Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

Have you lent out property never to see it returned? (Topic Remodified)

WhoRUSupposed2Be

By WhoRUSupposed2Be
in The Tailgate

Recommended Posts

WhoRUSupposed2Be

WhoRUSupposed2Be

Posted
Posted

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

By STEVE KARNOWSKI, Associated Press Writer Steve Karnowski, Associated Press Writer Fri Jun 19, 12:03 pm ET

MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.

Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.

Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.

"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."

Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.

Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.

"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.

In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.

An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.

Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.

"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."

Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.

His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.

In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.

The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.

Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.

Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.

He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.

Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.

Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.

He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.

"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.

Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.

The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment. The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.

Does it really make a difference if piracy is included into the equation of file sharing?! There are so many mp3 softwares available for download, that the problem expands well beyond the consumers or piraters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MissU28

MissU28

Posted
Posted
I stay away from any of that stuff, because I believe it's dishonest. However, her punishment doesn't fit the crime AT ALL. I sincerely hate the RIAA.

They should just charge her a buck per song, maybe $1.50 for damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blackest Eyes

Blackest Eyes

Posted
Posted

As I stated in the other thread, I am not a fan of the RIAA for various reasons. I think in the case of piracy, they are trying to do the right thing, it just doesn't look right.

I do not share my files and I never have. I have downloaded movies and music before. Since leaving high school and going to college, I have stopped downloading music. This is my industry and I am not going to destroy it by being selfish. People work so hard to produce their art and get paid for it. People who think that stealing music is OK because it is available on a filesharing programs are completely ignorant. I never understood the logic in it. It absolutely hurts the artist, the record company and the consumer in the end. Ever wonder why CD's are expensive? PEOPLE STEAL THEM! If piracy was less, I am willing to bet that the prices of CD's would be less.

Downloading an album for free is the exact same as stealing it in a store...you just do not get a tangible product. I fail to see how ANYONE can justify stealing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blackest Eyes

Blackest Eyes

Posted
Posted

As a side note, I don't share CD's either because I know what will be done with them. Copied onto someone's hard drive so I paid for them to own a CD that I BOUGHT. I feel kind of bad not letting my friends borrow a CD of mine...but at the same time I don't feel bad at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Blackest Eyes

Blackest Eyes

Posted
Posted
If you download a CD and then go out and BUY the CD is it illegal?

And all of you saying it's illegal so why do it? I guarantee EVERYONE on this board does NOT drive the speed limit. Same thing

That is a terrible comparison. Speeding does not equal stealing.

I think buying a CD after it being downloaded is less harmful, obviously because the end product is purchased.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CrabR

CrabR

Posted
Posted

what is the difference in Downloading it off the Internet vs recording off of a FM station

Wava and WWDC had album night back in the eighthes, they played the entire album commercial free

I recored over 100 albums, if you had a good recorder you could not tell the difference from store bought back then

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bang

Bang

Posted
Posted

Back in 1977 I loaned a friend of mine a copy of "Foghat Live".

I never got it back.

I loved that album, it rocked pretty good.

So I never share my music anymore.

2 years ago I loaned a friend my copy of "Batman Begins".

It hasn't come back. I ain't too happy about that either.

~Bang

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhoRUSupposed2Be

WhoRUSupposed2Be

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Back in 1977 I loaned a friend of mine a copy of "Foghat Live".

I never got it back.

I loved that album, it rocked pretty good.

So I never share my music anymore.

2 years ago I loaned a friend my copy of "Batman Begins".

It hasn't come back. I ain't too happy about that either.

~Bang

I know the feeling.

I should've made this thread into more of a discussion about lending out your property asnd never seeing it returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...