RIAA Verdict: P2P File Sharer Liable, $222,000 in Damages

Thu Oct 4, 2007 10:55PM EDT

See Comments (24)

As promised, it was a short trial. And the verdict is in: Jammie Thomas is guilty of copyright infringement and now owes the record industry $222,000, quite a bit less than the millions she could have been found liable for, but certainly enough to likely bankrupt the single mother.

The jury assigned a value of $9,250 to each infringed recording. No one is sure how that number was reached.

I can't say I'm not disappointed. Not because Thomas wasn't guilty; she certainly went out of her way to appear so (potentially handing over the wrong hard drive to the RIAA for examination), and her legal team's defense was atrocious to the point of being nonexistant (relying exclusively on the idea that some hacker might have used her usual user name and her computer without her knowledge). Rather, I'm upset because this will do nothing but encourage the RIAA to continue its strongarm tactics, which it will probably step up now that it has a legal precedent to back up its Gestapo-class threats.

Thomas's case is merely the first, however, to make it to trial. There will certainly be others (though probably fewer, as more will settle now that the RIAA has established a real track record in court) and hopefully some of them will have lawyers with a better grasp on the complicated issues here.

One thing is certain: Watch for more RIAA fearmongering in the coming months. Hey, it's almost Halloween.

Comments on RIAA Verdict: P2P File Sharer Liable, $222,000 in Damages

Post a Comment

Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.

  • 6 Posted by justin.lewsader@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:44PM EDT Report Abuse

    If file-sharing is illegal... would it be illegal if I were to copy a friends CD for my personal use? I haven't seen any cases over that yet.. so why crack on P2P users? I thought copyright only pertained to the "you cant sell a copy you made to make your own profits" type of thing?

  • 7 Posted by agustin2489 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    Haha, nice Halloween pun there. Well, not really. Anyway, this news was rather expected even though it's sad nonetheless. Like rogueist, there will be blood shed over this. I rather doubt there would be a lot of blood (seriously, this is a bureaucracy and they know how to pace themselves). I can't see this ending soon. I can't see it ending ever, if the conditions prove to be just right. I just won't bother caring about this soon enough. It may sound rather apathetic but I'm just going to move on and wait for some progress.

  • 8 Posted by david_m_morrison on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:38PM EDT Report Abuse

    Naturally, I'm sympathetic to the idea that this single mother is now forced to file for bankruptcy, but I have to agree with catrandom's points above. As for the author of the article, it didn't require a crystal ball to see how the precedent on this was going to turn out. Every mp3 download creates a reproduction of a copyrighted work and every upload distributes a copy of that work. Copyright law has always protected the rights of reproduction and distribution as essential to the economic incentive to create and invest in creative works. There is absolutely no way a court could have come down the other way on the law. As it's written, it's infrinement - plain and simple. Whether or not the laws ought to change is a matter for public discourse and legislative consideration and is well beyond the power of a judge.

  • 9 Posted by m_knopp on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:32PM EDT Report Abuse

    As much as I hate the RIAA and the recording industry giants, this was a pretty clear cut case as far as the law is concerned. She violated copyright law, or at least there was enough circumstantial evidence that it was her to find her guilty. That being said it is way past the point where the American people demand that the copyright law be changed to better reflect the constitutional requirement to promote development and growth and the current state of technology in the world. The very term copyright is antiquated and misleading. The issue never should have been and should not be now the copying of a work. Copying of a work without distribution does nothing to harm innovation. It is all about distribution. That is where the law needs to be changed. We need to take away the rights of a copyright holder to dictate how their works can be copied. In the digital age copies necessarily must be made for media to even function, and the idea that allowing any company to dictate how a person enjoys legally purchased content in any way encourages development is flat out wrong. The system is flawed and outdated and needs changed. So, do something about it write your representative. Research bills wishing to change the copyright laws in ways that are more fair to the public and less concerned with allowing the media industry to legislate a continuation of what is nothing more then a business model. I recommend anyone interested visit the Electronic Frontier Foundations website and become active of they truly want to make a difference.

  • 11 Posted by gregfountain on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:12PM EDT Report Abuse

    Christopher, it seems to me that you are an advocate of theft. Let me ask you this: If you were an artist, and you painted a masterpiece that was then converted into a print for sale at the local gallery, you would be okay if one person bought the print, scanned it onto thier hard drive, then spread it all over the place via a P2P network, for people to download, print, frame, and hang on thier wall, with no additional compensation to you. That's okay?

  • 12 Posted by jefftoddc on Mon Oct 8, 2007 2:19PM EDT Report Abuse

    Well what else can be said except.... It's just another sad day in the world of we "small" folk. But hey, at least some millionaire got another unnecessary buck out of it.

  • 13 Posted by wilshirevermontstation on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:47PM EDT Report Abuse

    People you are not looking at the bigger picture. When you download songs for free. Think about the artist that's their JOB! That's how they make money. So you really are stealing from them also. But RIAA is fighting for them. Put your self in thier shoes (The artist). The part where they are trying to sue the dead people. I don't think they know at first. I will say that I have downloaded also one or two songs from their cds to see if I like it. If I do I go and buy the CD and delete the songs.

  • 14 Posted by aaronofmatrix on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    I think people would stop downloading music files and ripping MP3s if the price of the CDs themselves would drop. Not all the people have the type of cash to buy all those music. The record labels are already earning tons of money from it, and if they really want to stop piracy, they'd lower the prices of their products, and lower the gazillions of dollars they spend on hype. Let the substance of their products do the selling for a change. That'll lower costs and maintain profits.

  • 15 Posted by wobuhow on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:49PM EDT Report Abuse

    I'm not sure why people are defending Jammie Thomas. She broke the law and needs to face the music. The problem here is people have the notion that stealing music is ok, that it's not a crime. Well, there are thousands of people that work to bring you music - musicians, songwriters, publishers, record companies - it's a business and people need to get paid for it. It's about time the music industry actively protects it's greatest asset - the music. If you owned a business would it be ok if people just took what you were offering and passed it to anyone for free? Do people actively copy DVDs or video games? Why would copying and sharing music be any different? It's illegal folks, music is an asset that should be purchased or the entire model falls apart.

  • 16 Posted by jr10ike on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:42PM EDT Report Abuse

    These people must have a huge crack habit to go after the "little" people with such singleminded fury. Puff on folks. Your time will come.

  • 17 Posted by nickanderson74 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:37PM EDT Report Abuse

    It is funny that the Musicians like Metallica and others are still making millions of dollars. Entertainers make more money off of tours then CD's anyways. The record companies as a whole are still making billions. The CEO's were just scared to lose their multi-million dollar salaries. Technology is changing and if the RIAA does not go with the times; they will be a distant memory. buy from Independent labels...

  • 18 Posted by daren_mongello on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:36PM EDT Report Abuse

    Here's what I dont get: if I own a CD arent I allowed to duplicate it as many times as I want as long as I dont distribute it for free? Also it seems a bit silly that the RIAA ia ble to win these cases on IP addresses and hard drives alone. Let that be a lesson to you folks: Save your files to a hard drive that you can slap a large magnet to in a moment's notice.

  • 19 Posted by prgutierrez@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:18PM EDT Report Abuse

    If I buy a cd and give it as a gift is that breaking the Law? What is the differnce if I share a file. At some point the music was copied off a cd which was purchased. I can give anything I want once I own it. Whether that be clothes, books, whatever. I can understand if someone is copying to sell material. Sharing files is not illegal...I think her representation was weak at best.

  • 20 Posted by o2baguru on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:43PM EDT Report Abuse

    I find it strange that 1) File sharing can be illegal 2) You can search and find numerous P2P products to assist you in breaking the law. And why are we going after our own, so to speak, instead of the really big violators? I work on a cruise ship, and when we pull into a port, it's possible to buy shrink wrapped media of movies and CD's that have just been released. In some cases, you can get the DVD before the movie is even released in theaters! Hollywood probably looses Billions in overseas revenue due to international piracy. Yet here you have a U.S. Government agency going after the small fish when the big one got away. In Turkey, you can buy DVD's of movies currently in Cinema's. And for what? $10-$15 dollars. New movie releases at stores have risen to $19-$22, when they used to be $14. Movie tickets have climbed from $4.50 to over $11.00 in some places. So it's actually cheaper to buy the DVD than it is to go to the theaters now factoring in gas, dinner, refreshments, and parking. Software is another area in which our overseas friends are making a killing. You can get $700 titles for around $10, a little more than the cost of a blank CD. And these guys aren't shy, they setup their stores right on the sidewalk. I would like to hear more that our government is working to protect AMERICA. But more and more it seems that we need to protect everyone else's interests in the world. But, oh yeah American's, you get to pay the bill.

  • 21 Posted by ronglos@verizon.net on Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:46PM EDT Report Abuse

    I will state up front that I strongly disagree with these strong arm tactics of the RIAA. However, using these P2P programs to download songs is no different that walking into your neighborhood Walmart and sticking CD's down your pants. Please don't use the line that by listening to these songs kids buy more CD's. Using these programs is blatant stealing and these people that participate obviously do so at their own risk.

  • 22 Posted by zigzag58@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 11:00PM EDT Report Abuse

    I remember there was time before cds and hard drives and mp3 players. My friends and I would buy "boomboxes" and stay up all night listening to music on the radio and record it. The next day we would share it with each other. I guess we were the first to steal music and profits from RIAa. Thank GOD those radio stations we used to listen to are now defunct. darn, it just stuck me I was responsible for the demise of those stations. What to do what to do? Why do companies still make devices which are capable of recording sound waves and computers. This is all Steve Jobs and Bill Gates fault. No wait,it was Thomas Edison who first reproduced sound wasn't it? Why doesn't the rIaa sue his descendants? As long as there are people who are to cheap, can't afford or just don't want to pay out the nose for things there will always be knock-offs or copies of the things people want.Just look at the shoe market , Adidas, Reebok, Nike to name a few in any large city you can find vendors who are selling knock-offs and people who can't afford the real thing for thier kids will buy them because of thier economic stature. NowhereIam

  • 23 Posted by hardrockingronnie on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:16PM EDT Report Abuse

    REAL BLOOD??? Give me a break. Over a bunch of songs? Save that for WW3. If she is low or middle income the RIAA will never recover anyway. These lawsuits are really meant to send a signal. Napster was shut down VERY publically. We all know what the law is. That being said...I am an artist. I need to make an honest living. The record company has to have money to promote the artist which makes the company money who pays the numerous people behind the scenes that make advertising touring and recording possible. Would you get up and go to work every day for nothing??? What would be the motivation? Unfortunetly, a real musical education costs money. So does everything else that goes into making a CD. OH and the biggest thing is the artist gets a VERY small percent of each CD sold anyway. No matter what anyone says, it's a really hard profession to make a decent living. You can look at it like it's hacking into the artists bank account and then sharing all the money with all your friends. Would that be cool? Would you accept that? There has to be a balance between the record companies and the consumers. NOT A WAR! Neither side will win. I can tell you they'll be such a void for good music (or music you like) because any dreams for success will be gone if you kill the revenue collecting companies such as ASCAP or BMI. On the other hand, I would not have ever heard some of the cool and great music from the past if not for Napster. Much is Hardly ever played on the radio...and I loved it as a family videoographer. I could cop a relavant soundtrack at the click of a mouse. It made my family laugh and I never intended to make a dime (it was for my family only) SO I DO UNDERSTAND that side too. Consider NOT leaving the P2P program on constantly and limit what's in the folder you share. Maybe a little moderation from both sides would be helpful in avoiding any bloodshed...jeeeze...chill.

  • 24 Posted by georgebrooks1 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:07PM EDT Report Abuse

    Well lets look at something if you sue the people who buy your music and the continue to lose. They will not be able to afford to buy the musice. So the RIAA will loose however the lawyers always win.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 Next Last

Post a Comment

Sign In to Post a Comment

My Tech

Please enable your browser's cookies to activate the My Tech column.

Also on Yahoo! Tech

Computers Home Office Wi-Fi & Networking Phones & PDAs Cameras & Camcorders TV & Home Theater Portable Audio
 

Site Map | Tour | Subscribe to Yahoo! Tech

Question and Answer content at Yahoo! Tech is written by Yahoo! users at Yahoo! Answers. Yahoo! does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any Yahoo! Answers content. For more information, read the Full Disclaimer.

Opinions expressed by the Advisors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Yahoo! Inc. Yahoo! receives no compensation from any manufacturer or distributor nor does it compensate any Advisor for the coverage of any product or service in any Advisor's content.