A second guilty verdict for Jammie Thomas

Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:24PM EDT

See Comments (26)

In October 2007, poor Jammie Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement for downloading and sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa P2P network. She was ordered to pay the record industry a whopping $222,000, or $9,250 per song, which many observers decried as outrageous at the time.

Thomas (now known as Jammie Thomas-Rasset) eventually wrangled a mistrial over the way jury instructions were presented in the proceedings, and earlier this month her new trial began.

The verdict is now in: Guilty, again. The fine: $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song!

Accounts note that Thomas-Rasset "gasped and her eyes widened" as the dollar amount was read -- but later added in an interview that actually collecting the money would be like "squeezing blood from a turnip."

Legal observers are shocked by the result. Some are even wondering whether the judgment is constitutional, considering it an improper and "grossly excessive" punitive damage and suggesting that such awards, designed to "send a message" to other infringers, cross constitutional lines. Naturally, an appeal of the case itself is also planned to a higher court.

Ars Technica notes that the record industry might not actually be so thrilled with such an insanely high verdict, as it's likely to fuel even more ill will toward the RIAA and the financially struggling record industry, as such a judgment paints them as deep-pocketed corporate vultures cruelly preying on individuals. The RIAA says it's still willing to reach a settlement with Thomas-Rasset, but has declined to offer any specifics on what a settlement might look like.

Meanwhile, Thomas-Rasset says she's determined to keep fighting the case... that is, as long as her pro-bono attorneys are willing to stand by her side.

Comments on A second guilty verdict for Jammie Thomas

Post a Comment

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

  • 1 Posted by burnedware on Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    Almost 2 million bucks for just 24 songs? That's insane!

  • 2 Posted by bella77427 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 1:59PM EDT Report Abuse

    Turnip juice it is. People never learn the easy way. The thought process is....hmmm I'll just have to be more careful next time so I won't get caught. They don't think they are doing anything wrong hence someone has to be made an example of so the rest of us can do the right thing. I've said it before and I'll say it again....the life of a singer/recording artist is not an easy thing. All the public sees is the glitzy side of things. Those who work for their money should benefit not those who don't.

  • 4 Posted by paucm0 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:03PM EDT Report Abuse

    The dollar amount doesn't matter, she'll just declare before she pays it. It's hard for me to feel sorry for these people anymore. The RIAA has been warning people forever now about illegal downloads. Assumption of risk as far as I'm concerned. Just pay the $1 for the song and be done with it.

  • 5 Posted by kns98 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:21PM EDT Report Abuse

    If you want to be fair, she should only be liable for the number of downloads from her computer, and not the recursive effect of Kazaa. Even that is excessive, because when people pirate music, the are more likely to buy it or recommend it to friends, so I dont think it really hurts the RIAA that much. However, I am considering boycotting any label under the RIAA for good ( for life ) these people are beyond sleaze according to me. I would also recommend artists to form their own independant labels, and get rid of these blood thirsty executives.

  • 6 Posted by kns98 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:23PM EDT Report Abuse

    and to bella, we dont make examples fo people, that is what they did in the middle ages. The law should be just, fair and proportionally and applied equally to all offenders.

  • 7 Posted by bella77427 on Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:52PM EDT Report Abuse

    Kns98 We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one middle ages or not. I know anyone reading of her consequences will be less enthused to fall into the same situation than if the charges were a mere.....$100.00

  • 8 Posted by yooperjer on Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:02PM EDT Report Abuse

    the verdict was posted on the news portion of yahoo earlier today. The total number of songs was closer to 1,700 but she was tried for 24 for simplicity. She should have stteled out of court when she was offered a settlement of $3,500. Stealing is stealing no matter how it is accomplished.

  • 9 Posted by rogueist on Fri Jun 19, 2009 4:40PM EDT Report Abuse

    Hopefully the Supreme Court will fast track this one and take it up for a ruling ASAP.

More Posts: First Prev 1 2 3 Next Last

Post a Comment