RIAA awarded $1.92 million in file sharing case

By Jos · 15 replies
Jun 19, 2009
  1. Last year in the case of Jammie Thomas, US District Judge Michael Davis said he made a “manifest error of law” when he instructed the jury that simply making songs available for sharing could be considered illegal distribution – even without proof that anyone actually downloaded them. The case was declared a mistrial, eliminating an obscene $222,000 fine for making available 24 copyrighted songs on the KaZaA network, with a second go-around scheduled for 2009.

    Read the whole story
  2. eitolafatee

    eitolafatee TS Rookie

    I saw this BS on yahoo, what a bunch of ****s.
  3. polidiotic

    polidiotic TS Booster Posts: 103

    lol, indeed.
  4. Phantasm66

    Phantasm66 TS Rookie Posts: 5,734   +8

    This is bullying, plain and simple.

    Its picking on people who can't afford fancy lawyers, just to make a point.

    Its evil.
  5. Wendig0

    Wendig0 TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,136   +131

    I blame California's movie and music industries. They're responsible for the libs that run the RIAA, MPAA, PETA, and other ridiculous acronyms.
  6. JDoors

    JDoors TS Rookie Posts: 62

    I don't pirate. Everyone who does makes up childish, selfish excuses for why they should be allowed to do whatever the Hell they want to do (Wahh! Wahh!).

    However, I support (from afar, mind you) the movement that's gaining momentum to "counter-act" the RIAA's legalized raping of minor offenders: For every "success" for the RIAA, people are pirating the entire discography of an artist they would never have downloaded in the first place.

    I'm not generally a fan of "civil disobedience," but if it were EVER justifiable, this would be the case for it.

    There are not enough jails, not enough policemen, not enough law courts, to enforce a law not supported by the people.
    --Hubert H. Humphrey
  7. raybay

    raybay TS Evangelist Posts: 7,241   +10

    However you pirate the work and art of somebody else, you weaken the entire system's ability to provide the continual improvements and the appeal to keep artists and engineers participating.
  8. polidiotic

    polidiotic TS Booster Posts: 103

    It's gotten to the point where the RIAA and MPAA are teaming with cable providers to spy on your internet activity... it's gotten to the point where the RIAA & MPAA release copyrighted material via torrents onto the net, where they can pounce on the unsuspecting.

    If they want the copyrighting **** to end, they should keep a leash around the members of SAG (and others like them), each of whom gets a free DVD (probably blu-ray now) - also known as a "screening" version - to review and nominate for awards. I'm sick of this game...
  9. Badfinger

    Badfinger TS Rookie Posts: 155

    Can't get blood from a stone, I doubt they see a dime, meanwhile costs just went up pursuing her 3 times, and public relations downer.
  10. SNGX1275

    SNGX1275 TS Forces Special Posts: 10,742   +421

    That is a valid stance, it is 'illegal' and no matter what light you view it in it is still obtaining something for free that is being sold.

    BUT, I don't think the people are complaining about getting caught, the people are complaining about the absolutely obscene fines for getting caught. Pirating 24 songs and "making them available" for others is not worth $2 million. At worst it is worth the cost of the cds each were on, plus maybe a $100 fine for breaking the law.
  11. TJGeezer

    TJGeezer TS Enthusiast Posts: 385   +10

    Funny how many midlist artists totally disagree with that.
  12. 9Nails

    9Nails TechSpot Paladin Posts: 1,215   +177

    I really love it! This is such great justice. The RIAA has the power to make up the fines, make up its own rules on sharing, and has the support from our judges to enforce their power over the people. Copyright enforcement is supreme justice, swift and tidy and no laws in the 'verse can protect the consumer! Bwahahaha!

    < /sarcasm >
  13. JerryWithaJ

    JerryWithaJ TS Rookie

    Plus the revenue lost from each ACTUAL download, which is probably a few dollars per song, at most. I'd be willing to entertain evidence to the contrary.
  14. sol1109

    sol1109 TS Member Posts: 43

    They only pursued her on 24 songs since they needed to make a case for willful infringement, i.e. more than one. But in fact she had more than 1,700 songs on the file share. Also federal law that has existed from the days of the first public copy machines in your local library in the 1970's (I remember this same issue back then) states that the fine can be as high as $150,000 per violation. It does not matter if it is a song, video, or printed material.

    Making copies of purchased content for personal use is all that is allowed and all that has ever been allowed. The only area that I disagree with is when they try to limit you to installation on one personal use device. Once you own it you should be able to place it on as many devices as you want; PC, Laptop, CD/DVD, Ipod, etc.
  15. Rick

    Rick TechSpot Staff Posts: 4,572   +65

    Jammie Thomas is a complete stooge.

    I absolutely disagree with the extent of the first verdict and think the second verdict is from another dimension, but the RIAA couldn't ask for a better vitcim to prey on. Jammie has made some very bad decisions: She's been indignant, fighting against the RIAA on the grounds of her "innocence" despite overwhelming evidence she is guilty. Then she appeals the verdict (guilty) instead of appealing the ridiculous award ($250,000ish fine). She's guilty, yet she brazenly fights for innocence. She'll lose on those grounds every time.

    I might even go as far to say the RIAA has planned this with her since day one, to set some ill precedent. They couldn't have a more perfect person to legally rape. Maybe they paid her off on the side. Wouldn't that be interesting?

    This case is a disaster. Put yourself in the shoes of a juror. Here's a woman who's guilty, yet continues to lie to us about her innocence. She's wasting our time with a second case. She was actually sharing thousands of songs -- not just to the 24 she was being charged with. Of course the jury is going to say, "Burn her!"

    The RIAA's case itself is ridiculous as well. There was no figure on the number of times each song was shared with someone else (if at all). How can you award damages to someone if you don't even have a *guess* as to how much "damage" was actually done? But she did such a bad job defending herself, her 'peers' must have made that decision for her.
  16. You Americans should finally start rethinking your totally out-of-control legal system that basically has been hijacked by vulture lawyers that are far worse than bankers and politiicans.
    What's the point of granting such ridiculous fines. The woman will be bankrupt and that's it. It is out of perspective and as such it undermines the believes in what is right or wrong.
    It is as ridiculous as jailing a serial killer for 500+ years. Will that more deter other killers than just jailing for life?
    In the end it is the lawyers with their $700+ hourly rates on all those overbilled cases that are the big winners.
    Think of the lawyers that earn close to a bilion on the big bankruptcies of Enron, of Lehman and now GM.
    And simple Americans pay the price because they can't aford such lawyers, so guess who loses their cases?
    How naieve to be a believer in such a legal system. For me it stinks.
Topic Status:
Not open for further replies.

Similar Topics

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...