Mom ordered to pay millions for illegal downloading

[Refugee 7]

The recording industry scored a victory this week when a Minnesota jury ruled that a 32-year-old mother of four willfully infringed on their copyrights by downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa peer-to-peer network, according to a Billboard report. Four major record labels were awarded $1.92 million in damages after the jury unanimously found Jammie Thomas-Rasset guilty of violating copyright law.

A spokesperson for the RIAA reportedly said the verdict---which represents $80,000 per track—may help dissuade more P2P users from illegally downloading music. However, some industry observers fear the massive dollar amount may spark a backlash against the recording industry, which is portrayed at times as overreaching, according to Billboard.

RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth said in a statement that the four major labels, all plaintiffs in the case, do not expect to collect the entire amount from Thomas-Rasset, who testified that her ex-boyfriend or sons, then 8 and 10, were most likely responsible for downloading and distributing the songs.

"Since day one, we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said. Thomas-Rasset reportedly is expected to appeal if the case isn't settled.

[angelic_22 0]

What was that jury thinking?

[nurktwin 2,143]

it's all bullshit, if they have the big bucks to sue, then they have the bucks to stop all this on the internet!! as far as i'm concerned, if it's on the net, it's free.

[angelic_22 0]

I dont go that far Nurk, and its pretty clear she downloaded a few songs, and they did show she was making them available for sharing (although they never showed anyone but the riaa downloaded them from her).

Still, fining her 80,000 per song is way out of proportion to any actual harm done. Its insane. I try to follow the rules but this kind of stuff makes me seethe and hope the riaa gets some serious payback.

[nurktwin 2,143]

IF the RIAA downloaded them for her, what's the problem? sue them!!!

[martin03345 167]

Why not just have them pay for the value of the song if caught. Or like 5 dollars a song. They aren't loosing that much money to begin with so that's just a ridiculous fine

[weird monkey 0]

It wasn't the downloading per se, but the file sharing that the huge damages award came from. The actual monetary value of $80,000 per track though, apparently came from the National Institute of Pulling Numbers from Our Smelly Nether Regions (NIPSNON).

It has been pointed out elsewhere though, and I hope the next jury hears and understands this:

The reason it is called 'file sharing' is that a single file is shared among any number of people, and the actual percentage of any file that was downloaded from her is probably a tiny fraction of the whole, so making her and her alone responsible for 'stealing and sharing' the entirety of each of the 24 files is ludicrous. So she probably only owes the RIAA about 87¢, according to my own 'careful' calculations (not having access to the venerable NIPSNON ).

[agirl 0]

Having a teenager in the house, my sympathy goes out to her. I already got a notice from Comcast about him downloading a song that was a no-no. I think the jury was full of idiots. I agree nurk if you're able to download it without paying for it too, bad, too sad.

Edited June 21, 2009 by agirl

[angelic_22 0]

"National Institute of Pulling Numbers from Our Smelly Nether Regions (NIPSNON)"

LMAO!!!!!

[surfnburn 5]

Yeah....the economic logic behind the $80,000 per track doesn't make sense. It's not about the music anymore. It's about paying the legal costs which are enormous. I think the meaning of the case is lost in the fact that it has gone into the legal system...lol

Also, they can't go after everyone who shares files. There's sort of a randomness; the probabilities of getting caught are with the downloader, so people are going to keep doing it. I don't know how this case will change things.