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.
-
2 Posted by cnull on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:27PM EDT Report Abuse
I'm with you rogueist... only they've gone after 30,000 people over four years... and every month observers say the same thing: how bad it will be for the RIAA's image. Well, it just can't get any worse, so I figure they will just keep suing and suing until there are no more CDs being bought by anyone. But at least they'll have those $3000 settlements to retire on.
-
3 Posted by thekclyon on Thu Sep 3, 2009 10:04PM EDT Report Abuse
This ruling frustrates me beyond belief. Not only has the RIAA sued 12-year-old girls and dead people (yes, I said "dead people." Click the link to read more), they've now set legal precedents for file-sharing that will enable more victories in the courtroom. The RIAA has proved they can win solely on tracing the IP to the user. Sad, I know. My argument is copyright law in it's present form is archaic and not within the scope of what is becoming culturally acceptable. Since this Minnesota mother's lawyer didn't ask the following few questions, I will: How can you make a judgement against a single mom without an appropriate investigation or clear proof that the she is the infringer? If the RIAA did not have to prove she was sharing the songs or behind the keyboard when the downloading took place, how did she participate in "unauthorized reproduction and distribution"? If she has the right to a jury of her peers, how many tech-savvy P2P users sat in the jury box? Who was the ISP that surrendered this woman's confidential information? How do you "steal" something that can be reproduced infinitely for free? It's unfortunate that her 12 "peers," who obviously disagree with the millions of us, couldn't see the years of legal system abuse caused by the RIAA. It's time we reevaluate the copyright law before us. Obedience to this out-of-date law is tyranny. I strongly believe this MUST be changed. On a lighter note, I wouldn't fret too much. It's inevitable that another file-sharing network will respond with new innovative and increasingly complex ways to share content and circumvent efforts to stop groups such as the RIAA and MPAA. The defeat of these labels are coming... Congrats RIAA, you crushed a single mom; you only have about 1 million more to go. Until then, I'll be listening to my downloaded In Flames discography...
-
4 Posted by dehnger2u on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:40PM EDT Report Abuse
Un-FREAKING-believable Real blood indeed. Screw cd's.....
-
5 Posted by dcsoccer25 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:39PM EDT Report Abuse
Ha, they won't stop when CD's stop selling, they'll just continue on sueing people about sharing songs downloaded on things like iTunes. I find a verdict like this to be an utter atrocity, a guilty charge with next to no proof? And was the ISP issued some sort of legal document requiring them to divulge the IP information, or did they just do it?
-
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.
-
10 Posted by setobaghdassarian on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:14PM EDT Report Abuse
Shame on RIAA
1 Posted by rogueist on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:49PM EDT Report Abuse
That's bad news for the RIAA - they dont realize what will happen when they go after more and more of the "normal" people - when "normal" people feel immensely threatened, they do irrational things - and the RIAA will suffer GREATLY for it. I wouldnt be surprised if in the coming months real blood was shed over this.