The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) won the first of many digital music file sharing cases Thursday against a single mother, with a U.S. jury finding her guilty of copyright infringement and fining her a total of $222,000.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota could have fined Jammie Thomas as much as $3.6 million, but opted not to. She was found guilty of stealing and giving away via Internet peer-to-peer Internet file-sharing service Kazaa a total of 24 songs from companies including Capitol Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
News source: ITworld.com
The U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota could have fined Jammie Thomas as much as $3.6 million, but opted not to. She was found guilty of stealing and giving away via Internet peer-to-peer Internet file-sharing service Kazaa a total of 24 songs from companies including Capitol Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
News source: ITworld.com
So, yes, the RIAA would do this to keep making their point. As their outdated business model collapses, they are doing anything they can to squeeze every last bit of change from the consumers who are turning away from them in droves. It's what dinosaurs do when they can't/won't evolve and adapt.
Viva Radiohead.
Why bother, seriously.
Money hungry, that's all they are.
Last edited by PureLegend on 05 Oct 2007 - 20:26
oh come off it, the punishment is way too severe. we're not talking about a physical product with actual value, its a digital piece of code that costs them nothing, she probably wouldn't have bought the cd's even if she couldn't have got them off a p2p. i'm not justifying her actions, but they could've found other arrangements/punishments a little more inline.
since whe can you buy a house and a lambo for $222,000. A lambo costs about $250,000
Here the details with pic and video:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/busines...adingmusic.html
DUPE
THIS NEWS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED
GRRR
It's not about how much she should have paid for the song, but how much all of the people who downloaded it off of her would pay.
It's not about how much she should have paid for the song, but how much all of the people who downloaded it off of her would pay.
So, if I go rent a movie, then rip said movie, the rental place is the one that should be held responsible, not me.
She should only be held responsible for the individual songs, not what other people MIGHT have downloaded
from her, especially since there was no evidence at all anyone actually did
Even if they deleted it when they found out it was crap?
This is like the RIAA's "estimate" of how many billions they're losing annually due to piracy. Strange world we live in where speculation is fact.
No, because you commited the crime, not the rental place. They acted legally, because it's legal to rent movies. However, it is criminal to share music without the owner's permission. Yes, even just share it for public download. No one even really has to download it. There have been plenty of cases for facilitating copyright infringement this way. Yes, this opens for grey areas, but in this case, I don't think the area is too grey, since it involves this material placed in a P2P upload folder. Such material rarely get there by itself or even by accident.
Sure, one can argue the same thing holds for a rental place, but one also have to admit that there's one more link in the chain (= which would be you) in order for the crime to take place, which makes the the rental place able to provide their service in good faith. Telling it wasn't in bad faith to place music in a Kazaa share folder is probably quite a bit harder to convince a court about, since there's no such link in the chain, and it's actually a direct method to facilitate piracy by placing material without the copyright holder's permission there.
I don't know about you, but this logic seems more reasonable to me, if talking current laws here, not the morale of the current legislation.
Last edited by Jugalator on 05 Oct 2007 - 18:41
It's not about how much she should have paid for the song, but how much all of the people who downloaded it off of her would pay.
And by that very definition, the people downloaded made it clear they were willing to pay absolutely, completely, clearly NOTHING for the songs in question.
P2P is digital radio, people. If you hear it and then like it, you might buy it. Same business model as the past 70+ years...just with a different distribution model.
What's next? I steal a burger and McDondals sues me for $5000 (and $100 for the ketchup)?
If the RIAA is gonna sue you for ridiculous amounts of money every time you download a song, I want each song evaluated for it's intrinsic value BEFORE the jury is allowed to decide what the song is worth. I think two cents is about right for most of it (less if it's rap).
I go confront them and say 500.00 or I call the cops I do this daily by the way the grocery’s are worth only 100.00
Regardless, they had her six ways from Sunday on her identity. I can't believe her lawyer went through with the suit instead of settling for a few thousand. I don't support that with the RIAA normally (they are scumbags) but in this case she was bagged and tagged.
I hope they appeal the amount. It is patently absurd.
cause it's insane to fine someone $222,000 for sharing some fricking mp3's! ... cause for example say she shared 1000 songs and say roughly 5000 people downloaded a song from her and you figure 1 dollar per song... so RIAA etc would "claim" 5000 dollars in damages when in reality not all those 5000 people would have paid for those songs if they could not get em for free... so what im saying is there "loses" aint as bad as there claiming they are. (i said this many times before but it has a strong point if you ask me if you use common sence)
cause the bottom line is 222k is unreasonable!
and like people said in this forum.... the RIAA is got no real proof of there damages right? ... so it's basically all "estimation" which is BS! cause they could make up any figure just to suck more money out of people.... what i dont get is HOW in the world the jury would agree to 222k in damages for music sharing! ... 222k is pretty much peoples life savings type money!
cause it's insane to fine someone $222,000 for sharing some fricking mp3's! ... cause for example say she shared 1000 songs and say roughly 5000 people downloaded a song from her and you figure 1 dollar per song... so RIAA etc would "claim" 5000 dollars in damages when in reality not all those 5000 people would have paid for those songs if they could not get em for free... so what im saying is there "loses" aint as bad as there claiming they are. (i said this many times before but it has a strong point if you ask me if you use common sence)
cause the bottom line is 222k is unreasonable!
and like people said in this forum.... the RIAA is got no real proof of there damages right? ... so it's basically all "estimation" which is BS! cause they could make up any figure just to suck more money out of people.... what i dont get is HOW in the world the jury would agree to 222k in damages for music sharing! ... 222k is pretty much peoples life savings type money!
There's a flaw in your thinking. If there were absolutely NO places to download a song for free, people would pay to download a song only to find out it was crap and delete it anyways. So, yes, there is actual monetary loss for all 5000 people who downloaded songs from her. I'm by no means pro RIAA, but that arguement doesn't hold water.
My feelings on the matter - anyone stupid enough to download/share music over the web deserves whatever is thrown at them. Get smart people - burn it on cd/usb device and share.
I agree, i'd like to hear more details about that. Also, if she downloaded and also shared the songs, which i'm assuming thats what she did, would she be in less monetary trouble if she only downloaded them?
The government does not define morality. God does. These judgements are immoral, and these laws are immoral. Hence, your moral high ground has been reduced to a moral ditch. And, this is the same government that has killed tens of thousands of innocent women and children in the past few years. It's leaders are in... big ethical trouble.
But, is it moral to steal from compaines who are stealing from the people (public and artists)? That's arguable. But I say, it serves such companies right.
You're "point" makes no sense. The property owners filed and won this lawsuit.
Problem is, if she asks for a re-trial the RIAA may press to have her pay the legal fees too.
Race had absolutely nothing to do with it.
What a bunch of money-hungry assmongers. Disgusting.
I guess then, looking at it from a different point of view would be that people who download music are freeloading thieves. I find great humor in this actually. Everyone knows the law. everyone knows the RIAA could potentially come after you. everyone who downloads music, movies or whatever knows that it's stealing. Yet everyone cries foul when they get caught.
TBH, I hope you all get caught and have to pay just as high of fines as she does.
The real problem here is that there is a corporate "entitlement" mentality going on right now.
They're making statements like:
"We made 5 billion (fictional number here for example) in sales last year and now we're down to 4 Billion (again, a fictional number just for the sake of example)! It MUST be the INTERNET's fault with all those thieving p2p users! Let's make like Scientology and SUE... SUEEEEEEEE THEM! We'll get our sales back if we SCARE them into buying!"
When they really should be saying:
"We're down a billion in sales this year. What are we doing wrong and how can we increase incentive for someone to buy our product? Should we stop putting out socially unconscionable material by rappers who talk about shooting their enemies and beating their 'hos' and doing drugs? Should we stop pushing slutty starlets out like <insert your favorite Madonna/Britney/Courtney Love clone's name here> so parents will buy their kids music instead of protesting it?"
Who says they are ENTITLED to the sales figures they quote? The last time I checked, there was such a thing as "market forces" and "free enterprise", which means people may or MAY NOT buy a product if they are dissatisfied with it. Could it POSSIBLY BE, just POSSIBLY, a problem with their product?
LAWDS NO MASSAH! We jus' be buyin' whatevah' trash you gives us, massah!
who said people have stopped buying music? Have you looked at itune sales lately? Not to mention the half dozen or so other music outlets. Get real.
yea, throw that old excuse back into the fire. Listen, there is plenty of music you can legally purchase online . Singles, albums, Indy's, whatever. Quit drudging up a 5 year old excuse.
who said people have stopped buying music? Have you looked at itune sales lately? Not to mention the half dozen or so other music outlets. Get real.
yea, throw that old excuse back into the fire. Listen, there is plenty of music you can legally purchase online . Singles, albums, Indy's, whatever. Quit drudging up a 5 year old excuse.
Actually, most music these days is utter drivel. It doesn't cater to my tastes, therefore, it's utter drivel to me and people with the same tastes as me. So my tastes and the tastes of people like me, drive me to either not buy anything because I don't like what I hear, and so are a lot of other people.
Just because I don't like listening to prepackaged corporate-driven Britney/Madonna/Nickleback clones, doesn't mean any "INDIE" artists are the answer either. I've tried to find "Indie" artists that sound the way I like, and I haven't. SO, I vote with my pocketbook and do not reward any of them, and go back to my CD collection and listen to the good stuff I do have.
It's not an excuse to say "I'm not buying because the product sucks."
I'm not here to argue whether or not illegal downloading is right or wrong, either. Sure, it's wrong. But it's not the big evil that the RIAA would like everyone to think it is, either. The RIAA also isn't in this for their consumers, either. They're in this for themselves and no one else.
Remember, these are the people that tried to kill digital music in it's infancy. Read the RIAA faq at : http://www.riaa.com/faq.php and pay special attention to the last item, #13, and remember, THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT TRIED TO KEEP MP3 PLAYERS FROM REACHING THE MARKET back with the Diamond Rio lawsuit!
Last edited by WeezulDK on 05 Oct 2007 - 22:59
Of course they are in it for themselves. What big corporation isn't in it for themselves? That's a moot point. And to some people, it is a big evil. Especially to those that obtain thier digital media (not just music), legally.
Devices and technology are not the problem. It’s when people use technology to break the law that we take issue.
Again and again, we have embraced the technological advances that have allowed millions upon millions of people around the world to enjoy the music we create. We want fans to enjoy their iPods, CD burners, and other devices, but we want them to do so responsibly, respectfully, and within the law.
what's wrong with that answer? They aren't condoning mp3 players or cd burners in the least bit. They are condoning people who use those devices to obtain media illegally.
Um, I think you have it backwards. Condoning means that you agree with.
i'd love to swear the crap out of my soul.... ARGHZORS... '§"$§$§/$
Glassed Silver:mac
That's one of the dumbest staements on Neowin yet
where are you getting your information? There hasn't been a case that has gone to trial until now. The RIAA has been collecting money from people by settling out of court on a great deal of thier cases.
you are just another case of someone talking about something they have no clue about
I have always been told to share since I could talk.
Well, it just goes to show you that the world isn't perfect – or even fair.
When I was in my early twenties, I got a job driving an ice cream truck. You know, the ones that drive through people's neighborhoods playing music and selling ice cream to kids. Well, as you can imagine, I consistently had little 2- and 3-year-olds running up to the truck wanting an ice cream, but having no money to pay for it.
How do you explain to a small child that doesn't yet understand the concept of payment for goods that he or she can't have ice cream while all the other kids do? I still don't know the answer to that question. What I do know is that this was a commission job, and I lost all my commissions giving away ice cream to little kids. Which means I didn't keep that job very long.
Doesn't hardly seem fair, does it?
again, ignorance shines thru on neowin. Does a child share that toy with over 1,700 people?
Why would she even contest the charges when her own lawyer has that kind of fee?
Its just a joke what our justice system is here in America. Its all based on who has the money/influence.
Unless I am wrong, this was a civil case, not a criminal case. In cases such as these, monetary damage is the only option. She would have had to been charged in a criminal case to be given community service.
He's probably a shareholder, don't wanna go losing one of their biggest investors now would they?
in my opinion!
the single mother ,bad luck
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.