Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous'

Jammie Thomas, the woman who was ordered by a federal jury on Thursday to pay $220,000 to six music labels, said on Friday that U.S. copyright laws are unjust and that the cost of proving her innocence was nearly impossible for someone in her financial situation.

Jammie Thomas

"It says in the Constitution that there should be no undue fines," Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. "I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs."

The RIAA sued Thomas for copyright infringement and unlike the vast majority of people sued by the group, Thomas chose not to settle her case for what is typically a few thousand dollars. Instead, she decided to defend herself in court. She strongly denies sharing music files.

But a 12-person jury in Duluth, Minnesota found in favor of the RIAA. They ordered Thomas to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was accused of sharing.

"I was basically forced into a situation where I had to prove a negative," Thomas said. "How do you prove that your IP address was spoofed or hacked. If I could afford an FBI analyst I'm sure it could have been proven. But I don't have the money."

Thomas, the mother of two sons, ages 11 and 13, said she is still deciding whether to file an appeal. Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Internet users, has said that he has been approached by attorneys who wish to help Thomas should she decide to appeal.

"I haven't made up my mind," Thomas said. "If I appeal this case, I would still have no protection against this verdict, and would still be obligated to pay off the judgment. It's kind of a tough decision to make."

On her MySpace blog, Thomas said she was reluctant to accept the many offers of financial help she had received to pay off what she called "this ridiculous bill."

"I have not held my hand out," Thomas said in her interview. "At best I've asked for information or advice. I have asked attorneys who are willing to help pro bono but it didn't feel right to me to ask (people) to donate to my cause."

Still, in her MySpace note, Thomas listed her attorney's Minneapolis address for anyone who insists on helping.

[does.tv]

Make Friends & Influence Enemies

What a sham. And how long ago was this supposedly done? We had a bar here that was approached for royalties cause they always showed Monday night football. The record company wanted payment cause they were 'playing' the Hank Williams Jr. opening song! Strange but true. They ended up having to turn down the volumn on the TV for the opening to appease the record companies...

[Bill_A]

wrong subject

This isn't about a bar that's a profit making enterprise. This is about sharing music from people's homes instead of buying it.<br /><br />The bar issue is an entirely different issue. Don't confuse the two.

[mectron]

Who still need a proof

That the RIAA/MPAA is manipulating the justice system like a puppet? i wonder how much the jury as been paid to burp out such a ridiculous sentence. (they showed the world that they prefered to be a RIAA puppet then serve real justice).<br /><br />Maybe now peoples will wake up and stop buying and music from the RIAA until they onwer(s) are jailed for life andd all participating label are fined a couple of billions each for paticipation in a criminal gang (IN THE 30's it was celled EXTERTION. STEALING money from your own consumers is not a business model. But it seem that is does not stop the most dangerous openly criminal cartel in the world: The RIAA.<br /><br />I stopped long ago buying any product from the RIAA/MPAA and cause them as much dammage as i can. They need to be stop at all cost!

[dargon19888]

No proof at all.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the tactics of the RIAA which border on being illegal, however, this woman did commit copyright infringement.

[Bill_A]

Don't share files

I don't have the evidence in front of me to say whether she is guilty or not, but the people who did, the jurors, pronounced her guilty.<br />Far too many people share music files and think lightly of it. People seem to have decided there is nothing wrong with it, forgetting that it is someone else's intellectual property. There is something wrong with it, it is illegal, and although the $220,000 fine is huge, she had a choice to settle, and had a choice before that to not share files. <br />People are still sharing files and so this is going to continue until it becomes punitive financially and people realize they have to stop.<br /><br />RIAA if you are listening, you have won your case, now it would be a good idea to both go to the court and settle for $5000 or $10000. The point has been made.

[Pete Bardo]

go to the court and settle

I may be wrong, and I often am, but I seem to remember a news story stating that the RIAA has offered a compromise settlement. Don't misunderstand me--I'm not supporting RIAA's actions. And I'm still wondering who will actually get the money--I'm betting most of it goes to the lawyers.<br /><br />Best of luck to Jammie!!

[Willie Winkie]

RIAA, good luck collecting your judgement

Let me put this in perspective for all of the people so worried about this unfortunate situation. The fact is, this judgment will likely NEVER be collected. VERY FEW large fines (even criminal ones!!!) levied against individuals ever are. Yes, you may be able to get a jury to levy a huge judgment, but numerous ways exist to avoid paying the judgment. The old adage, you can't get blood from a stone applies here. She'll likely have the judgment overturned on appeal anyway. Also, she may have no real property that can be seized. Finally, the entire judgment can be dismissed through bankruptcy. If she structures the bankruptcy properly, the credit implications are GREATLY mitigated.

[maniac42]

We keep suing the bastards ...

... and they _still_ won't buy our products!

[BigMomma09]

Ridiculous

All I have to say is that while $.99 may not seem a lot for a song it adds up, I myself inadvertanly spent $24 in the iTunes store just recently and nearly had a heart-attack when I realized it, I really didn't know I had spent that much money through t.v. shows, and music alone and all in two days. This is to say that buying music legally can be very costly and sharing files is an alternative way, its illegal sure but at my rate I will take my chances because not all music is worth the $.99.... and anyone who says "if you can't afford it, you shouldn't listen to it" you are sadly mistaken. I hope she appeals and wins... I used to want to study and practice law but with a joke-of-a- system like this it made me re-think my decision.

[cidman2001]

Her lawyers sucked!

I've read about this case ad nauseum for a week now. I'm amazed that no one has pointed out how crappy her lawyer was. If you read, you'll find that the jury was made up mostly of people who had little or no computer experience. The only explanations of technical issues like, definitions of an IP address, spoofing, worms, bots, wireless networks etc...came from RIAA attorneys. As far as I can tell the defense didn't call any experts or even attempt to punch holes in the flimsy RIAA arguments. They merely said, "She never used Kazaa". Gee, that's convincing! I stiil think a good attorney could sink their ship pretty quickly. It's full of holes!

[PollM]

Music File Sharing

Ridiculous the industry is trying to make an example out of people. They're muscling individuals who do not have money into settling out of court for a few thousand dollars. If this is left unchecked the industry can go after a huge number of potential offenders. The music need to advertise and send a message to teach people of the potential harm they are doing to artist and themselves. Get clean is the message. Do you believe the music industry should go after the distributors or the users of file sharing? -----&gt; <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=648" target="_newWindow">http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=648</a><br /><br />.

[godkillzyou]

What Happens If Music Was Free?

Pay to go to concerts?<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/download-my-music-for-free-pitch-black-poop/" target="_newWindow">http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/download-my-music-for-free-pitch-black-poop/</a><br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/more-on-free-music-for-the-critics/" target="_newWindow">http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/more-on-free-music-for-the-critics/</a>

[Wren1001]

The RIAA is wrong here, but recorded music does have value

I agree that the RIAA is out of their minds and I do not oppose <br />filesharing, BUT:<br /><br />What if an artist is unable to tour for some reason? Maybe they <br />are disabled? What if the artist has kids and simply cannot tour <br />10 months a year? Have they not provided you with something <br />of value by giving you music that you listen to and enjoy? Under <br />your system, if an artist does not tour, they will be paid nothing. <br />If an artist writes a beautiful song that changes the lives of <br />thousands or millions of people. Shouldn't they be paid for that?<br /><br />When you buy recorded music, you are not buying a "CD," nor <br />are you buying "1's and 0's." You are compensating someone for <br />the time and effort that they put into writing and recording <br />music. There is nothing wrong with this.<br /><br />If you believe that paying for recorded music is wrong, consider <br />this: Books are now being distributed in digital format. Should <br />authors not be paid for digital copies of their books? Should <br />they be expected to go on book reading tours? Under your <br />system, many people could not afford to continue writing books.<br /><br />If you want to give your music away, fine. But, please do not <br />condemn and demean other musicians who struggling to make a <br />living and do not agree that their recorded music is worthless.<br /><br />I think this is a more sensible model:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.eff.org/share/" target="_newWindow">http://www.eff.org/share/</a><br /><br />$5/month for unlimited DRM-free music. Artists get paid and <br />the people get music cheap. If only the RIAA would agree.

[imacpwr]

Hacking an Internet connection is simple.

As an experiment I fashioned a homemade parabolic gain dish <br />as seen here:<br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/" target="_newWindow">http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/</a><br />Set the thing up on a window sill facing a large number of <br />apartments and I immediately saw dozens of wireless networks <br />in the neighborhood. I had no problem logging onto a half <br />dozen of them which contained absolutely no security or <br />passwords of any kind. I was also amazed at just how many <br />computers on said networks I was able to freely inspect the <br />contents of. I had full control of the network and internet to do <br />as I pleased, yes, file sharing programs worked flawlessly.<br />I would be real interested in knowing if Jammie Thomas was <br />using a wireless network in her home. I found it childs play to <br />log onto an unsecured wireless network even without having any <br />hacker knowledge and from what I've read many secured <br />networks aren't as secure as you think they are..

[frugalbrutus]

Try to imitate what Jammie says happened

Try to load Kazaa on one of your neighbor's computers. I'll bet that you CAN'T easily do that. You need someone to walk into her house and do that. Most likely her kid or a friend of her kid loaded Kazaa. Maybe they never used it again, but someone IN HER HOUSE loaded Kazaa. Now, should the parent be punished for the child's crimes? In car crimes, we punish the driver, not the owner. But in accidents on any property, we sue the property owner, not the accident causer or person. Hmm, what to do here...

[randomcrap]

Don't like it? Simple: Boycot Big Music

If you don't like the verdict, and are worried that you might be next, then do something about it: stop giving your money to the RIAA. Stop buying their music and stop going to their concerts. There are plenty of artists who make music for the joy of it. See your local band in your local coffee shop or pub, and stop kvetching.

[George Riddick]

Stealing without consequence is "ridiculous"

What a Strategic Blunder!<br /><br />You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing.<br /><br />Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive.<br /><br />How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is truly phenomenal.<br /><br />This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder!<br /><br />Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together.<br /><br />I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms. Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life.<br /><br />But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country at all. Thank goodness!<br /><br />And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again.<br /><br />COUNTERPOINT:<br /><br />Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms. Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day.<br /><br />What's your opinion?<br /><br />George P. Riddick, III<br />Chairman/CEO<br />Imageline, Inc. <br /><br />[e-mail]