Comments on: Court orders Jammie Thomas to pay RIAA $1.92 million

Jury says defendant must pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing.

[chadhembree.com]

I feel sorry for Jammie Thomas and her family for having to deal with such a larger penalty, so much for her American Dream.

She would have potentially received a lesser penalty robbing a record store at gun point. Conviction for a class B felony generally results in a definite sentence of imprisonment for 1 to 20 years, a fine of up to $15,000, or both with parole options. This is a far cry from $1.92 million and I seriously doubt the maximum 20 years would be granted and defiantly not served.

Now who is going to pay for her kids education, food for her family, etc., we are.

Merry Christmas tax payers, the RIAA just showed us all some love.

Maybe some of these mega stars Jammie was a fan of can give a benefit concert and help with the excessive fines.

[karpenterskids]

Yeah, talk about highly ironic...peacefully downloading music can get you in way more trouble than pulling a gun on a music store clerk.

Oh how I WISH some RIAA artists would band together and do a benefit concert for Jammie and others like her...that too would be highly ironic. :)

[Dalkorian]

Yet another law the MAFIAA has broken. I didn't ask for their love or give them permission to show me some love, so be legal definition I just got raped, didn't I?

I won't complain though, Jammie got raped considerably harder.

[troppp]

They encourage this, but they want to put caps on medical malpractice suites.

[shadowself]

Let's say she's guilty and shared "just" 24 songs, but shared them at least 80,000 times each (at $1 each) thus "justifying" this award.

That would mean if she had *at least* a T1 equivalent uplink (a minimum of 1.544 Mbps uplink) and it was saturated 100% with people downloading songs from her computer 100% of the time with no down time then her line would have been saturated for more than 460 days continuously.

Why is this ridiculous?

First, it is extremely unlikely that her 'net access had that high an uplink even at peak let alone minimum. At the time of the infringement her uplink was probably 1/4 of a T1 at best.
Second, the reliability and availability of every internet access is much, much less than 100% to the consumer. Some businesses pay premiums for 99.9% or greater reliability and availability but no consumers do. And no service will guarantee 100% reliability or availability for 460+ days at any price!
Third, there is no record anywhere that her uplink was anywhere near saturated (no matter what the speed was).

Therefore it is impossible for her to have shared even close to the amount that would justify this award.

Figure in on top of this that even through Amazon and iTunes (among others) the highest amount the music industry gets is about 75% of the sale price (the rest goes to maintain the service), then the amount of time in the above example would be well over 600 days.

Thus to any logical person the award is totally absurd. It has no connection to reality.

[ralfthedog]

Also remember, When a person downloaded a song, not all of the song came from her. P2P spreads the upload across multiple sources.

[karpenterskids]

Yeah, what ralfthedog said is true...when someone downloads a song via P2P, only a fraction of it comes from a specific user.

So if you want to split hairs...she may have only shared 10, 20, or even 50 cents worth of each song.
Either way, though...1.92 million dollars is RIDICULOUS.

[Dalkorian]

Actually karpenterskids, a partial file itself is worthless. It can't be opened and it won't play. It's a series of bits at that level, totally worthless by itself.

Just like the RIAA. The Pirate Bay must love these guys, because I get tempted to pay them a visit every time the MAFIAA gets one of these comically ridiculous judgements from obviously stacked "juries".

What's truly disgusting at this point is reading the comments here and noticing how many people have absolutely no idea whatsoever of what they're talking about. Consider this, if ANYONE had downloaded any of these songs from her computer, it would mean that she was the only person on the entire planet that was sharing that song online (nature of P2P), including the person who downloaded it from her. Since that's extremely unlikely (if not impossible to accept), then she must by definition be INNOCENT OF ALL CHARGES.

But she now has to pay $1.92 million anyway. Oops. Must be nice to be able to pay off an entire jury.

[vurbano]

absurd award

[drbyte]

They can still charge $16 per cd in stores, while giving artist less than 75 cents per unit sold. That's the real crime.

[jessiethe3rd]

And up to the Superme Court it goes taking more time... sucking up more of a burdened system's resources. Litigation in America... GOTTA LOVE IT BABY!!

[joad2]

It's all bogus.....what that industry needs is to be taken apart and reassembled with an eye towards some compassion for the artists and their fans because the greed and shallowness of the entire business is shining through in the dreck that is pimped daily on music stations...if this was fair we should be able to sue the industry for each song they pander over and over in a slightly different variation....

[ralfthedog]

What the industry needs is to be no more. We need the artist. We need the consumer. and we need a download service like Amazon or iTunes. Everything else needs to be trimmed away as fat. It would be cool if iTunes or Amazon were to host any music an artist will put up after a small upfront fee and a percentage of the take.

[lkrupp]

I'm glad this guilty verdict and fine are sending shivers down the spines of the outraged in this thread. Maybe you'll think twice before getting your music via Limewire instead of buying it. They will get to you eventually too. Keep looking over your shoulders.

[sharmajunior]

Actually this kind of stuff done by the RIAA encourages me to download more music illegally as I don't have any money that they can take, they can sue me, kill me or even rape me for all they want. But they ain't gettin the satisfaction of a lawsuit. I wanna see how many more people they sue and how they come up with the expenses to pay for these lawsuits (after all of the money they got from raping innocent people finishes).

[ralfthedog]

Most of us don't download. Most of us were people who purchased lots of music. Now because these [expletive deleted] freaks have chosen to [not anatomically possible] the public sideways with a chainsaw, we have chosen not to give these [more creative expletives] another of our dollars!

Note to anyone who sells a product to the public. don't **** off your paying customers!

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Why is it always Windows users that are targeted?

[El_Segfaulto]

I'd say it's just statistics. They have 90% marketshare. It's simply more likely that any one user (especially one who doesn't have the knowledge to setup a router or peerblocker) will be running Windows.

[dargon19888]

Wow, we have a lot of legal eagle wantabe lawyers here.

First this is a civil trial and not a criminal one.

Second, the action was a willful violation of the copyright laws and the penalties imposed by the jury is based on a sliding scale and whether or not the woman intentionally violated the copyright act.

The simple truth is that she did it and when she could have settled, she didn't. Clearly the jury saw something that we didn't and thus decided that the penalty was justified.

I haven't bought any music in a long time.
I just listen via internet radio, or the music channels on cable.
If you want to put a dent in the music industry's pocket, don't steal and share. Just don't buy any albums.

Avoid concerts where the bands are on the major labels and the RIAA members make money.

[gsigas]

My outrage is not with her being found guilty, it is with the amount of the punitive damage. She didn't settle because even the original settlement offer was excessive. What is next? Do we start putting people to death for this? When the justice system plays a part in enforcing what is obviously a failure in justice (unbalanced/unfair punishment) it becomes a participant in tyranny.

[clynx]

RIAA is scum, plus most music beyond 1979 sucks anyways. Thanks Regan. They lost my $$$$ a long time ago. Remember the RIAA is giving us Data Caps which is code for censorship. welcome to capitalist China.

[EcuadorHomesOnline]

Unfortunately, you can't regulate morality. I believe that if you sell a used CD, it is your responsibility to ensure that any copies or backups you made have been distroyed. If you loan a CD to a friend, you need to ensure that you don't play the copy ripped to your Zune while you're not in posession of the original. And you certainly shouldn't share copies of something if you don't have re-distribution rights.

Simple, right? So how come no one wants to play by the rules?

The RIAA is trying to make an example of ordinary people who don't appriciate the fact that it does cost the labels a lot of money to sign an artist, and record and promote their music. And both the labels and the artists deserve to make a living from thier work. They want to prosecute one plaintiff at a time - but it doesn't change the fact that we live in a world where everyone expects everything to be free. If you want to live in a socialist country, then move to Mongolia.

[nborson]

EcuadorHomesOnline,

One answer to your question is the rules are not entirely clear. While it is obviously illegal to distribute copyrighted works over the Internet to anonymous downloaders it can be perfectly legal to make digital music copies for noncommercial use, even to give copies to your friends and family, per the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA). Such use is certainly protected if you use a "digital audio recording device" and "digital audio recording media" which result in royalties to RIAA. It's less clear whether and to what extent ripping CDs with a computer and sharing MP3 files is allowed but the federal courts seem to think non-commercial use is OK under AHRA since RIAA failed to stop Diamond from making the Rio PMP300. In any case, the intent of AHRA was clearly to allow you to buy a single copy of a CD, burn a copy for use in your car, and even give a copy to your sibling -- and listen to all three at once if you choose. So your morality may be simpler and more restrictive than "the rules."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_Act

I've no dispute with your basic point about labels and artists deserving to make a living and "everyone expects everything to be free." But that may be partly a reaction to the excessive greed and controlling behavior exhibited by the recording industry. Surely there is a middle ground between free and $1.92 million.

[ralfthedog]

Even better, support local unsigned artists. I pay for lots of music. When I see a local band, I buy a CD. If the band is charging $10, I pay $20. If I know someone who might like the music, I buy two copies.

The members of the RIAA provide negative value. They diminish the quality of the bands they represent. If we all work together, soon a signed band will make less than an unsigned band. The labels will go away. The bands will make more money and music will be of a better quality. It will also cost less.

Kill off the parasites!

[EcuadorHomesOnline]

nborson - yes, very good points. I agree with you wholeheartedly.

[El_Segfaulto]

@ralf

Damn straight. The Indies are making far better music, they're willing to sell it for less than the RIAA, and some of them actually promote sharing! Of course doing it for a reasonable style of living and the love of being an artist will always get more money out of my wallet than just doing it for the money and screwing your audience.

[deepen05]

this whole thing is such ********. the music industry and artists make so much money. who the hell cares if their songs are distributed. artists and labels should be happy. he have this much piracy and illegal sharing, but they are all still multi-millionaires. i have been downloading on limewire for years now, and i will never ever buy an album or buy a song ever. I have never bought and album or bought a song in my life.

[hankthedwarf]

If it's true they can't prove that anyone actually downloaded any of the songs she made available, then she should only have to pay for the equivalent of a shoplifter stealing 24 songs (two CDs with 12 songs each, for example) plus a fine (~$1,000).

The arbitrary, industry-invented $80,000 per song for just the theft itself is absolutely ridiculous.

[hankthedwarf]

Also I should add that the actual reciprocal sharing is the default that Kazaa had enabled, like any other P2P program. The actual intent to distribute probably couldn't be proven because of this, in that the songs became shared instantly once she stole, without her explicitly enabling that function.

[JohnLaCombe]

This fine is excessive. Support your local and national artists through merchandise and tours. Personally I made a decision to not buy any RIAA product when they began to sue dead grandmothers and children.

Why isn't anyone talking about what this is? It's a big fat scare tactic for public relations. Are you telling me a convicted rapist can be put in jail for less than a year but downloading songs cost nearly $2mm? I'd rather be convicted for rape. It's completely absurd and I would also bet that RIAA has a deal with this woman to play along with this hoax. Look at situations where the damages were that high and find me one remotely similar to downloading 24 songs...something that millions of people are doing every day. the record industry needs to come to grips with digital music and find a workable business model. Prosecuting a mother of 4 for $2mm is just plain bullying...unless she's a willing participant in this hoax.

[magicmaster]

Those who pay will pay less in the future.
Those who don't pay, will continue to not pay.
Those who don't pay but get caught still won't pay.
Those who is considering paying will call off their plans to pay.

Stop listening illegimately is one thing, persuade people to purchase is another thing.
Unless RIAA figures it out, its revenue will continue to decline.

[Jonathan]

This is retarded. This is the equivalent of a life sentence for swiping a PS3 from a Target.

[contentcreator--2008]

No. This isn't the equivalent of stealing a candy bar. This is like changing the cash register to charge EVERYBODY zero, in effect stealing all the candy bars. File sharing is a weapon of mass destruction, just like a nuke. It doesn't affect just you, it affects everyone. Hence why it can't be tolerated.

[unifex_]

Look around, contentcreator, how many people here can't tolerate this idiotic verdict? Ask yourself, why is that and if a large percentage of the population thinks this way, then maybe in a democracy this should mean something?

[Dalkorian]

No, this is actually the equivalent of taking a picture of a poster in Target and distributing that picture to people. Nothing is missing and money is not being taken from any till.

People like contentcreator below should look up terms like "theft" and "copyright infringement" before proving to the entire world they know nothing of what they speak. THAT is the issue here and honestly it's a weak case. The only reason the MAFIAA got away with this is because of idiots like contentcreator who can't grasp the technology involved.

Technically, it can be proven that if anyone downloaded a single file from Jammie then she must be innocent of all charges. Think about P2P and how it functions for a minute to understand why.

[El_Segfaulto]

@Dalkorian

Well said.

[ralfthedog]

Note to the members of the RIAA. You have pissed off your customers more than your pathetic little minds can imagine. You will probably never get us back. Doing right by this woman would be a good first step.

Show us you are real people. Let this woman walk and we might start buying again. If not, turn on the TV. Look at the video from Iran. This is what you will see in front of your offices.

[Vegaman_Dan]

As sensationalistic as the fine and verdict is, it will do nothing to stop the actual problem.

This person can simply declare bankruptcy and be out of the fine immediately. There's no way that this person can possibly be expected to pay the fine, so it's a moot point.

In this situation, even the lawyers don't win since they won't get paid either except... well, they might get paid by either the state or the RIAA.

As for the RIAA, this brings them some excellent publicity. Not GOOD publicity, mind you, but it is what it is.

[unifex_]

Well, no, declaring bankruptcy will not make the fine go away, however it is unclear how do they plan to collect, since she clearly has not got this kind of money.

[abozabra]

Here's what needs to be Done. We all, every single person in the US and the World should STOP buying, downloading music for ONE whole Month. Let's show them who's the BOSS. 80,000 dollars for each song, Only a mentally ill person would impose such thing. I'm sure they will be happy with $1.00 a month Payment ;)

[contentcreator--2008]

That's pretty much what's already happened, right? The stop buying --- but keep downloading. Be very sure - massive "avoidance of payment" was what came first. If file sharing is marginalized as a legitimate activity, perhaps via cases like this, there would be no need for any of this.

[unifex_]

Not true, contentcreator. Not everybody stopped paying. The revenue has declined, yes. But so has the quality of the product. I have not purchased any CD for several years now. Not because I am downloading, actually, I do not. I have not bought anything, because there is nothing new out there that I want to buy. I would buy old music, but paying same $20 for a disc of 20-year-old music seems a rip-off to me and I do not do this. This, in my opinion, is the true reason for their declining revenues.

[Renegade Knight]

@contentcreator--2008

So the solution is to sue their way out of red ink? Seems like the real solution is to offer what people will buy. No matter what we debate, the product has to be worth buying at the price asked to sell.

[El_Segfaulto]

@unifex

I would argue that P2P has decreased profits for bad bands simply because we can tell how bad an album is before purchasing it. There are some good artists out there and if I download one of their albums and like it then I buy the damn thing so I can rip it to an OGG format. If I don't, then it gets deleted. In all honesty I've bought a lot more albums since P2P came around, I just haven't bought them from mainstream bands.