RIAA wins key victory; accused file sharer must pay $220,000
UPDATE at 8:46 p.m. PDT: A Minnesota woman must pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels after a federal jury found on Thursday that she violated their copyright.
Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of court for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury.
Since 2003, many of the 26,000 persons sued by the Recording Industry Assoc. of America (RIAA) have avoided litigation by agreeing to pay a few thousand dollars. Thomas, who could not be reached for comment, has always maintained her innocence. Accused of sharing music through the use of peer-to-peer service, Kazaa, she told the jury that she didn't even own a Kazaa account.
The jury didn't buy her argument. Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs. The decision is important in that it sends a message to file sharers that Internet anonymity won't protect them from lawsuits, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and longtime music industry executive.
Castle said the Web makes it simple to hide. Proving who was sitting at a computer at any given time is very difficult for copyright owners. What is precedent-setting about this case is that the jury decided it doesn't matter who was sharing music on Thomas' computer.
"The answer that the court gave was 'It's your account, you're responsible,'" Castle said. "'It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it.'"
This is likely not the end of the case, according to Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for Internet users. Late Thursday evening, von Lohmann said that he had heard from several copyright attorneys who had expressed interest in representing Thomas should she want to appeal the decision.
"There are a lot of copyright lawyers who would be interested in helping her if she wants to continue this," von Lohmann said. "I'd imagine that she doesn't want to pay $200,000. We'll see what she wants to do."
4 reasons why the RIAA won
The recording industry has claimed that Internet piracy has cost the industry billions of dollars. Ever since the original Napster emerged in the late 1990s, the RIAA has been playing--and some say losing--a game of cat and mouse with file sharers.
The RIAA has always said that suing individuals is a last resort. The group battles file sharing through a combination of tactics, including educational programs and taking legal action against sites that help file sharers locate unauthorized music files.
When the RIAA does sue individuals, any money it receives from settlements and judgments are generally reinvested into the group's antipiracy program, said Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman. "This is not a money-making venture," he said.
About the judgment Lamy said: "This decision affirms what we've said all along. This kind of action is illegal and when people break the law there can be real consequences."
Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director, called the verdict "heartbreaking" and said it was proof of how out of step damages for copyright law have become.
"The laws were written for pirates, guys pressing scores of DVDs," Cohn said. "I think this judgment is a clear indication that damages for copyright laws need to be adjusted to reflect today's reality. A mom in her home isn't the same as a pirate, but the copyright law doesn't see any difference."
On the question of an appeal, Ira Rothken, who has defended dozens of companies accused of encouraging copyright violations, noted that the jury made its decision without finding that Thomas had actually shared files. Jurors ruled against Thomas based on the fact that she had only made files available.
"That may be a basis for an appeal," said Rothken, who is currently defending TorrentSpy, a search engine accused by the movie industry of violating copyright. "There are lots of people who theoretically make things available unintentionally. It happens all the time, whenever you deep link and there is something out there that you are not aware of. Availability alone may not be enough to show copyright infringement."
As to whether the court's decision will discourage file sharing, people from both sides of the copyright argument, said "no."
"This lawsuit campaign is misguided," Cohn said. "I would predict that this would have zero effect on the people using file sharing networks. The record industry has sued over 20,000 so far and there's been no slow down. We may see a temporary drop in the near term but I would predict that the levels would be back within six months."
But that's not the point, said Castle, the attorney and former record-industry executive. He said the music industry has no interest in bankrupting music fans but has a duty to curb the theft of its property. He predicted that the RIAA will not require Thomas to pay the full amount of the jury award.
He then called on EFF and other file-sharing supporters, who he accuses of egging Thomas on, to help pay the damages.
"This woman found lawyers who tried to make her the Joan of Arc of illegal downloading. And are they going to write the check?" Castle said. "This woman doesn't know the law. What she knows is she was downloading and someone comes to her and says 'Let's fight back.' You find some lawyer to take the case and all of a sudden the music stops and there's no chair for her. This person has been hoodwinked by people who don't have her best interest at heart."
Angered by Castle's statements, Cohn responded that any suggestion that anyone affiliated with EFF tried to convince Thomas to do anything is "a lie." She also said that it isn't EFF trying to get $220,000 from Thomas.
"We help people get lawyers and we tell people they should make those decisions with their lawyers," Cohn said. "We're on the side of the people being sued."
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
this may become the only way they can survive. Don't risk it. Just
borrow discs from your local library and friends, and rip away.
Eventually the industry collapses and we start fresh.
I'm endlessly amused that companies which promote the most
venal hip hop swill get self-righteous about music sharing. Ideas
have consequences.
Obviously it's not "utter crap," or you wouldn't want it in the first place.
If it's worth stealing, it's worth paying for.
Or file bankruptcy. That would move the RIAA into a different court entirely and possibly allow her to discharge the judgment. They can counter-claim against her, but she might be able to get a hardship discharge.
Another question would be...how many times were the files actually shared? One time? Ten thousand times? Never?
Such a murky argument...didn't most of the RIAA members also belong to the consortium that invented the digital format that is now being so freely shared? Don't some of them (ahem...Sony) make hardware and media for infringing on copyrights? Talk about hypocrisy...
Also note that they had absolutely no problem whatsoever in the good old days, when people used to tape songs off the radio and pass them around to their friends. But now that there's P2P file sharing, MP3s (which was designed by the Moving Pictures Editors Group. I do not believe the RIAA are a part of it) and so forth, all of a sudden it's "copyright infringement"?
Second, there was NO WAY to try and claim that she wasn't responsible, since she brilliantly used the same name on Kazaa as she used for many many other logins.
Sure, you can try to claim that someone else had the same name, but the same name from the SAME IP...no way, they got her and they got her good. Honestly, she should have consulted with someone with half a brain, cause the settlement she was surely offered would have been far far less, and from the moment I read about how they had her computer, her IP (which doesn't get NAT'd thanks to craptastic Kazaa sharing the IP of the computer it is running on), and her Kazaa log in, I knew without a doubt they would slam her on this, no way would she win.
Anyways, the RIAA didn't have to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt (that's only for criminal cases), just that it was more likely than not that it was her. Given the way the evidence was being reported, I'm not surprised that the jury found her guilty.
Oh well that's why God made lawyer malpractice suits and bankruptcy. On BBC I read she's living paycheck to "paycheque" so it's not like she has stuff to worry about, chapter 11 or 13 and it's over.
Sure the RIAA sucks for going after this lady rather than something harder and more serious, but it's her fault for not settling. When she refused to settle, they had to go all the way.
> What is precedent setting in this case is that
> jurors told the woman that they didn't care who
> was sharing music on her computer.
So basically, if she had a zombied PC, or if her IP address was spoofed, sorry?
Wonder if her lawyer was technically savvy enough to understand these issues?
but you can't prove it was stolen. YOU are responsible for the
results, even if it rolled down the street by itself.
She used the same screen name for hotmail and kazaa
She changed swapped out hard drives AFTER she got her first legal notice.
It was her IP to her cable modem MAC.
How often does someone IP spoof you to steal music off Kazaa. Let's try to be honest about this, and I am going to go out on a limb here, but if someone is technically savvy enough to IP spoof, then chances are they know MUCH MUCH better ways and places to get music than one song at a time off Kazaa.
We're in trouble America. There's a nasty anti-citizen fascism occurring here unlike any in our history. When big industry (RIAA, MPAA, Verizon, AT&T, Comcast) and the federal government (Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping) team up like this then we're living more in Orwell's "1984" than Rockwell's "America". It's a bad, bad situation when you start fearing your own industry-government more than the alleged terrorist threat. And if you ask this woman and the thousands who've been fleeced by the RIAA/MPAA who the terrorists are, who do you think they'll point to ? Our very own Gestapo.
RIAA must go! A total boycott is the best, quickest response.
ALL totalitarian governments are the same, only their rhetoric is different. So to me, the images that comes to mind when I read this story is of Solzhnenitzan or Kafka, where the poor individual is crushed by the machinery of the state.
The collusion between Government & Corporate Enterprise has been a long standing relationship in the U.S (as it is in most Western Economies), after all, someone has to foot the bill for election campaigns.
In a country whose Economic Model is underpinned by unrestrained consumerism, you would expect the relationship between Business & Government to be very pervasive, probably to a point where you can't determine "who is pulling the levers".
The Corporate Interests represented in this case want to make a very strong statement, and unfortunately this woman was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's all.
The unregulated distribution of Entertainment Products for free, goes against every principle of Corporate Music Interests - they are about control of that Product for Profit.
King Regards
Now if this is what America is turning into then I am having none of it. When corporate America and government collude to ruin the lives of citizens then something has gone completely wrong in this country.
The main objective of government is to protect its citizens. It is NOT to protect the businesses that are praying on them everyday. By way of commercials and marketing, corporate America is corrupting the minds of people everyday. Our government is NOT set up to protect these corporations! Anybody who buys into that is a fool and is themselves brainwashed and run over by the corporate juggernaut.
In situations like this, citizens deserve the benefit of the doubt. No one deserves their lives to be ruined over the sharing of some songs. I am a professional recording artist and I do not agree with this Gestapo approach to the selling of music.
The music business has always been full of crooked business people and practices. Thruout the history of the music industry, recording artist have been ripped off. I, as an artist have been ripped off many times.
So now you are telling me that our government is colluding with this corrupt industry to ruin the lives of the music lover? That the audience is now being attacked? It is even more ridiculous when you consider the fact that previous efforts have done nothing to reduce the sharing of songs over the internet.
People/music lovers have to want to support the music artist, you cannot force them to do that in the courts!
God is no longer blessing America because of the Fascist that have taken it over.
I'm curious as to what percentage of sales the artist receives. Apparently, after the studios and labels take their share, there isn't a whole lot of money left. Same goes for authors.
Perhaps one should boycott the whole institution of signed artists altogether, and go listen to some good ol' unsigned indie bands.
sue? If I steal a car from my Ford dealer does the dealer or Ford Motor Co come sue me.
Why would anyone buy anything from anyone who sues their customers?
I say stop buying CDs. Boycott the RIAA until they cease and desist, or die like the dinosaur that they
are. Boycott all music radio stations. Fill your iPod or other mp3 play with podcasts. There are millions of
podcasts of independent artists out there. We do not need them. They need us!
sell mysongonistic, violence inducing material and then claim
they are not resonsible for influencing the youth to act badly.
For years they have bundled their wares forcing consumers to
buy overpriced CD's to get the one song that has any value.
Now they are suing file sharers to defend their outdated
distribution models.
I say the only fair thing is to tax the industry. After all, music is
a pure luxury and should be held accountable for the traffic
accidents caused by persons being distracted by music. We
could use the revenues to help fund music programs in the
schools, which produce the talent the industry needs (yet don't
contribute a dime for).
>I didn't pay for, then I am in violation of >copyright infringement
what is it that people don't understand? If you give a CD to someone else, you just transfer what you own to another person. This case about giving multiple copies of it to other people! That's clearly illegal.
> Should YouTube, Yahoo Video and sites
>like that have to pay RIAA for being in
>possession of copyrighted songs, videos etc.
Er, these are ISPs and broadcasters and their behavior is defined by law. Broadcasters have to pay royalties for performance! YouTube isn't supposed to knowingly have copyright infringing material, this is not new!
I TOTALLY understand. I don't like speed limits, so when I get caught speeding, I'm going to blame the car company. Or the road building contractor. Or anyone but myself. Suck it up, crybabies.
(among others) to ensure THEIR definition and perception of file sharing is considered theft. Understand that the future will really be a fight over perceptions and the ones with the money currently win. Watch it, next you will will pay for every intangible nothingness out there. Their idea of "intellectual property" will become enslaved to "owner agents" forever (copyright law originally was created against this idea). Libraries outlawed, resale of books and CDs outlawed (because they want to charge you for every penny they can), capture of your own artistic endeavours outlawed, etc. Laugh or cry, get ready, because it is their desire to control it all. Most of all though, they desire to convince people to pick up their own chains of bondage and chain themselves willingly.
was giving it to other people.
That makes her a thief.
Actually, that makes her the opposite of a thief.
Your cute little metaphor breaks down.
Because the same people who sneer at 'stealing stuff' also tends
to think that if you bought it, it's yours.
And of course the RIAA says no it isn't. It's still ours.
Of course, Radiohead just released their new album without
benefit of record company. A big nail in the RIAA's coffin.
Because there is no punishment too great for any crime. Suck it up.
Now, back to reality....the rest of us would like reasonable answers to minor problems, like file sharing. Such a minor infraction, which is like jay walking, should be handled with a $50 fine or so, and then we'll tell her to suck it up.
jamendo.com -- Open your ears.
It's pretty easy to grasp: if it's been copyrighted, DON'T DOWNLOAD IT. Even if there's a cute site that makes it very easy...DON'T DO IT. You are stealing, without question.
If you think the recording industry makes too much money, DON'T PURCHASE MUSIC. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it state you have to listen to music. There's always FM.
Or, target those musicians that are independently making their stuff availble online.
Calling for a boycott is silly. It's just like predicting that MS will fall on their face because of their *you-don't-agree-with-them* business practices.
"...pays for the lies and conspiracy to rip off and beat up the common man..."
Please!
they are suing people are buying 1 copy of a record, and giving it for free to multiple other people.
They've effectively here sued an illegal re-distributer.
People who have bought something are generally defined as customers.
They've effectively here sued an illegal re-distributer.
You're aboslutely right. That is exactly what they did and that is exactly what copyright law allows them to do.
your argument is the same one used by the record ...companies back in the 30's when they didn't want radio to play music and the same ones used by the movie biz back in the 70's when they thought vidio tapes would bring their profits to a halt. back then, just as now, when they stop(ped) using money to sue CUSTOMERS (def: those who buy products and go to concerts) and started investing in the next tech advancement, sure enough, they grew the business. before your next post try to learn some history before babbling senselessly.
Napster) account. I am not the one downloading them. The
offenders are the users that are downloading the files. I am not
forcing users to take my files. That is where the violation line is
drawn in the sand.
It is the users who download the media that is copyrighted that
the offence occurs. Mind you some try to pull the fair use clause
(not for profit) but in todays world that won't travel one
millimeter.
I disagree with the ruling of paying nearly 10k per track for the
(what was it) 23 tracks they found her in violation of.
I'd have half a heart if this money went TO THE ARTISTS that
wrote these 23 tracks. However, no. It goes into the legal
departments pocketbook. so I have no heart for the lables.
What a lot of them fail to mention is how these services
generated sales with the promotion of the artists a lot of us
never heard of. Back in the early birth of it I found about a
dozen artists, and in turn purchased their CD's.
I might have been a rare user, but that was how I worked. I used
it to discover artists. When they forced the early service to be
taken down I never went back. I saw the writing on the walls
that the government was on the attack.
WE are stealing from the artists but do you know how much (or
should I say LITTLE) the artists actually get per CD from the
labels..? About 15 CENTS per CD.. not per song but PER CD...!!!!!!
Now who's the pirate..?
Whether the artist gets 1 cent or $3 per CD sold, if you steal, you're stealing from the artist.
This is just an example on how they are getting money to make up for an old distribution model that clearly does not work. They should smell what they're shoveling and WAKE UP to new technology. If ALL the record labels came together and offered a 'iTunes' like medium, the piracy will lesson. It wont, and NEVER go away. But at least they cant use tax-payer court systems for a LAME court case.
Of course not that I care for the RIAA that much myself, I just don't think anyone should delude themselves about the importance of after-judgment juror statements.
I would tell RIAA to get in line with all the other bill collectors. It will take them a long time to get their money. VERY LONG TIME..
They can cram it with walnuts, right up their RIA-A holes.
- What's the point of file sharing?
- by farookh20000 October 4, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
- I don't understand why someone wants to go to the trouble of trading files on an insecure and spyware ridden P2P network when cheap subscription services and downloads are available. I could understand if this was still 98-2000 when the record companies refused to adapt. However, now days these services are available all over the place.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- The point is that people are thieves
- by regulator1956 October 5, 2007 9:47 AM PDT
- They try to justify stealing is fine or even good. But in the end, they're just thieves.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 3 pages (135 Comments)Who cares how much the artist gets. If you steal music, you are stealing from the entire music eco-system - artists, distributors, music companies and the rest.
How that 99 cents or $19.99 is divided up has nothing to do with it. Either you decide that stealing is okay or you decide it's not.
The decision seems to be based on how easy it is to steal and what the consquences are. A bank and a gun can result in good money, but the risk and punishment is high, so few try it. A song on the Internet is easy with low risk.