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.

[Mary_Paddock]

I only purchase music produced by indie musicians. If you need a place to find them, You-tube is an excellent source of up and coming artists who are writing and producing their own material. My MP3 player is full of some amazing material these days and I know my money is going directly into the musician's pocket. (It feels especially cool if the artist is a college student). If I have a yen to listen to an old favorite that I don't already own, I simply go to playlist.com.

I understand a fine is necessary, but the amount they are demanding only makes them look like the big bad (really greedy) wolf. If they would settle for a set of fines ranging from a few hundred to closer to 10,000 maximum the impact would be greater and their message would be better received.

[marleyinoc]

Makes me regret the money I spent on iTunes this week, actually and it will influence my purchasing in the near future... I think I'll look for some indy artists who are selling at decent prices (since they aren't being raped by the RIAA and rest of industry to fund their witch hunts)...

[kingskippy]

If she did not share the songs, that is, if she merely downloaded them, she only stole them. I think this is where things are getting dicey in this whole RIAA and MPAA fiasco. If she downloaded them, it is no different than walking into Wal-Mart or Target and stealing the CD. In those cases, you are charged with the theft, do any (if any) time and pay the fine. You might have to pay restitution to the store and face banning from the store, but if she stole a compilation CD of 24 songs -- she certainly would not be paying this much.

The RIAA should treat these matters much like a retailer would treat theft in its stores and see the appropriate punishment. The RIAA should go after those that have complete disregard for the copyright laws, namely those that are rapidly uploading these files in the first place. My guess is that much of the uploading is taking place within the industry itself. With the movies, these things are being uploaded before release, often times from the screeners and early copies. Music leaks ahead of time as well. Much of this has to be internal. The RIAA and MPAA need to look at the three fingers point back at them. I guarantee (and willing to bet) that much of what is uploaded is provided by someone on the inside. It merely propagates the Internet from that point.

What this woman did is obviously unethical, but the RIAA and MPAA probably need to rethink their tactics a bit. The music industry is slowly moving away from DRM, which is a good thing. Hollywood probably is not far behind. Now it's a matter of making it more affordable and more accessible. The Virgin-EMI move in the UK is a positive step. As is the recent new from emusic.com that it will soon have major labels as part of its DRM-free, not quite unlimited, download service.

[Altotus]

EXCESSIVE How dare they (RIAA) have made a mockery of the lawmakers courts law and justice in America do you not understand that this cannot be allowed to stand whew is your god dammed Representative this minute! How dare you let this happen in America what kind of citizens are you to accept this revolting situation to shoved down your throats. You have the power to replace the sob that wrote the crap revolting laws, supported torture and otherwise made a mockery of you the citizen and this Nation. I suggest you get off your lazy buts. Boycott music and movies? HA get to the point! its politicians your representatives that did this they are completely responsible in full measure and they answer to you. Mitigation is not an option. Take back your country be a Citizen not just a useless example of just how stupid the politicians think you are. You are responsible for the actions of the political leadership you the citizens of America. You are ultimately responsible for this outrage by not controlling the political vermin.

[ikramerica--2008]

Most people are misunderstanding what happened here.

The woman violated 1700+ copyrights. That would be 1700+ individual crimes. Each subject to it's own award.

The plaintiffs decided that pursuing 1700 cases was excessive and unnecessary, and under the law would probably create such a large award, it would seem ludicrous though justified. $136 million dollars!

So they decided to create a representative sample.

$80,000 is the award for each violation. Imagine that instead of the big, bad, RIAA suing, it was 24 individual artists, suing. Would $80,000 seem excessive if that was your only money making song and someone stole it and gave it away? The courts don't think so. Nor does congress. May people toil for years before they create something that is marketable, and that could equate to merely $20k per year of work, or less. You have to break it down. As someone who creates copyrighted work, I am glad that Federal Copyright law (which goes into effect when you register with the Library of Congress), provides for minimum awards and doesn't discount the value of a copyright the way so many people responding here do. If I knew that my work had no value, I wouldn't spend time on it. If I knew someone could steal my work and basically just give it away, I wouldn't spend my life on it.

Selling your right to a label, distributor, etc. doesn't change the reality that the song has an individual value. If by selling your right to a company, that automatically gives everyone the right to steal and distribute your content, then again, your content has no value. No distributor or label will pay you for it, nor will they spend their money promoting and distribute it.

And from what I can tell, this woman didn't discriminate and only share songs from the big, "rich" labels. She violated the rights of small labels, of individuals.

Now, if she had merely downloaded music for herself, then it would have been theft but not copyright infringement. Just as stealing a CD from Target isn't a copyright violation. But stealing and reproducing the CD, then either selling it or giving it away is a different story. This woman did the digital equivalent of this, over a long period of time, while fully aware it was not legal. She is textbook liable, and the award was justified.

[ralfthedog]

She might have shared the songs with other people. She put them in a place where someone might have picked them up. The RIAA has no proof that anyone downloaded the tracks in her share folder. Think of a person that puts a CD on the park bench and walks away.

I might have been speeding today. I own a car. My car can go very fast. Perhaps I need a speeding ticket for doing 180 in a school zone. No evidence that I did, but my car can so I must be guilty. The United states has lots of school zones. Perhaps I should get a ticket for each one.

[Renegade Knight]

We all create copyrighted work. Keep that in mind. Few of us make a living. We all break copyright (but for fair use) every day in our collective lives. If you are glad that you can sue for a set price, then keep in mind it would be actually easier for me to sue for a living than actually market my work. I am prolific if unprofitable after all.

Value aside, Had she given away 24 mix CD's. She would have been within fair use as decided by the courts. That they were available to share? Hmmm...not too far from the mix CD that's ok, but not ok either.

The punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[JCionni]

They only got her for 24 mp3's? That's the equivalent of one decent length album.. even though its a disc with around 10 songs is average.. that's worth, what, $15-$20? Fining her for the copies people may have downloaded off of her while her p2p prog was running is pretty unfair.. those people downloaded illegally just like she did.. she should pay her $20 dollars then the RIAA can go after the other downloaders.. for a minute payback, one person at a time.. if they feel that's worth the effort and cost in lawyers and legal fees. Fining one person as if their personally responsible for the other users sitting at home downloading is insane.. and when you factor in the immense amount of money it just seems even more absurd and shows how out of touch the legal system and the corporate world are with reality.

We're in the middle of an economic crunch and the @ss_h*les who run record labels are upset that there's a cheap, reliable, efficient way for the average American to get their entertainment.. musicians make money by PLAYING music.. in person. America loves the rockstar image of the loser who writes a few catchy tunes and is ungodly wealthy for the rest of their life but its bull_sh!t and its not realistic. Bands who tour will always make money, its too bad for the record execs if they cant make money sitting around doing nothing while talented people make less for their artistic contributions which are unfortunately superfluous to everyday living. Music is nice, but its a luxury and a distraction. That is the simple reason why people "consume" or experience it freely and without remorse.

Try to imagine if any other profession worked the way the record industry is accustomed to.. a few years of work (maybe) and one achievement (comparable to a decent album) and then years living high on the hog doing nothing.

If a fireman was brave in one noteworthy incident do we send him off with $20 million to relax until he wants to do a "reunion tour"? Would that scenario work for a doctor, or architect? Valuable members of society don't get those kinds of rewards but for some reason its a crime to deprive stars like Brittany Spears or Metallica the luxury of being worthless and highly paid while you work day in and day out for survival.

Why does this ridiculous scenario seem to be societally accepted as fair when its a pop musician?

[ofmyony]

I now have a good reason to spend my money somewhere else. Record industry can't go bankrupt fast enough.

[Thozman]

I'd never pay the RIAA one funkin penny. NEVER.
I wouldn't care what they did to me, they could tie me to a tree and shoot me for all I care.
Hell, waterboard me!

Sounds crazy but sadly it's true, just the way I've always been. If you have to go down make it stand for something, be a martyr.

[ralfthedog]

The sad thing is, just by posting our disagreements with the RIAA we are making ourselves targets. I would not put it past them to go after some of us. Even those like me who have never shared a file in our lives and never will (OSS software does not count).

[archcoder]

I will never pay for music again.

[ralfthedog]

That is a bad attitude. Find a good unsigned local band. Give them your support. Music is better if you know the people who wrote the songs and play them. Just stay away from bands that sign with members of the RIAA.

[jtjt145]

This woman should never have been indicted in the first place!

Every time American courts produce such an obvious miscarriage of justice, is not only a reason for outrageous laughter for spectators from overseas watching this melodrama. It is also another little step carrying America somewhere away from the rest of the international community, as quite clearly 'the American' seem to be losing a sense of what is reasonable. They are losing the plot!

If they can't get such simple AND OBVIOUS things right, WHAT CAN THEY GET RIGHT?

Poor America!

[kelmon]

And the moral of this story is? Don't tell porkies during your trial. I'm honestly not convinced, given the evidence, that she did the crime itself but she was most certainly guilty of telling lies such that she was attempting to pervert the course of justice through such action as providing a new hard drive rather than the one used during the events as evidence.

The juries never like a liar.

[GrayWolf323]

so the original trial that got thrown out she was fined $222,000? but the judge tossed it because he realized his instructions to the jury were misinformed (misinformation being provided by the RIAA)

she gets a new trial and now it's $1.92 million? o_O *** that's completely ****ing ridiculous how is it that now suddenly only three of the songs are worth more than the original fine?

[sanenazok]

The outcome at a trial is always a risk. Apparently the supposedly pro-RIAA instructions weren't so bad for her after all. The first jury was more lenient since all she did was "make files available." Now that instruction was out and she got it.

[sanenazok]

The only thing she can hope to appeal on is if one of the jurors had an undisclosed conflict. Hopefully for her something will come out of the woodwork. Lawsuits should always be settled especially against moneyed interests.

[dennisl59]

This is BullS**T and everyone knows it. The RIAA is acting so f-ing high minded. So how much did they donate to the Barry Soetoro Administration?...FASCISTS!!!!

[unifex_]

What seems to be missed here, is that paying for music is not an obligation for any of us. I have to actually like the music I am paying for. Actually, to pay $20 for a CD, or even $1 for a song, I have to really like this song.

Because if I merely enjoy the sound of a song, I can always listen to it on the radio. I can even make a recording off the radio - a very common practice back in the days of audio cassettes. I never heard that this is illegal. The quality of such a recording will probably be rather low - I am not a pro and I do not have too much time to do this. But, the quality of MP3s that you download or those that I can buy for $1 is also low (that's why I can't bring myself to paying $1 for a downloaded song, not unless they come up with a lossless compression there, certainly not MP3).

Sure, distributing the copyrighted work en mass is illegal and should be prosecuted. But 1.92 million - please, she did not have a CD factory in her garage, now did she? And how is she supposed to pay this off, I wonder, together with her own lawyers and court fees? So this is plain stupid.

And I think all of us should write about our outrage regarding this mockery of the court not simply here on CNET, but to our Representatives, to the Supreme Court, and of course the labels themselves (talking to RIAA is utterly useless), they should understand that such decisions make more damage for their revenues that all the downloading altogether.

[sanenazok]

Sure there are many ways to make fair use or legal copies, like off the radio. None of them are as easy as point-and-click and so people don't bother anymore. Your comment of "I do not have too much time to do this" is exactly the reason why people turned to the supposedly illegal P2P.

You can definitely write to your representatives, but don't bother with the Supreme Court.

[weegg]

The actual artists for those 24 songs will not see one dime. It all goes to the industry middlemen.

[wanderingquestioner]

I've heard alot about these trials, but not how these people get caught.
question: if a person buys or recieves a used CD but the cd is damaged (scratched up) can one use a peer to peer site to download the songs? is it still illegal because a person uses a different source to put the music on his or her hardrive, even if the person owns the CD?
I've tried looking up copyright rules, the only thing that is basic to me is that you are allowed one (1) backup copy of a media. I have trouble with the rest of the legal jargon. I was just wondering if anyone knows.

[moviegeek65]

1)It is illegal to upload or download a copyrighted song(or video) from a P2P site.
2)In the US you are allowed to make one backup copy of a CD but you can't sell it. If you sell the original you must destroy the backup.
3)If you buy music online(non DRM) you can make as many copies as you like but you can't share or sell them.

In the US, copyright lawsuits are tried in civil court and it's up to the copyright owner to prosecute.

[moviegeek65]

4) Under US copyright law, if you convert (rip) an original CD that you own to digital files, then this qualifies as 'Fair Use'. As long as you use it for your own personal use and don't distribute the copyrighted material to others, then you will not be breaking the law.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/

[dimentagon]

This is another ridiculous and frivolous lawsuit by the RIAA, (Repressive, Idiotic, Antiquated ********) upon a Joesaphene average. They can?t get Kazza so they sue a single mum? The only message that is sending to the market is one which holds its clients, the record buying public in contempt. This will actually have the opposite effect as it has been proven that a non confrontational, co-operative incentive based model will work.

The way we consume and purchase music, for better or worse is changing as people are moving their music collections to a server type app like Itunes on a dedicated PC synced to an Ipod. Sony is a sinking ship; remember when they owned the personal portable music market with the Walkman? Apple stole the market from them by being open source and giving Itunes away for free linked to a store and eventually flooding the market with Ipods at multiple price points. This is while the Sony dickheads were figuring out ways to charge you for the music application, a proprietary compression algorithm, the hardware plus the music with a licensing fee. Then lets not forget there DRM debacle and putting spybot phone home malware in their CD's only to be caught red handed by a high level Microsoft development contractor testing software who happened to put a recently purchased CD in his drive and noticed something strange.

If Sony BMG and the RIAA spent all the money they have wasted in litigation in the last 10 years on delivering better ways of distributing music and got on board with Apple, the industry would be stronger and better for it. The Kazza's and alike would exist but the percentage split would be the opposite (90% legit and 10% illegal). If a song was 10 cents they would have made billions by now with a very small percentage of lost revenue. People like myself look at this and say to these ******* dinosaurs, well if you actually invested in new talent, artist development, created a realistic pricing structure and stopped ******* with artists and movie makers artistic license , I would sympathize with your cause. What is wrong with this picture? Desperate corporate entity with streams of litigation lawyers on 1000 clams an hour picking the life from the dying rotting corpse of extinct irrelevant toothless beast. "I know" says the clueless opportunistic succubus lawyer hanging like a parasite off the purse strings of the record companies shareholders,"we cant get Kazza, ISP's or anyone of note so we will sue that penniless mother in Michegan that will show em".

[nealb2]

I this judgement did they assume that everybody who accessed the shared songs would have purchased the song otherwise? I think that this is a crucial point in deciding on a punishment.
Probably 1:1000 people downloaded instead of buying. The other 999 just wanted to listen to see if they liked it ,as they would on the radio, and would never purchase.

[ralfthedog]

They don't know if anyone did access the songs. They just assume it.

[`WarpKat]

I dunno...stab someone and get a day in jail and released...or copy 24 songs where nobody was physically harmed and get a $1.9M penalty...stab someone...copy 24 songs...stab...copy...

Hard decision to make.

[Dalkorian]

Maybe I can help ... stab a RIAA executive!
;-)