Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Jammie Thomas-Rasset: Fined $2-Million in RIAA Kazaa Appeal
Share:
by Tina Kells | June 18, 2009 at 07:11 pm
1772 views | 10 Recommendations | 14 comments
You may or may not remember Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the woman who lost a lawsuit for sharing 24 copyrighted songs on the peer to peer network Kazaa in 2007. In the original lawsuit the RIAA was awarded damages against Jammie Thomas-Rasset to the tune of $222,000, or $9,250 per song. Jammie Thomas-Rasset appealed that judgment and lost again; this time she was fined $2-million.
Photos
In the trial the RIAA was not even able to prove that Jammie Thomas-Rasset had shared all 24 songs that lived in her 'Shared Music' file. The RIAA was only able to establish that 11 songs had actually been shared with other Kazaa users. This means that the $2-million fine levied in the appeal case works out to $181,818 per song.
It is very hard to believe that the 11 songs shared by Jammie Thomas-Rasset on Kazaa cost any of the record labels $181,818 per song, but that is what the appeals jury decided to award. The second RIAA win is nearly ten times greater than the first and court observers feel that a general dislike by jurors toward Jammie Thomas-Rasset, rather than the facts, led to the precedent setting loss.
Among the facts presented by the defense that some feel should have invalidated the first RIAA win is the way in which the chief complainant obtained information about Jammie Thomas-Rasset's Kazaa sharing history. It has been alleged by defense lawyers that MediaSentry, who collected sharing data for the RIAA, violated the privacy rights of Jammie Thomas-Rasset when building their case.
Thomas-Rasset's was the first trial in the campaign against individual file-sharers that the RIAA began in 2003 and ended late last year. As such, it was one of the few tests of the legal underpinnings of that campaign, including the argument that making tracks available to others online (by keeping them in a folder that was open for sharing) was a form of infringement. U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis instructed the jury in Thomas-Rasset's first trial that making songs available was an infringement, a low threshold that would enable the labels to prove piracy just by collecting lists of the songs in people's shared folders. But Davis second-guessed himself after the verdict and ordered a new trial, mirroring the views of several other judges who had rejected the RIAA's interpretation of the law.
The result of the second trial suggests that the higher threshold isn't enough to derail the labels in an infringement lawsuit. The RIAA's anti-piracy contractor, MediaSentry, presented evidence that Thomas-Rasset actually distributed 11 copyrighted songs through Kazaa (to MediaSentry's investigators), and cited metadata from tracks in her shared folder strongly suggesting that the files had themselves been downloaded, not purchased or ripped from her CD collection. RIAA witnesses also linked the Kazaa uploads to a unique identifier on Thomas-Rasset's modem and computer and showed that the unusual username on the Kazaa account matched one that Thomas-Rasset acknowledged using on several other websites. In other words, the RIAA's case was built entirely on circumstantial evidence, but there was a lot of it.
Thomas-Rasset and her attorneys seemed eager to continue their battle against the RIAA, and although the trade group insists that it doesn't plan to file any new cases, there are still a number of older claims yet to be resolved. Defense attorneys are fighting these on several fronts, arguing that, among other things, MediaSentry's investigative tactics were illegal.
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Most Recommended Comment
Wow...Really? (not verified)
Crowd Power
eccecattus
Chicago, Illinois, United States
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (14)
at 20:24 on June 18th, 2009
I think this whole situation with the RIAA is absurd! How in the world can they want to drag a mother of 4 into court, with her havin to pay already out the legal fees that she probably has, and then a jury of 12 finds her guilty. And then wants her to pay back $80,000 for each song!! That is just absolutely worthless on the 12 panel jury decision and to the record companies who are after havin wantin this lady to pay. I dont care if it was her sons or her who shared songs, if she went out and spent her hard earn dollars on a CD and wanted to upload them on her PC and get on a file sharin program, that is her business, that is her RIGHT! Its no different then me goin out here, buyin a few CD's and loanin them to a family member or a friend who wants to take it home and copy the disc for their own personal use. I bought it, its MINE and I can do whatever I want to with it. These recordin artist and their labels make enuff money off one concert, so why must they complain when one buys a CD and share a few songs. Just pure greedy and selfishness is what these record companies are. They make so much money in a day, everyday, that they think they are to good and I bet if they lost every dime they had, they wouldnt, nor couldnt make it out on the street as a regular civilian. Just plain down right disgustin these people are.
at 20:41 on June 18th, 2009
I wont spend a dime on music from now on.
at 02:33 on June 19th, 2009
Here's what Cary Sherman had to say ... http://politicomix.blogspot.com/2009/06/winning-hearts-and-minds.html
at 03:37 on June 19th, 2009
Blaming filesharing for tumbling earnings is ridiculous. Entertainment, including music, is the first thing people economise on. This reversal of burden of proof in favor of RIAA, who didn't have to show they actually suffered harm from this specific incident is a travesty of justice. Thank goodness not every nation on this planet has high school dropouts try such cases.
at 06:34 on June 19th, 2009
According to chapter 5 subsection 16 (or is it chapter 16 subsection 5?) you cannot be charged and found guilty of copyright infringement unless you have A) Made it available, B) Downloaded over $1000 worth of music, C) Willfully distributed it and charged money. As far as I can tell, Ms Thomas-Rasset has done none of these. If I were her I'd be countersuing for slander and emotional distress.
at 06:43 on June 19th, 2009
You want the music, pay like everybody else. You want the music companies to go down the drain, then where are you going to get the music in the first place??? DUH...
at 07:25 on June 19th, 2009
I agree
at 12:25 on June 19th, 2009
I agree for the most part, but being charged $80,000 a song is ludicrous. And beside that, she only pirated 24 songs. That's hardly anything, two CD's worth of music. I agree that pirating music is bad, but this is NOT the road to take. This lawsuit wont solve anything, except make her life miserable.
Besides, the music companies obviously aren't too strapped for cash if they can afford to pay all these legal fees to keep going on these witch hunts. Going after a single mother of four who only pirated 24 songs? Please.
at 13:46 on June 20th, 2009
have you ever made a copy of a cd that you bought and gave it to a friend? i dont know how old you are, but when i was a kid, i would record what played on the radio. what is the difference? if i was your friend, and you just bought that awesome new Britney Spears CD, and i said i wanted to copy it, and you said OK, should it make a difference whether or not i hard copied it, or we both connected to a p2p site and i just copied off your hard drive? is it illegal if i plug a jump drive into your usb and copied it that way? no? do you want it to be someday? thats the road we are on. last time i flipped by MTV i am pretty sure that no one was showing off a crappy studio apartment because pirating has broke them.
at 06:52 on June 19th, 2009
Let's do a 100% music boycott! I won't buy music any more or participate in illegal downloading. Won't listen to the radio or free internet radio.
You can keep all the royalties to all your music, in the little tiny room of greediness, you fat cat freaks unable to adapt and change with the times, and count it like Midas all by your lonesome, while your cash dwindles away daily.
Charge 10 CENTS a song and I'll likely spend $40-$50 a month. Charge a buck a song, as if we're still living in the world of manufacturing, shipping, stocking & selling in a bricks & mortar store, and you won't get a dime, you greedy buggers.
To the Recording Industry and Artists Industry: you just don't get it. You don't get me, I don't buy you. Sayonara.
L, Canada
at 09:34 on June 19th, 2009
Apparently, the RIAA is also using Jammie Thomas-Rasset to set a precedent and warning to the public.
at 13:33 on June 19th, 2009
I have no idea about the details of this case, but did anyone presented as evidence the ISP traffic logs from her computer? Based on price of a song ($1), the fine covers like 80.000 downloaded copies per song. One mp3 song is about 3MB and been 24 songs, do some math and you will come up with some 6000GB total upload traffic from that computer... That just doesn't read good.. Any ISP would went crazy if a customer would made that kind of traffic.
at 04:02 on June 20th, 2009
Stupid thing...
at 01:57 on June 24th, 2009
Normal 0
Jammie Thomas Rasset has been making headlines as a person who has been made an example of, who really doesn't deserve it. Jammie Thomas Rasset has been sued by the RIAA for illegal downloading from Kazaa, and they want some instant cash to the tune of $1.9 million, for downloading 24 songs – 2 CDs worth. Intellectual property needs to be preserved, but given the history of the music industry, even a casual examination reveals that they only care about the gravy train, rather than the artist's intellectual property, and many recording contracts give almost all licensing to the record companies, which is who is behind the huge need for cash advance loans of epic proportions for Jammie Thomas Rasset.