RIAA successfully sues illegal downloader; Owes 1.92 Million dollars

[Eerongal]

Federal Jury: Music Downloader Owes $1.92 Million

Does this seem wrong to any one else? Sure,  stealing = wrong, etc., but the amount of money they had to have put into this litigation, and the amount they'll get out of it (read: none. She can't afford that, she'll file for bankruptcy), and all they're gonna do is garner more hate for themselves.

[Andrew the Great]

I've always thought the RIAA was going about this the wrong way. There's no way that they can ever stop file sharing just by winning a bunch of lawsuits. As you said, all that they do is make people more angry at them. For instance, this women was told she had to pay $80,000 per song. Almost anyone who sees that is just going to be pissed off.

[Patriotic Kaz]

I completely agree with the record companies the need to make an example is great... theft is a big problem and all these a holes who think there is nothing wrong with what they do need to be slapped and there parents skinned for doing such a poor job instilling mores into their kids

[RavenstarRHJF]

Frankly, I doubt that what they're really after here is the money.  I think it's the conviction that counts in this case, because now there's legal precedent (times two, since it was at the Federal level).  It's going to be much easier for them to get favorable rulings in future cases, which means they can now start going after bigger fish who might actually be able to pay that sum per song.

[Eerongal]

Frankly, I doubt that what they're really after here is the money.  I think it's the conviction that counts in this case, because now there's legal precedent (times two, since it was at the Federal level).  It's going to be much easier for them to get favorable rulings in future cases, which means they can now start going after bigger fish who might actually be able to pay that sum per song.

Actually, the victory hurts the RIAA more than it helps, according to analysts. Because of the size of the amount they demanded, she ables to legally challenge it on constitutional grounds. (as paraphrased from a quote by Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment lawyer and copyright proponent).

Also, because of the victory last year, or so, from the case of  Barboza vs. New Form, it sets a precedence for her to have it discharged via a bankruptcy hearing. The outcome of that ruling established that in order for the debt to be non-discharchable by bankruptcy, it has to have been "Willful and malicious", meaning that they have to be able to prove that she intended to harm and/or but out business the RIAA, and not just petty theft, which they have no evidence of.

[Andrew the Great]

Oh, I get that it's not about the money here. They just wanted a legal victory. However, the average person reading that article will just be pissed off by the fact that this woman has to pay 80,000 per song. I'm understand that she broke the law. I understand that what she did is considered (yes, even by me) to be morally wrong. And yet, I don't think that this is really helping the RIAA any.

Sure, they may get more successful lawsuits, and even make up some of their losses if they do catch some of the people who can afford to pay. But the point that I'm trying to make is that the RIAA is trying to stop something through legal procedures that can't be stopped that way. Everyone who downloads music (or anything else for that matter) illegally most likely knows what they are doing at the time. Yet most of them assume that millions of other people are doing it and they won't get caught. And they're right. Most people who illegally download music don't get caught. Because of the scale of the problem and the nature of the crime (very private and difficult to prove), they won't really be able to get to the root of the problem ever. Instead, they'll be making money off of lawsuits preying on those who probably really didn't do that much.

For example, divide 1.92 million by 80,000. 24. This woman downloaded 24 songs illegally. Really? We're expecting her to pay 1.92 million dollars for an infringement that's relatively minor compared to what some people have done.  I just can't help but feel that what the RIAA is doing doesn't really move their cause along that much, and it hurts their public image.

Don't get me wrong, I definitely think that illegally downloading music is wrong. But I don't think that the RIAA is helping themselves at all.

And once again, Eerongal posted before me. Oh well, I'll leave my points up anyway.

[Eerongal]

And once again, Eerongal posted before me. Oh well, I leave my points up anyway.

What can i say, ninja'ing posts is my specialty!

[RavenstarRHJF]

Well, the article quotes an RIAA representative at the bottom saying that they're willing to settle for less than the (truly ridiculous) amount of $80,000 per song, so that seems to indicate that they're just happy with a conviction on the books.  Whether they're going about their little monopolization scheme in the right way or not is a moot point.  They've chosen their path and they're going to follow it as far as it will take them. 

[Patriotic Kaz]

I don't care if you can't pay a fine if you are poor do with out the latest music go buy cd's at a pawn shop! and they should probably go after more people criminally not civilly hard time would be a bigger motivation to avoid illegal downloads

[Eerongal]

I don't care if you can't pay a fine if you are poor do with out the latest music go buy cd's at a pawn shop! and they should probably go after more people criminally not civilly hard time would be a bigger motivation to avoid illegal downloads

To charge people for copyright infringement for criminal purposes requires that the person have done it for financial gain. If they didn't, you can only sue them in a civil case.

[Patriotic Kaz]

Reivse the law... with all the attention it gets you think congress would have done something about it....

[ryos]

I just wanted to point out that the 80k per song is entirely the fault of the jury. They could have set a penalty anywhere between $750/song and $150,000/song. They chose about half the maximum. I think even the minimum would have been too much.

Also worth noting that this is the second trial. Basically, the original judge felt that his instructions to the jury led them to impose too high a penalty. The original fine as about $9000/song, or about 200k total. Thomas went back to court in hopes of reducing the fine...and this is what the jury does to her.

(Also, illegal downloading was never the issue, as the RIAA had no evidence that downloading took place. The issue was sharing, as the RIAA's vigilante company MediaSentry found 24 songs in Thomas' KaZaA (or however the crap you capitalize that) shared folder.)

The RIAA didn't ask for this. The only concrete dollar amount they asked for was the original settlement offer of $5000. I'm not defending them, as I generally think they're a bunch of corporate slimeballs who profit by exploiting the artists whose interests they claim so loudly to be protecting. But I must correct inaccuracy; it's how I'm wired.

After following the coverage of the case, the evidence that she's guilty is pretty compelling. Even still...what was that jury thinking?

[Eerongal]

Reivse the law... with all the attention it gets you think congress would have done something about it....

Theft can't be criminal on the federal level in general. This case is on the federal level, which means it has to processed civilly. Revising this changes a lot of laws, it's not as simple as "rewriting" this law. Generally, the only thefts that are considered criminal at the federal level are thefts that involve federal agencies or interstate commerce. Or, of course, any case that involves an additional criminal act (of course), like murder, assault, etc. (which i *HIGHLY* doubt this case involves that. Beating people up over the internet is hard)

Also: Just because i found it and it pertains to this, here are the songs she (or children or whatever) downloaded that she's getting charged for.

Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"
Janet Jackson "Let’s What Awhile"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Heart"; "Rhythm is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don’t Stop Believing"
Sara McLachlan "Possession";  "Building a Mystery"
Aerosmith "Cryin’"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Green Day "Basket Case"

Found it here if anyone wants to read the accompanying article. Though it's basically just the list supplied and comments.

[ErikHolmes]

Wouldn't sharing illegal songs on the internet to anyone in the world count as "commerce over interstate lines?"

I've told most of my friends this, and now I'm telling you guys.

Downloading music, games, movies, via torrents or shareware programs is STUPID.

You've been caught.

It's not a case of if you are going to be caught, if you've used torrents, then you've already been caught. It just depends on if they decide to go after you or not.

Someone told me about this program that lets you see who is monitoring you. I mainly use torrents to download tv shows I miss, etc. After running this program (I wish I could remember the name of it) it showed me getting hit by several companies that all worked for RIAA or MPAA, etc. We are talking like hundreds a minute.

When you use a torrent you are basically posting your IP address to the entire internet and saying, "Hey, I downloaded this and let other people download it from me!"

Now newsgroups . . .  those are the bomb.

Best 11 bucks a month I spend.

[ryos]

Nice analysis of what might happen next: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars