Woman Fined $222,000 for Sharing 24 Songs

happyvac

Member
"PC user fined $222,000 for sharing copyrighted music
By JOSHUA FREED
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
DULUTH, Minn. -- The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her.
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.
Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse. Jurors left without commenting.
"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.
In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.
Record companies have filed about 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.
During the three-day trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.
Toder said in his closing that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."
"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."
Gabriel called that defense "misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors."
He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders.
"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.
Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages of $9,250 per song; Gabriel said they did not explain to attorneys afterward how they reached that amount.
Thomas, of Brainerd, Minn., works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojib*we's Department of Natural Resources.
Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.
Illegal downloads have "become business as usual. Nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the RIAA, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."
Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place -- and later than she said in a deposition before trial.
The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party, though Thomas used her new one to show the jury how fast it copies songs from CDs. That was an effort to counter an industry witness's assertion that the songs on the old drive got there too fast to have come from CDs she owned -- and therefore must have been downloaded illegally.
Record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005, warning her that she was violating copyright law.
Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004, as she said in the deposition.
The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc."

Geez, and they wonder why so many people dislike major labels these days.
 

meleerock

Member
This is so rediculous. Im sure there is a lot more imortant things to worry about in this country rather than someone downloading music. Music should be created as an expresion of ones self, not a way to make millions of dollars, especially like this.
 

maxalmon

Active Member
These artist spending millions and millions on promoting their songs, they have an incredible # of people on the payroll, they pay taxes and they spend a lot of money...Why, because they are being payed for what you like them to do, if you don't pay them why shouldn't they get ticked and defend themselves? Do you honestly think in this real world they have been put here for your sole enjoyment at no cost, whats soever? these groups are spending millions of their own money from the revenu of their songs supporting other working people and you don't think it's fair to pay $1.00
 

meleerock

Member
Originally Posted by maxalmon
These artist spending millions and millions on promoting their songs, they have an incredible # of people on the payroll, they pay taxes and they spend a lot of money...Why, because they are being payed for what you like them to do, if you don't pay them why shouldn't they get ticked and defend themselves? Do you honestly think in this real world they have been put here for your sole enjoyment at no cost, whats soever? these groups are spending millions of their own money from the revenu of their songs supporting other working people and you don't think it's fair to pay $1.00

actually most bands that i listen to live off of their own money and work 100 times harder than the bands that have others write their songs for them. If a band wants to make their music heard then it should be by any means possible, even "illegal" sharing of music. If you dont want your music heard, by any means, then dont write it in the first place. This is the crap the clogs up our court systems. Lets worry about more important and meaningful issues shall we? Besides, if its fair to pay $1 for every song, then we can agree that its not fair to pay $9,250 a song cant we?
 

happyvac

Member
I don't download music (but I do own downloaded songs...long story), I buy CDs.
But to take a regular lady for all she's worth, and probably ruin her life, just to make a point - that's low. Low enough to make me want to stop supporting major record labels.
 

reefraff

Active Member
So say you spend two years and your life savings to invent a new product which you patent. You OK with numerous people stealing your design?
It's no secret music sharing is illegal. She got exactly what she deserved.
 

dinogeorge

Member
Should poetry, books and art be free too? Those are "just" expresions, right. So how come we can't scan art, or make copies of books without paying for them? I think everything should be free. Including the food in your fridge and the use of your car. I think I should look at how much money you make, and then decide if you are too greedy. Then, if I think you have made enough money I should decide how much of your stuff I can take, right?
Don't you agree? It sounds like some of you have decided that stealing songs from an artist is fine, because they have made too much money. So stealing is not that big a deal, right? But how about YOU. YOU make more money than a homeless person so should they be able to take your stuff and keep it?
Come on, let's here someone expain how stealing is ok, provided you steal from those who you THINK are making too much money. I think YOU make too much, so give me some of your stuff.
 

jmick

Active Member
As far as I am concerned the music being put out today is garbage that's all corporate invented and created and not worth the money they charge. Hell, it seems like half the singers today can't even sing their own songs live and lipsinc.
Also, I wonder how many concerts people have gone to after hearing a new song for a band they downloaded or how many cd's have been bought after hearing a song they downloaded?
 

jmick

Active Member
Originally Posted by Dinogeorge
Yeah, some of the theives who stole the music probably went to the concert.....and stole a t-shirt.
 

happyvac

Member
I'd like to point out that I don't condone stealing. The issue I have is the with the way they made an example of this lady. They've probably ruined her life - you can't pretend that's not a ridiculously excessive penalty for sharing some songs.
They could have found a better way to get their point across.
 

digitydash

Active Member
I download stuff to see if it worth the money if it is worth it I will buy it cause it better quality.If their is only 1 or 2 songs worth a crap I am not paying $15 for it JMHO.
 

limitedslip

Member
I'd like to make a point, that its only major record companies, a lot of artist in all genres will load there music up to be shared, because they know they will make more money this way by advertising. If they get their music out, they can make more off of merchandise like apparel and concerts. In fact, to quote a hip hop artist called Immortal techinque in one of his songs where he is talkin about how music has gone from a passion to an industry, he says about his own music "Burn it off the fu***ing Internet, and bump it outside."
what shouldve been done in court is to prove that she did take the song off of a CD and violate the copyright.
just my 2 cents.
 

meleerock

Member
Originally Posted by HappyVac
I'd like to point out that I don't condone stealing. The issue I have is the with the way they made an example of this lady. They've probably ruined her life - you can't pretend that's not a ridiculously excessive penalty for sharing some songs.
They could have found a better way to get their point across.
Completely aggree. How are the sites that make sharing music possible still in buisness? They should be the ones being punished. To ruin a persons life over something like this makes me sick... The whole situation is stupid and shallow.
On a side note I will always hate Metallica for being whiney and immature when it comes to this topic. To care about money more than the influence of music on others, especially a band that already has everything only makes me think 1 thing..... Sell outs. Without fans sharing their music in the first place these people would be nothing.
 

dinogeorge

Member
Yeah,
I think I should be able to go to a car dealership and take the tires off of a car. And if I like them, then I can always go back and purchase the rest of the car...later...if I want. Right?
I love these artists who sign a contract with the record companies, get paid an advance, and then announce that they are "all for free downloads". Yeah, once they get paid they say this. If giving away your songs for free leads to higher sales, then show me the band who has not signed with a recording company and has gone out and created a website to give away all of their songs for free. How much did they make? Seems that there should be tons of bands taking this incredible deal. Having someone take your work for free means you'll become rich.
 

meleerock

Member
not all bands are signed to major record labels. There are thousands of bands that would be more than happy to give away some cds or songs for free.
 

happyvac

Member
Originally Posted by Dinogeorge
Yeah,
I think I should be able to go to a car dealership and take the tires off of a car. And if I like them, then I can always go back and purchase the rest of the car...later...if I want. Right?
I love these artists who sign a contract with the record companies, get paid an advance, and then announce that they are "all for free downloads". Yeah, once they get paid they say this. If giving away your songs for free leads to higher sales, then show me the band who has not signed with a recording company and has gone out and created a website to give away all of their songs for free. How much did they make? Seems that there should be tons of bands taking this incredible deal. Having someone take your work for free means you'll become rich.
Those bands are all for downloading because very often it'll lead to a person buying the album/single/legally downloading it. No one just releases all of their songs without actually releasing a CD. Then there's absolutely no chance for profit.
I don't understand your logic.
 

dinogeorge

Member
You are right, there are lots of bands who struggle to make it in the industry who would gladly give away free CD's to try and promote themselves. But my point is, they can't make any money doing it.
If giving away your music online for free was a financial success, then they would all be doing it and these "thousands" of bands would be making a fortune. But the fact of the matter is that you can't give me the name of a single "succesfull" band that gives away their products for free. The only bands that can afford to give away "some" of their product for free are those who have already been succesfull through their partnerships with major lables or other business partners. It's pretty simple.
The majority of people who steal the works of others do not ultimatly spend money with them. Some of you do, but most don't. I know making excuses makes you feel better about it, but I bet if I broke into your house and "sampled" your stereo with the intention of coming back and buying your TV, you would call me a thief.
 
Top