."

According to Ben Sheffner, a copyright advocate and former attorney for 20th Century Fox who attended the entire hearing, one of Thomas' attorneys is willing to discuss a settlement with the music industry.

[Super2online]

Ouch, thats going to sting big time!

[Seaspray0]

Do you really think the RIAA will see a dime of that award?

[aMUSICsite]

Not that they are going to get that money, but if they did how much do you think would go back to the musicians. <br /><br />0%?<br /><br />I think the jury did a great job of making the RIAA look stupid. If every jury in cases like this did the same, it would make taking people to over this sort of thing redundant and it would cost them money and they would get nothing back...<br /><br />Now I must get back to limewire ;)

[Renegade Knight]

@Seaspray0 <br /> <br />Yes. they would get pennies on the dollar when it forces her to file bankupsy. They will also get the satisfaction of forcing the bankruptsy to begin with.

[SteveW928]

Yea, and it should. Maybe enough cases like this would make people think twice before stealing. THEN... maybe DRM could go away and not hurt all the honest people who actually buy their music! People like this are the reason I have to put up with DRM, limiting what I can do with something I worked hard to pay for.<br /><br />BTW, some people below said bankruptcy won't work in this case (which I have no idea if true or not).<br /><br />It doesn't matter if 0% or 100% goes back to the musicians or not. Theft is still theft. If you don't like the music industry, then buy direct from artists. If artists can't make it selling direct, then maybe they DO need the music industry. Just because you don't like to pay for something, doesn't mean you can steal it. I'd love a Porsche (and think they are overpriced... and can't afford one), but that doesn't justify stealing one.

[El_Segfaulto]

@SteveW<br /><br />Theft is theft. And infringement is infringement. And the amount she's paying is more money than the CDs brought in in profit. Tell me how that's fair?

[Eludium-Q36]

Headline is in error, Mr Sandoval. The court judgment is for $1.9M but she doesn't have to pay that ! In fact, the MAFIAA is still willing to settle for much much less, even after this huge judgment.

[pentest]

"Do you really think the RIAA will see a dime of that award?"<br /><br />And if they get even part of it, do you really think that the musicians will see a dime of it?

[pentest]

Stevew,<br /><br />Since you aren't intelligent enough to figure out the difference between copyright infringement and theft, you might want to consider getting offline and going back to the third grade.

[SteveW928]

@ El_Segfaulto - <br /><br />If you stole a shirt from a store, the penalty would be more than the price the shirt would have sold for. The penalties are there to make 'crime not pay'... not simply to reimburse. Also, since she was sharing the songs out, how many million did people download (at say, $1 each)?<br /><br />@ pentest -<br /><br />She took something that wasn't her's and gave it to others. You can use fancy terms like 'copyright infringement' if it makes you feel better... it's still theft. It's like calling abortion 'pro-choice' to tidy it up... doesn't change the reality unless you're fooled by rhetoric.

[thelemurking]

@Steve<br /><br />Apparently you know nothing of this case. It isn't the fact that she downloaded the songs... it's because she made them available. So downloading isn't that big of a deal, it's sharing them.<br /><br />The problem with this case is that the RIAA could not prove that anyone downloaded the songs. <br /><br />There's a difference between being punished and being made an example of. I don't know what jerk off judge and jury tried this case, but holy f'n christ, the fine is ridiculous. $80,000 for a song? <br /><br />Since when did 2 songs equate to the average price of a home in the US? The fine is absolutely retarded!

[Sausagebiscuit]

She was guilty no doubt, but I am still ashamed at the monetary damages awarded.<br /><br />Was she wrong? Yes. But the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I could understand maybe triple damages, but this is nuts =)<br /><br />This is not a pro- or against anything other than our civil justice system. Keep in mind it was civil and not criminal. All this was is just a show to try and scare people.<br /><br />Have a great day!

[gerrrg]

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted -8th Amendment.<br /><br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-1487.ZO.html<br /><br />It's hard to say how the Supreme Court will react, given the propensity of the Court to place politics ahead of consistent dogma, whether liberal or conservative.

[gerrrg]

Oh, I forgot to mention, that link is to recent (11 years ago) case law that Justice Thomas wrote majority opinion on the gross disproportion of punishment to crime, on UNITED STATES v. HOSEP KRIKOR BAJAKAJIAN.

[tpmcmaho]

Hey, as stated in the story, they offered to settle out of court and she kept dragging them back in. She gets what she deserves. They should make her pay for the cost of all of the court employees time as well.

[dargon19888]

Unfortunately the punishment does fit the crime.<br />Under the eyes of the law, she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs and the jury decided that it was worth the $80,000.00 per song. I'm not sure if that was the maximum but clearly the jury decided that she was knowingly and willfully committing the act.<br /><br />To gerrrg, this is a civil court and not criminal court. The penalty is not bail nor does this have anything to do with the 8th amendment.<br /><br />The truth was that this woman was no poster child and she took a poorly calculated gamble. Clearly since she doesn't have that amount the RIAA will negotiate something less than the award. But you can bet that she'll think twice about file sharing. <br /><br />Also I don't know if the jury did find in favor of punitive damages. The dollar amounts seem to suggest that they didn't and I don't think the RIAA is going to ask for punitive damages when she clearly can't pay this amount.

[skshrews]

"... this is a civil court and not criminal court. The penalty is not bail nor does this have anything to do with the 8th amendment."<br /><br />Actually, the 8th amendment has been applied to civil cases and to the amount of fines (the amendment itself makes no distinction between "criminal" and "civil" cases). I believe there is some controversy over whether it cane be applied to state civil cases, though certainly it has been applied to state criminal cases.

[gerrrg]

@dargon19888<br /><br />The US Code does not fall under the US Constitution? Of course it does! And this is a federal case, therefore the 8th Amendment directly applies.<br /><br />FWIW, the maximum is $150,000 under specific circumstances (which do not apply to this case - the court previously ruled that defendant carried the burden of proof). In any event, the court has the right to lower the damages to $200/violation if the court believes that, "such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200." - USC Title 17 §504 subsection c.2.

[mbenedict]

@gerrrg:<br /><br />The 8th Amendment DOES NOT apply to private civil cases. The 8th Amendment applies ONLY to government actions, NOT to private suits decided in federal court. See the landmark Supreme Court decision: BFI, INC. V. KELCO DISPOSAL, INC., 492 U. S. 257 (1989). <br /><br />The BFI decision specifically states: "The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to punitive damages awards in cases between private parties;"<br /><br />@skshrews:<br /><br />You're probably confusing "civil cases" with 'civil forfeiture", which the 8th Amendment does apply to. Civil forfeiture is when the government seizes private property. The classic example is for drug cases, where the government moves to seize assets related to the crime (vehicles, money, etc.) even without criminal prosecution.

[ferricoxide]

@dargon19888<br />Do you *really* think it will make her think twice about it?<br /><br />Theres a saying that the ultimate freedom comes when you have nothing to lose. Well, unless overturned, she has pretty much the ultimate freedom. It's not like we have debtors' prisons, any more, so she needn't worry about jail time for a civil crime. Given that she's already been penalized more money than she's likely to have ever had, what's she got as a disincentive, now? Seriously: what you're asserting is the equivalent of trying to give someone multiple life sentences - realistically, you're only going to be punishable *once*, so what's the further deterrent?

[SteveW928]

@ ferricoxide -<br /><br />Debtors prison isn't exactly a bad idea... maybe we should bring it back (along with some modern checks and balances). Bankruptcy wasn't meant to protect the careless or crook. It was meant to keep people out of debtors prison (or equivalent) when things happened beyond their control... and in a capitalistic system to encourage people taking some level of risk. Maybe the court could help decide leniency in 'debtors prison' cases rather than bankruptcy settlements. That might just turn things around a bit in society (make them more fair again... rather than just a bunch of welfare type systems with learned users).

[Lerianis3]

by dargon19888 June 18, 2009 5:46 PM PDT<br /> Unfortunately the punishment does fit the crime.<br /> Under the eyes of the law, she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs and the jury decided that it was worth the $80,000.00 per song. I'm not sure if that was the maximum but clearly the jury decided that she was knowingly and willfully committing the act.<br />_____________________________________<br /><br />WRONG! The fact is that if you steal a TV from a store, they cannot charge you for the amount of EVERY SINGLE TV stolen from the store. That is what they are trying to do here, and that is what is wrong and why the ruling is wrong.<br />This is also BLATANTLY against the eighth amendment, and should be thrown out of court. If it isn't.... expect to see the next Revolutionary or Civil War of the United States.

[CreativeMalcolm]

How on earth could 24 songs ever be worth that much?

[viper396]

They are probable counting the number of times those 24 song where in turn shared and downloaded from her. <br />It can add up quickly.

[brokenlaw]

They are wealthy they can make up the rules any time. That is how.

[Imalittleteapot]

viper396<br /><br />In this particular case they couldn't prove she shared the songs with anyone. Not even once. They simply had no data on the matter so the fine isn't based on how many times she shared the songs. They have no idea how many times. It's just a made up number really at this point.

[contentcreator--2008]

... and the number could be too low, too ... there's no evidence to say it's not too low by the same argument. That's why the idea of statutory damages is there.

[Imalittleteapot]

contentcreator--2008 <br />It can't really be too low or too high based on how much she shared because the amount isn't relative to that. Since we don't know what that number is, it's meaningless to say if it's too much or too little relative to some number we don't have. That being how many times she shared.<br /><br />It's like saying the drunk didn't get enough time for all the other times he drove drunk and didn't get caught. Well how many times was that? I don't know, we didn't catch him.<br /><br />All you can really do is say if it's too high or too low based on what we do know. To say if it's too low or too high based on what we don't is just meaningless and doesn't tell us anything.

[Renegade Knight]

Bad math. <br /> <br />They would have to show they lost 80,000 in sales from her actions. That means 80,000 direct downloads per song. <br /> <br />They are probably lumping in the subsequent sharing by other folks. Rather like a ponzi scheme.

[Dalkorian]

Am I confused or are you all forgetting the technology in question here? I doubt if anyone downloaded one complete file from her, the nature of P2P is a piece here, a piece there. Unless she was the only person on the planet sharing those files, of course - but then it could be proven that no one downloaded anything from her (otherwise they also would have been sharing it).<br /><br />The MAFIAA has once again purchased a legal decision. Anyone who is not thoroughly disgusted by this isn't human. There is no argument that can be made to show that the crime itself is worth $1.92 million, that's just purely and disgustingly silly.

[ferricoxide]

Simple: people that downloaded those songs got to hear what utter garbage they were and refused to buy the records/CDs that each song came from and decided to not buy further "music" from

[mista77]

Hmm, that's excessive. Why not make here pay the retail price of the music she was accused of stealing / sharing. or whatever term you want to describe her actions. Maybe throw on a small penalty ; say the current california sales tax. That should more than make RIAA happy. lol~

[SteveW928]

Umm... that would be like saying... you steal this shirt, and then if we catch you, we'll make you pay for it (including tax). That's crazy! Why would anyone NOT steal if that was all that happened? Yes, the judgement seems overblown (but usually is in most court cases... not just this one), but that she is guilty and should be heavily fined is not in question. If enough of these people get prosecuted and make the news, people might wake up to the fact that what they are doing is theft.<br /><br />Kudos to the RIAA.... this is the way to go about it rather than enforcing all kinds of crazy DRM that hurts everyone (not the thieves).

[El_Segfaulto]

So let's assume that shirt is worth $12. That's 12x as much as any of those songs. Are you telling me that you would be alright with a shoplifter getting sued for $960,000 because they stole a $12 shirt? It's the same ratio.

[pentest]

SteveW,<br /><br />Nothing was stolen.<br /><br />If I went into a book store and copied a book, was something stolen?<br /><br />Nope.<br /><br />But that is copyright infringement.<br /><br />Funny how simple concepts elude RIAA shills.

[SteveW928]

@ El_Segfaulto - <br /><br />But... you don't know how many people downloaded the songs. A more equivalent analogy would be stealing a whole warehouse of shirts.<br /><br />@ pentest - <br /><br />"If I went into a book store and copied a book, was something stolen?'<br /><br />Yes, something would be stolen in that case. Theft doesn't require physical property... it is taking something that isn't yours... even ideas.

[Lerianis3]

The fact is that 'copyright infringement' shouldn't have ever been a crime. It's about time to realize that unless someone is taking something of PHYSICAL VALUE from someone else, there is no harm, no foul!<br /><br />The world has gone crazy recently.<br />[CNET editor's note: Personal attack deleted.]

[SteveW928]

@ Lerianis3 -<br /><br />How naive... geez.<br /><br />Ok.... so you are a band... you buy equipment... you spend years honing your skills.... and all the music you create should just be free for everyone? Wouldn't be many musicians anymore, huh?<br /><br />So, you are an author.... you write books. You have to spend money on your computer, and feed yourself while you write... but, you have to give your books away, because some punks think it is unfair to charge for them... because they feel entitled to get what they want for free because it isn't necessarily physical?<br /><br />Or, you write software programs... spend years writing them which costs a LOT of Ramen noodles at the very least. But, you must give them away for free because they aren't physical stuff. Some day, you'd like to have a car to drive and maybe own a home. Guess it's time for a career change according to Lerianis3.<br /><br />I'm not sure what world you live in... time to grow up.

[LandMineHare]

If she downloaded the songs, she only deprived the record companies of the monetary value of those individual songs.<br /><br />At $1 a piece, she only owes $24.<br /><br />If she uploaded them and shared them to other users, then she should be liable for $1 per download of each song.<br /><br />Of course, that makes sense. So there's no way it will fit in the American justice system.

[Xerloq]

See, it's not the downloading that they sued her for. It's making them available to others that she was sued for - the giving away part of sharing. They're suing because she distributed the songs to other, unknown people.<br /><br />They're saying she should be responsible for the people who downloaded from her. Even in a civil suit you can have punitive damages, hence the $88K

[Everlovin G]

@gerrrg - Agreed, the imposed fine is egregious. Unfortunately, our current cackle of congressperson seems to have no compunction whatsoever contravening standing law, Constitutional, or otherwise (don't you just love alliteration).<br /><br />@LandMineHare - Okay, so by your argument, let's presume that only 500 people download 24 songs from Ms. Thomas-Rasset. Then, additionally, let's presume that the file sharing stopped there.<br /><br />I'm not a math professor (and if my math is wrong, please, by all means, post corrections), that would be $12,024.00 that Ms. Thomas Rasset *should* be fined. But, if you follow Xerloq's line of thinking, which is more logical IMO, extrapolate out another 500 x 24 songs and the fine escalates to a whopping $6,012,024.00, and Ms. Thomas-Rasset seems to have gotten away with a lenient fine, right?<br /><br />Additionally, that's only 250,501 people sharing files in that example, or 0.00069% of the (rounded) population of the U.S.<br /><br />Just some fun with words and numbers...<br /><br />;^ )

[ralfthedog]

As they don't know and can't prove how many times the songs were downloaded, they should fine her an imaginary $1.92 million.

[tapaskm]

"American justice system" ..?? You mean American UNjust system. <br />If the sytem was just and fair, the lawyers would not be rich, court fees, attorney fees, would be similar to what a graduate makes per hour - like 20 - 40 bucks per hour depending of experience. <br />But attorney fees are a percentage of the settlement or award, like 50%. So half of 1.9 mill in attorney fees. <br />The americal legal system is designed or manipulated so that all those running the system make money, irrespective of which party wins a case.

[Daddio2009]

A tad excessive - but she did steal music. She is a thief and should have to suffer the consequences of her actions. I have no compassion for her.

[Sausagebiscuit]

No, she didn't steal anything and is not a convicted criminal. You are committing slander by calling her a thief when it has not been proven as a criminal fact. This was a civil trial and not a criminal trial.<br /><br />Please look up the definition of theft or stealing before you post again. <br /><br />To save you time, also look up copyright infringement.<br /><br />Have a nice day!<br /><br />P.S. With that said, I do agree that it was both excessive, and that she was guilty and deserves some form of punishment for her civil violation.

[rrod182]

@Sausagebiscuit<br />Yes she is technically not a thief, but she is accessory, and Daddio2009 is actually committing libel (written) not slander (spoken) defamation. So I guess you could also use a dictionary.

[tektaktyks]

remember the story of robin hood?

[converterfortytwo]

If I make a perfect copy of your car does that make me a car thief?

[Sausagebiscuit]

@rrod182: Will you have my babies?

[rrod182]

@Sausagebiscuit<br />Yes.

[toolio2009]

yeah, yeah and so is every 12-year-old girl who taped a new kids on the block song off the radio for her own enjoyment. let's spend millions in court and destroy their lives too.

[SteveW928]

If I steal shirts from a department store and then hand them out to people, I'm still a thief. I'm also a thief whether convicted in a court or not. She's a thief (or an accomplice to... which is the same thing). She actually got off easy... the damages can range from $750 - $150,000 per infringement. The jury kind of went 'middle of the road' (apparently because she is also a liar).

[Lerianis3]

She doesn't deserve ANY punishment. The fact is that the recording industry is going to have to realize that they are their OWN WORST ENEMY by not realizing that we are in a different time where songs are NOT worth a dollar apiece. Maybe, MAYBE..... 10-20 cents apiece, if that.

[SteveW928]

@ Lerianis3 -<br /><br />You have a point that this is the direction the industry should probably go.... selling high quantities at lower costs per song, etc..... though I'm not sure about your $ amount. But, there are a couple of problems with this...<br /><br />1) if the tracks are all available for free on the internet... why would someone pay 10 or 20 cents either?<br />2) stealing stuff isn't a valid way to get this point across... the ends don't justify the means.

[gudin]

One word. Bankruptcy.

[Random_Walk]

Bankruptcies do not remove judgments or legal fines, IIRC.<br /><br />Her only hope is to get married and never work again. That way, the RIAA is left with receiving nothing (then again, they got what they wanted when they got the verdict: a good, hard scare tactic).

[v1m]

Nope, bankruptcy is of no use against such judgments. <br /><br />A better word: emigration. She can move abroad, live a fulfilling life in a saner society, and never pay the RIAA one cent. Given the economic horrorshow that is now the United States (and will be for years to come), she'd probably enjoy a higher standard of living, too.

[tektaktyks]

Cuba is nice,i hear...

[brokenlaw]

New world Bush Jr., sorry but under new bankruptcy laws she may still be libel, mostly if they can show that by deducting say 30% of her pay for the next 20 years is possible and would not cause undo financial harm. Yes I know it would but the courts would probably not see it that way, those that rule make up the laws.<br /><br />Go rich people go.

[Jahntassa]

@brokenlaw: It would take me 32 years to pay that back if I handed over every cent I made BEFORE taxes. I'm very glad the recording industry sees ruining this woman's life as 'fair' for what she's accused of doing. (Not to mention the courts.)

[karpenterskids]

My thoughts EXACTLY, Jahntassa!<br /><br />They're ruining this lady's life forever.<br />She'll most likely never be able to recover monetarily from this, if she's forced to pay the full amount.<br /><br /><br />There's something so morally and constitutionally WRONG about these "piracy fines"!<br />It's shocking, to say the least. The RIAA has no heart at all...and apparently, neither do the judges.

[Random_Walk]

"A better word: emigration."<br /><br />If it were that easy, everyone who got hosed with a big fine or had a big debt would do it.<br /><br />Unfortunately, international banking reciprocity/cooperation laws would find her bank account garnished no matter where she lived in the 'first world' (as opposed to 'third world')...

[SteveW928]

@ Jahntassa &#38; karpenterskids -<br /><br />Hey.. you wanna play, you gotta pay. She took the risk, she got caught.<br />I'm not sure what is unfair or 'unconstitutional' about the fines. Pretty simple... steal or be an accomplice to stealing... you get into trouble. Seems pretty simple to me.

[Random_Walk]

It's not "stealing", genius. Last I checked the RIAA still has those songs, and never lost possession of them. This was a civil, not criminal case.

[SteveW928]

@ Random_Walk -<br /><br />If you take something of value from me, it is theft. If you illegally damage my ability to make money, you are stealing from me. It doesn't have to be physical property. If I make an invention and you take the idea and produce it so that I don't make money off it.... that is theft as well.<br /><br />By serving out the songs, people who would have otherwise bought them, downloaded them... resulting in a loss of sales. You can call it by all kinds of names to try to get around it, but the basic concept is theft.

[alaris3k]

I will never pay a penny that could potential go to these a-holes called the RIAA. Artists need to realize they don't need them.

[man_w_balls]

Ditto. This solidly affirms my choice not to buy music or any product that I can possibly avoid purchasing that will contribute money to the RIAA or even the MPAA. Hear this, greedy fools: you just bit the hand that feeds.

[Jlmc727]

Gee that was her attitude when she passed on the $35k plea bargin

[ddesy]

Even $35K is really excessive considering how little damage an action like her's really does. The RIAA is still nothing but an anti-consumer, anti-artist bullying group.

[karpenterskids]

Artists should record and distribute their music independently.<br /><br /><br />Everyone would be so much better off.

[SteveW928]

I admit that the music industry has been overly greedy and the artists don't always get their fair share of the money made.......<br /><br />BUT, that doesn't excuse theft. I think Ferraris and Porsches are overly expensive too... that doesn't give me a right to go steal one. What kind of insane reasoning is this anyway?<br /><br />The artists (if they feel they aren't getting a fair deal) should sell direct, etc. If they can't pull this off, then they DO need the industry... and maybe they ARE getting a fair deal.

[sanenazok]

That was quick. Hope she liked her new trial. Spin again!

[gerrrg]

Well actually, because the jury used $80,000 per song, they may have given her the opportunity to take this to the Supreme Court to question the Constitutionality of the scale of the statutory award, per US Code via DMCA.

[sanenazok]

Uhm the amount was chosen by Congress as part of the copyright statute. Supreme Court will never hear this. Back to the court of appeals, but it's such a waste of time. She should have settled.

[Renegade Knight]

@sanenazok <br /> <br />It should go because the punisment doesn't fit the crime. Justice hasn't been served and something is broken with the system. The RIAA could shrug off that fine. Most citizens can't.

[L33tLuXX0rz]

And this is what happens when you illegally obtain songs. For 24 songs, she would have been better off just buying them. I wonder if she even still listens to those 24 songs and if they were even good. <br /><br />The songs are just 99 cents on amazon, is that too much money to pay for music?

[4wight]

No this is not - or it should not be - what happens when you illegally obtain songs. The first rule of the law is that the punishment should fit the crime. How does this punishment fit the crime? This debases the law, brings it into contempt in the eyes of ordinary citizens - that is fundamentally a bad thing. <br /><br />If the songs are just 99 cents from Amazon, why is she being fined 80,000 dollars per song? Is that fair? Is that justice? If I go into a store and steal a pair of socks worth a dollar - do you think it is fair that I should be fined 80,000 dollars for that theft? If so, you're an idiot.

[milrtime]

She downloaded a lot more than 24 songs, that is just the arbitrary number they chose to use for various reasons.

[jblaufuss]

She isn't being punished for the songs obtained illegally, she is being punished for making the songs available to download. If the RIAA could prove how many times the 24 songs were downloaded, then the judicial system could find a reasonable punishment, say .99 for each time the song was downloaded.<br /><br />I don't think that I could get away with writing a piece of software, then when someone posts it on the web for download, I can come back and say, "Oh the app was worth $80,000 and it was downloaded 7,000 times, I need compensation. :)

[ddesy]

You can only get $80K for the app if you are a rabid group of money hungry executives with your hands in the pockets of politicians.

[brokenlaw]

Trolling again, what she was doing has nothing to do with the cost of the songs, I am sure it was not 24 songs but they sued her for, the amount of sons did not matter its the judgement for each. RIAA is just lawyers with lots of time, can't wait another year and I will be there, hahaha, their only purpose is just what they are doing, actually if the music industry ever changed they would need to loose a lot of their lawyers so I don't think they would want that.

[MrBonky]

Most problematic is that they're somehow convincing people that had the songs not be downloaded by others, that they would've been purchased instead. There's absolutely zero evidence to support that claim, yet plenty of evidence to support file sharing being responsible for a higher influx of compensation to artists AND labels, including the RIAA. This is a joke. No "theft" was involved and there's a higher likelihood that RIAA got their money and then some due to those files being shared.<br /><br />However, the RIAA doesn't care about that. For them, the bigger prize is in the absolute power of being the sole controlling source of music, incoming and outgoing. They're latching onto a dead business model that relies on selling and reselling copyrighted information to individuals in different forms of physical medium, which they can control very easily. It started with LPs and EPs, moved to 8-track, cassettes, and eventually CDs. Maybe no one remembers, but they were ramping up the push to audio on DVD, as yet another physical medium that they could resell to people, even though standard audio CDs already provided excellent sound quality that only the pickiest of audiophiles would find unsuitable enough to want another, higher quality medium.<br /><br />Thing is, now that digital formats can encode media at quality the same and higher than physical mediums, the argument for a physical medium is made moot. The cost for a physical medium is higher than digital distribution, the convenience isn't there compared to digital files, and again, the quality is actually "worse". They're fighting to keep control over the industry when the industry is growing more aware of their uselessness in the scope of things. Artists don't need a protector anymore because the digital medium provides everything an artist could want to get the job done efficiently and inexpensively.<br /><br />Downloading "illegally" really doesn't mean a damn thing, it's just bald-faced argument that companies use as a scare tactic that, for some people, is working. For those that know what's going on, however, it's not. To them, it's a transition phase that's being severely hindered by very, very greedy people. Amoral people that use sympathy as a tool to further their own benefit, knowing that people stuck in black and white politics will only see something they believe to be bad as bad, without understanding the greater, more damaging impact that living in the past has on society as a whole.<br /><br />They can call arguments for downloading just an "eloquent ruse" to make "thievery" not seem immoral, but the truth is that they're trying exceptionally hard to cover their ***** and pull the wool over our eyes so we can't see what's really going on behind closed doors. By blatantly ignoring hard evidence, statistics, and outright lying to the public about the benefits that file sharing has had, focusing only on the negative impact file sharing has had on certain aspects of the industry, the RIAA is demonstrating how irrelevant, damaging to the industry on a whole, and pathetic they really are. They had their chance, but they've blown it, which means they're going to die a very slow, very painful death.<br /><br />Jammie Thomas was dumb and tried to fight against evidence that was already well established and accepted by a jury once before. She's done nothing to help the problem. The offense doesn't justify the punishment here and now she's going to be the poster child for the RIAA to point fingers at when they intimidate yet more people into seeing things their way. It's unfair, but she blew it. If there's anything to be mad at her for, it's that, not for downloading and sharing music.

[mayhem6ix]

I think 4wight is right about it debasing the law. It will cause all those out there downloading illegally to just say ***, I won't be able to pay the fines anyway and they can't get blood from a turnip, right? So why not just keep downloading? I don't think it causes any kind of scare to anyone, unless they are actually rich and could possibly pay that amount, but those aren't really sharing music are they? Wait, they are probably as well, but they can afford better lawyers or they aren't targeted by the RIAA since they know they will be able to fight back....<br /><br />Me thinks the RIAA is going after their customers. I imagine this girl has probably bought plenty of music in her life, and they are treating her like a criminal and basically telling the world that they will do that to all their customers in the future. Great plan, eh?

[monkeyfun14]

I support the ability to protect your copyrights but this is a bit excessive.

[gsigas]

This is unjust. The fact that a verdict like this can happen in our justice system makes me feel sick and it makes me lose faith in it. I could care less what the law says, the law is supposed to be a vehicle for justice. If a law is unjust it is wrong. I believe in copyrights and I believe that criminal behavior should have consequences, but I also believe in modern justice based on fairness. The goal should be to compensate the victims for the damage (in this case the real damage is probably less than $1000) and to add a punitive damage that will motivate the person to not download illegal music in the future (in this case a few hundred to a thousand dollar fine is sufficient to achieve this based on the small scale). Anything beyond this is basically the powerfull abusing the justice system to prey on the weak.

[Lerianis3]

I don't support the ability to 'protect your copyrights', when the things in question are offered FOR FREE in different venues! I.E. FM radio, AM radio, etc.<br /><br />The RIAA needs to WAKE UP and realize that we are now living a world where songs are maybe worth 10-20 cents apiece, and adjust the costs of CD's to live in that world.

[Button Boy]

They're nuckin' futz- this is another one of those historically wrong (excessive) awards that tort-reformists love to point out.

[saintseminole]

For one thing, to the poster above: songs were not available for 99 cents on the internet several years ago, back when most of these RIAA cases came up.<br /><br />For another, to Daddio: no, "theft" is a criminal offense. This was a civil case.<br /><br />Thirdly and lastly: what the heck? This is ridiculous. Fortunately, I'd already decided several years ago never to buy an album from an RIAA artist again, and I've stuck with that. If a local artist produces an album locally, I may buy it if I like their music. Or if some big-name act goes public with their stuff and gets out of the RIAA, then I may buy that.<br /><br />But please, don't buy anything from an RIAA artist. That just feeds the beast.

[man_w_balls]

The RIAA has gone off the deep end with this level of punitive damage. I hope everyone who had a thought to buy music from RIAA-affiliated artists sees this court decision, and realizes how bad they are for America. No more money will they get from me. <br />Everyone, pass the damages on to the RIAA by not buying their crap. Starve the beast.

[ralfthedog]

I have not purchased RIAA music for quite some time. Now I will stop going to live RIAA music. I might listen to the radio, note down what companies advertise, then write them a letter saying that I will not purchase their products because of their indirect support for the RIAA. <br /><br />The only money the RIAA will get from me is my contribution to help pay off her RIAA debt. <br /><br />CNet, when the Jammie Thomas fund is established, please post a story. <br /><br />Thanks.

[karpenterskids]

I've cut down my RIAA consumption by about 90% recently...and encouraging my friends to do the same!<br /><br /><br />Every once in a while, though, there's a disc that's so good, I feel like I HAVE to get it.<br />So...in my moment of temptation...I end up buying an album every once in a while.<br /><br /><br />If everyone just did their part to boycott the sharks, though, the MAFIAA would start sinking. Fast.

[Renegade Knight]

@karpenterskids <br /> <br />It's funny. I've started buying a lot of music lately. The only time I manage to get a new and RIAA funding CD is when someone advertises it as used but it was really new.

[toolio2009]

so true. i am never supporting an RIAA artist and will continue to find ways to support alternate, legal means of downloading music.

[rrod182]

@saintseminole, and everyone else who things all the those years of watching Law and Order make them legal experts.<br /><br />Actually you can sue parties in civil court for practically anything, including "theft". OJ was sued for wrongful death and lost in civil court even after he was acquitted of murder in criminal court. The only difference is the verdict really, is she guilty of theft or liable for theft. Either way the ruling pretty much means she's a thief.

[4wight]

If anything shows exactly why so many people 'steal' 'download', 'share' - whatever you want to call it - music and videos, it is this verdict. It shows that the record companies are just out to screw anyone for as much money as possible. Stealing and infringing copyright is wrong - but you have to make the punishment fit the crime. If not, then justice itself is compromised and when a whole generation no longer believes in the judicial system, then we really do have a problem. (And hey, we really do have a problem, because no one believes anymore in the judicial system and no one - because of the long-term rapacity of record and video companies - believes in copyright protection)

[brokenlaw]

And you think any other business model is not out to scam the public, where have you been.<br /><br />Every business model is about scaming the public, that is where the money is, even medicine is based on it, its the best way to make money, sure you can be nice and say give away here and there free songs, or say surgery, or medicine to make it look nice in the publics eye but in the end the model is the same for any industry that wants to advance and pay its shareholders.

[ralfthedog]

This makes the political system in Iran look honest. <br /><br />brokenlaw, that is not true. If you want to make money in the long term, provide the best value to the customer. This does not mean give them the lowest price. Quite often the lowest price is a rip off that has no or negative value. Quite often the top of the market will have by far the best value when viewed from the long run. <br /><br />Quality is value. Cheep is most often a con.

[Draxon]

RIAA is greedy and evil.. the perfect example of the American dream

[Tisiphne]

Monsters. That is the only word I can think of to describe this villainy. <br /><br />Time to start boycotting RIAA artists, again. There are plenty of great indie artists on the internet who have nothing to do with them.

[marvinlzinn]

I agree. If I were on the jury I would vote NOT guilty, unless it was proven without a doubt that they tried to sell it to her, and she took with without paying, regardless of who she gave it to, and then no more than the amount she was told to price was. If the law favors what occured, then the law must be erased! <br /> <br />marvin

[Lerianis3]

marvinlzinn, right in one! The fact is that she is being charged for 'sharing' that might or might not have occured. The last time I knew, if I copied a book and printed my own copies of it, I could not be charged for 'how many I have' but 'how many I SOLD'.... the RIAA is going to have to realize that judgments like this are just making themselves look VERY bad.<br />[CNET editor's note: Offensive content deleted.]

[0ri0n]

Something just reeks of bias with that jury. I mean, who in their right mind 1.) thinks the average american can MAKE 1.92 million in a lifetime, or 2.) that 24 songs advertised for download (i don't believe it was ever proven anyone HAD, indeed, downloaded any of them) is worth a 1.92 million dollar fine?!?!<br /><br />The RIAA has abused its interpretation of copyright, to the detriment of us all.<br /><br />You can say she was guilty, and therefor deserves what she got, but a guilty verdict does not justify any punitive action short of execution. This is clearly excessive, and a jury willing to impose that kind of penalty just tells me they were clearly out of touch with the capacity of this person to pay restitution and a history of RIAA abuses, or that they favored the RIAA from the start.<br /><br />I don't care how you want to spin it, if you look at this case for the basics of what it is, common sense tells you this judgment is not balanced, nor fair.

[alflanagan]

Put together a) a lot of highly-paid lawyers, b) a body of law deliberately made complex and pro-corporate, and c) 12 people who can't get out of jury duty AND have heard nothing about the case prior to the trial. It's a recipe for disaster.

[brokenlaw]

Poor people should really just function as cogs, what was she thinking that she had some right to a happy life, where do these poor people get those ideas? :-P

[ralfthedog]

This is not all bad. I understand that all 12 jurors now own rather nice vacation houses as well as a quarter million dollar boat. The sound system in each boat comes loaded with $1.92 million dollars in free music.

[Belinus]

Of course the artists, whom RIAA supposedly protects and recovers this money on behalf of, will not see a single penny of it.

[brokenlaw]

Artist hahaha, shareholders people that who counts.

[Jlmc727]

Once you pass on the Plea bargin its out of the hands of the RIAA and the courts and in the hands of the juriors

[Random_Walk]

The RIAA could have simply dropped the case at any time... yet for some reason they refused to. <br /><br />So much for that theory, eh?

[sanenazok]

@Random: why should the RIAA have dropped the case? It was obviously a winner for them. They won it now TWICE? Oh what you mean is they should have dropped it since you don't like it. Guess it don't work that way.

[Renegade Knight]

True enough for the award and punishment.

[unknown unknown]

This is just outrageous. I have no sympathy for recording industry and seriously hope file sharing destroys them as they been claiming for years now.

[Xirphoid]

Most people miss the real valid points here. Was she guilty? Yes. Is the fine excessive? Maybe. Is the 'RIAA' learning from it's past mistakes of over-charging for content? Mostly, see the above posts regarding Amazon, etc.<br /><br />To understand my point is to understand what the RIAA does these days, besides being the "big 4" and holding "all the copyrights", etc. The main business the RIAA does anymore is mainstream promotion and branding / mastering / and duplicating music en-mass. There are few independent labels that can muster the capitol to do nearly the same, if not better. Ultra Records, anyone?<br /><br />What you have today is a shrinking "RIAA" type labels, and growing independents. Some huge, some bedroom/garage-scale, that can simply leverage their promotions at astonishing levels.<br /><br />Do you really think the RIAA will continue it's mass-market promotions &#38; classic business model? Not really. Why should they PAY for the promotion or the studio work when most average artists and producers do all the work for them? They wont.<br /><br />Most of the RIAA these days is simply a "machine" that makes CD's to be put on shelves at Walmart, etc, and offers new deals that covers internet royalties, licensed copying, etc, leaving all the rest of the work to be done by the artists and producers; while eating the majority of the royalties collected.<br /><br />Now you see why there is a huge upswing of indie artists and labels, many of which don't care to be signed by a major label.

[ddesy]

Is the fine excessive? That's not a maybe but a rather huge definitely!

[Renegade Knight]

The new RIAA model explains why so much modern music sounds like poorly mixed crap which gets in the way of some truly good music.