RIAA Wins First File Sharing Case

[appophylite]

Did anybody else catch this?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/10/04/r...trial-awarded/

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/

Evidentally, Jammie Thomas was the first person taken to court by the RIAA, and today, the court and jury declared that she was guilty of copyright infringement on 24 songs. What really sucks about the case is that:

"In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder."

What also really sucks is the amount awarded to the RIAA: $222,000 or $9250 per song that they sued over.

I apologize if the topic I'm bringing up violates the sticky that has been posted in the Music section by the mods. If it does, please delete the thread.

 

[terance]

wow. . .9 grand PER SONG?

seriously???? why didn't they go after someone who 'illegally' pirated more than 24 songs?

i'm glad i buy vinyl, **** digital

 

[003]

Bad news. Good news to make you feel better:
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/9018/Pi...+Film+Industry

 

[Jon118]

That is ridiculous. I don't know or care if she did pirate those songs or not, but that sum is absolutely absurd. What a farce that court must be to actually entertain the notion of a sum that large. I can assure you she was not responsible for that large of a loss in revenue.

 

[003]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon118 /img/forum/go_quote.gif I can assure you she was not responsible for that large of a loss in revenue.

Even if the was responsible for twice that amount in lost revenue, who cares?

 

[appophylite]

@ terance, Jon118 --> At least the jury didn't award the RIAA with the $3.6 million that they were looking for. That would have been a whopping $150,000 per song

@ 003 --> Interesting reading, that article you linked. I certainly would not put it above Big Media to employ dubious means of protecting their property. I also have to agree with you and Jon118 that there is no way this lady is responsible for nearly 9 grand or any other atrocious dollar value to make up for lost profit. At most, the most she should have to pay for copy infringement would be the 1-2 dollars that each song would conceivably cost if physical media had been purchased.

 

[GSurge]

It just doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[goldenratiophi]

 

[braillediver]

“why didn't they go after someone who 'illegally' pirated more than 24 songs?”

From the article:

“They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.”


Also:

“They had sent her emails warning here she was violating the law and there was problems with her testimony:

Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place - and later than she said in a deposition before trial.

The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party, though Thomas used her new one to show the jury how fast it copies songs from CDs. That was an effort to counter an industry witness's assertion that the songs on the old drive got their too fast to have come from CDs she owned - and therefore must have been downloaded illegally.

Record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005, warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004, as she said in the deposition.”


Mitch

 

[rxc]

I'm waiting to see what happens down the road for others willing to take on the RIAA.

 

[Sarchi]

Bunch of neanderthal idiots looking to pad their deteriorating pension fund.

The successful bands today make their music FREE, and the fans in turn are happy to pay for it. (case in point, Wilco)

 

[GAD]

Wow. God bless America.

GAD

 

[bahamaman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by appophylite /img/forum/go_quote.gif What also really sucks is the amount awarded to the RIAA: $222,000 or $9250 per song that they sued over.

Just FYI - under the Copyright Act, damages can be $30,000 for each act of infringement and, if the violation is willful, $150,000.

$9250 per song is not too bad, in light of the foregoing.

 

[Clutz]

Downloading copyrighted material, be it music, movies, or software is illegal and I don't agree with it. I'll admit, I have 'demoed' songs from BitTorrent because I don't want to buy a CD that I'll later turn out to hate (used to be you could buy a CD and return it to HMV if it sucked- you didn't get your money back, but you'd get a credit) - but if I like it, I buy it- and if I don't like it, I delete it.

That said it's a ridiculous amount of money to sue her for... and you can't get blood from a stone. If it were me (and it couldn't be, because I don't download anything copyrighted), I would go bankrupt in order to screw them over.

Can't get blood from a stone.

 

[Superpredator]

I propose a week of not buying any music connected to the RIAA in protest of this ominous development.