• Home
  • News
  • Music Downloader Owes Record Cos. $1.9M, Jury Says

Intellectual Property Law

Music Downloader Owes Record Cos. $1.9M, Jury Says

Posted Jun 19, 2009 7:33 AM CST
By Molly McDonough

A federal jury in Minneapolis returned a verdict Thursday against a 32-year-old mother of four, saying she owes record companies an astounding $1.92 million for illegally sharing music on the Internet.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset would have to pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she shared on the Net if the verdict stands, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reports.

The verdict is sure to be seen as a major victory for record companies. This is the first of some 30,000 file-sharing suits brought by the Recording Industry Association of America to go to trial. The RIAA maintains that file-sharers have cost record companies $6 billion in lost revenue over the last few years.

This was the RIAA's second stab at Thomas-Rasset, who on Thursday told the Star-Tribune, "The only thing I can say is, 'Good luck getting it from me.'"

Last September, Thomas-Rasset was granted a new trial after jurors found her liable for $222,000 in damages for illegally sharing 24 copyrighted songs on Kazaa.

Also see:

Computer World: "Analysis: $1.92M fine in music piracy case could hurt RIAA"

Hat tip: Pat's Papers.

Comments

1.

CJ
Jun 19, 2009 9:41 AM CST

Let this serve as a warning to anyone who is thinking of doing anything other than paying up when the RIAA comes-a-calling.  I can’t help but think of Tony Soprano’s lackies hitting up some poor mom $3000 for “protection” (abet protection from lawsuits).  “Remember that Thomas woman… she sleeps with the fishes… er owes $1.9 million,” which i guess is pretty much the same thing.

Oh and btw… the firm doing much of the RIAA’s dirty work has two of it’s alumni in the higher ups of the Obama Justice Department.  Now that’s change we can believe in!!!

Flag this comment

2.

Ian
Jun 19, 2009 10:00 AM CST

Anyone who thinks this is going to change anything is crazy.  I just can’t believe the woman is still using KaZaa.  I figured most people switched over to BitTorrent sites long ago in order to avoid being caught.  Well like she said…..good luck getting it.  RIAA should spend their time focusing on the DVD and Blue Ray counterfeiters in Asia and the United States.  In fact most of the counterfeit disks are being handed out by the companies who have the contracts to make them in the first place.  Ask any RIAA attorney and they will tell you that it is almost impossible to stop.  There are no “real” penalties under state or federal law and in a few states (won’t mention) there are no laws prohibiting it at all because the time frames for prohibition under state and federal law don’t match, effectively leaving huge areas of items which are able to be counterfeited without penalty, which would make you untouchable if you decided to base your operations there!!!! This is an ever-growing issue and more and more people are switching to it.  In fact drug-dealers are switching to the music and dvd and blue ray side because there is more profit and less jail time.  Anyone heard of DJ Drama??.....

Flag this comment

3.

emjaycee
Jun 19, 2009 1:10 PM CST

Without in any way condoning the theft of a company’s intellectual property, am I the only one who thinks that a penalty of $80,000 PER SONG—for a total of $1.9 MILLION—against a single private individual is excessive?

Flag this comment

4.

J
Jun 21, 2009 9:30 AM CST

What purpose does that excessive penalty serve? The RIAA will likely never see a dime and people will continue to pirate music, films, etc.

Flag this comment

5.

K.G.
Jun 22, 2009 2:12 PM CST

If this case is representative of each of the 30,000 pending suits then the recording industry stands to collect $57 trillion (1.9 million x 30,000).  Assuming it can collect (doubtful), this is actually more profitable than selling records considering piracy only accounts for $6 billion in losses.  That would be a $56.4 trillion profit.

Flag this comment

6.

kd
Jun 24, 2009 7:02 AM CST

This is a commentary, more than anything, on the sad state of our jury trial system.  $80,000 per song, when the only evidence of “infringement” were downloads completed by the RIAA’s own agents with authority from the RIAA.

Flag this comment

7.

tim
Jun 24, 2009 7:53 AM CST

They can’t collect it.  Who cares?  Everything on the internet is free and always will be.  Music, video’s, print, etc.  No should pay for any of it. 

Even if they want you to pay, you can get it for free.

Flag this comment

8.

Jon
Jun 24, 2009 7:55 AM CST

Typical Recording Industry of America create a bad product that no one wants for two decades and then sue the people for not wanting to buy it.

Flag this comment

9.

oh yeah?
Jun 24, 2009 8:08 AM CST

to tim:

What about enforcement of judgement? Liens? LIs Pendens?

What ever side you are on, the way to deal with this is not by ignoring the decision.

We need laws with criminal sanctions.  We need to be able to download music for a fair price.  People who download are just submitting to irresistable impulses.
It is the people who make it possible that are the criminals.

Flag this comment

10.

tim
Jun 24, 2009 11:40 AM CST

oh yeah -

Soon as you put your music out in the public reign I am free to burn a song or cd that my friend has. 

people who download music are not criminals

are you going to label me a criminal if i let you read a book when I am done with it if I don’t collect a royalty for the author….

once someone pays for it once….it’s free to be disseminated….bring on the copyright lawyers…it’s a bad law

Flag this comment

11.

sb
Jun 24, 2009 1:28 PM CST

Actually, Tim, if you loan your friend your CD you aren’t breaking the law, either.  However, if you take your book and copy all the pages and give it to your friend, that is a copyright infringement.

You have to remember that when you take filesharing to its logical extreme, it would be impossible to sell more than one recording, because that person would just turn around and upload it for everyone else who wants a copy.  If that happens, artists would no longer be able to record and sell their music, movies, etc., because no one would be able to get any profit from it.

And remember, I mentioned the “logical extreme,” not reality, so it’s the concept I’m trying to express, not what I think will ever happen.  Also, just think, if the RIAA weren’t rabidly attacking the filesharers and the filesharing platforms, then a lot more people would be doing it, and the industry and artists would be losing a lot more money.  The Communist idea that they’re rich and you’re poor so they should let you take what you want just completely misses the point of copyright laws in general.

Flag this comment

12.

BMF
Jun 24, 2009 2:37 PM CST

“Also, just think, if the RIAA weren’t rabidly attacking the filesharers and the filesharing platforms, then a lot more people would be doing it, and the industry and artists would be losing a lot more money. “

Bullpuckies.

Many artists who otherwise would not have come to the attention of major record producers were discovered through the Internet and filesharing. The RIAA never tells us how much money they made off of these artists.

At a time when there are fewer live commercial radio broadcasts, and the music selections are becoming increasingly “homogenized” to increase ratings to the widest possible market demographics, many “edgier’ performers would not receive commercial exposure if it were not for filesharing. Of course the RIAA never tells us how much this increases their profits, or how much this saves producers in “promotional incentives.”

The RIAA also never mentions how much filesharing has contributed to the increased sale of secondary products—e.g. deluxe boxed sets,  music DVDs, live concert tickets, etc. Because once people download the music for free, and discover they enjoy it, they often decide it’s worth the money to spring for a more expensive item.

Finally, most people don’t have a problem paying for songs they like. It’s being charged over $20 for 2 decent songs and 10 pieces of crap on a plastic disk that literally isn’t worth a dime that rankles.

Flag this comment

13.

Bob Dole: A citizen confused.
Jun 25, 2009 11:17 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

14.

Bob Dole: A citizen confused.
Jun 25, 2009 11:18 AM CST

Comment removed by moderator.

Flag this comment

15.

Bob Dole - Whoops.
Jun 25, 2009 11:19 AM CST

My sincere apologies for the double post!

Flag this comment

16.

Bob Dole: A citizen confused.
Jun 25, 2009 11:34 AM CST

Okay.  First of all you need to find out how much the RIAA is paying the jury to make such an ignorant and outrageous verdict against a mother of four children.  Then look at the blood thirsty, greed driven
policies of the RIAA.  Yes they are a business, they do still make ghastly amounts of money..but they still feel the need to assault a mother for 1.9mil? 

A quote from a recent online discussion involving the RIAA and associates recent actions: ” They’re greedy————that can’t stand to realize that they are an obsolete business. You don’t have to go to record companies anymore. This isn’t mo-town, you can’t keep taxing artists. You don’t need massive amounts of expensive equipment to make vinyl records anymore.  Anybody can do it on their computer, and distribute it without ever even looking at the RIAA and the RIAA is pissed about that. Dinosaurs, using jacked-up legal means to keep at their——— teat. ” - Anonymous

But, for a more information backed approach to put it in a brighter light:

The current American population is an estimated 304 million.  If 13 million people each shared one song, and were put to court and found guilty, paying the $80,000 per song.  The RIAA would stand to profit $1,040,000,000,000.  In an even brighter light Mexico, ranked 12 in the world GPA.  Makes $1,088,128,000,000 annually ( CIA World Factbook GDP PPP, cross checked with three other sources ).  Is anyone seeing a grotesque dollar difference to their supposed $6 Billion dollar loss?  In this time of economical instability it is highly irrational, ruthless, and outright laughable to be even consider such a task of sucking out almost the equivalent of a whole countries annual GPA from the American public.  Because let us face the real fact:  More then 13 million people are sharing more then 1 song per person.

I’m just a normal American.  The fact that I can find the information in a few minutes to make the RIAA and its claims look absurd even to a child is disconcerting that they are actually winning in court.  Followed by the recent pressure from the government to take away our computer privacy as a whole to restrict “illegal” file sharing is preposterous to an astronomical level.  Obama has two high ranked flunkies that are hugely supported financially by the RIAA.  Coincidence?  Hardly.  Considering the people who stand to profit the most ( again ) from government involvement is the RIAA.  But hey…who cares about the general populace or their privacy when the RIAA needs to be paid? 

Sincerely,
An outraged, appalled citizen of America.

( REVISED COPY: Moderator Removed first one for what I’d assume is profanity.  I thought I edited it thoroughly enough.  But now it meets the Terms of Use and shouldn’t be removed. )

Flag this comment

17.

A different Tim
Jun 25, 2009 5:40 PM CST

“You have to remember that when you take filesharing to its logical extreme, it would be impossible to sell more than one recording, because that person would just turn around and upload it for everyone else who wants a copy.”

Exactly.  This is the new commerce; like the other commenter said - everything online is free - and free in a way that laws and law suits can’t *really* affect.  The best practice now is to offer the music to the public gratis, and find another way to generate revenue:  like licensing and touring. 

See, the RIAA’s problem with file sharing is that, taken to its logical conclusion, it opens up the music business to every kid pumping out digital recordings in his parent’s basement with enough entrepreneureal drive to sell his own product.  That’s why collecting the $$ isn’t important, but scaring the file sharers away is.

Sucks for them - multi-million dollar judgments don’t seem to be having the desired effect.

Flag this comment

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting has expired on this post.