Woman Faces The Music, Loses Download Case

(AP)  The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her.

Jurors ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.

Thomas and her attorney, Brian Toder, declined comment as they left the courthouse. Jurors also left without commenting.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.

In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, six record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.

Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars.

The RIAA says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.

During the three-day trial, record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Toder had argued at closing that record companies never proved that "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."

Gabriel called that defense "misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors."

He told jurors a verdict against Thomas would send a message to other illegal downloaders.

"I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great," he said.

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful, but awarded damages in a middle range.

Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.

Illegal downloads have "become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."

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.

The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.

[mizeubanks]

The copy right law was broken but what abotu the poeple that would love to but the cd at their favorite store and because it is 20.00 a pop and they have to decide on food or the cd, they choose food. I know that we all are poor whether we realize it or not. We all are a dollar away from being homeless and a fine that big is totally uncalled for maybe like some of you said the cost of the cd(s) it self but who walks around with 220k in their pcket. certainly we don't and that is sad that it would be that much of a hassle. they make the means to do so and then kill you with fees and make you poor. yes it is theft but there are people in jail stealing the innocents of children and have been released to do so . What baout the murderer who killed inncocent people that roam the world. If your going to get justice for one law broken what about for the others.... Wake up people the law works for whomever they choose!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[lrb50]

Okay, never mind who's guilty of what. Listening to the news on 6/24/09 it was reported that a judgement of 1.92 million was levied against this woman. Now correct me if I'm wrong but ask yourself, could you afford to pay 1.92 million for ANYTHING! Most could not. We should all be OUTRAGED at this judgement! Where has the justice system gone? It is clear that the corporate lobbyists have succesfully manipulated the justice system to turn a blind eye to the public. There is a bigger issue lurking here than anyone cares to address.

[rlsmith1994]

The music industry is in big trouble. But rather than re-examine their business model, they sue and look for people to blame.

I haven't listened to the radio in years and rarely buy CD's. By treating consumers like criminals instead of customers, the music industry has shifted production from the manufacturers to the consumers and distribution from the record companies to the web (although with judgments like this, most consumers will just find ways around it, like sharing CD's, sharing files on jump drives, etc.).

I used to remember spending hours listening to the radio, taping songs on my boom-box and, if I really liked something, buying the album or single later. I can't do that anymore - the business model doesn't support it. RIAA should not blame illegal downloading for their woes, but bad business models. I used to love the music industry, and now I hate it. I can't justify giving money to the big majors. I didn't even buy the most recent U2 album - I'll find it used on Amazon in a few years for 99 cents anyway. Unless it changes quickly, the RIAA will go the way of the auto industry The only difference is that they won't get a bailout.

[ihammee]

How many RIAA members, Jury member, the Judge(s) have ever made a compilation Tape or CD? How many of their Children/relatives have
ALL are illegal in the same way this is 'illegal'
All should have the same level of enforcement = NONE AT ALL

The very act of allowing this to trial should be made criminal.
The verdict is a violation of Constitutional Ammendment to the US Constitution and even though the Jury may not KNOW this the Judge is required to by their position thus the Judge who allowed the verdict without throwing it out is in direct, knowing violation of Contitutional rights that are spelled out plain as day. Thus it's REQUIRED the Judge allowing this verdict be removed from bench and disbarred. This verdict IS A CRIME AGAINST OUT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
Thus THE VERDICT ITSELF IS AGAINST THE LAW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The more popular music is, the more it is downloaded and shared between people and copied from one's store purchaces CDs or tracks to a consolodated Media - THE MORE PEOPLE BUY THAT SONG/ALBUM, THE MORE PEOPLE ATTEND ARTISTS CONCERTS AND THE MORE INSPIRED BY ADERTISMENTS FEATURING SAID ARTIST.

THIS MEANS THE MORE THE MUSIC IS SHARED/COPIED 'illegally' the MORE MONEY THOSE BEHIND THE MUSIC MAKE.

RIAA needs to be made to pay the tax payers back for these unreasonable costs.

[michellem99-2009]

Did yer know yer can''t share yer meal yer bought and paid for with yer table mate. Yep. I had to buy him his own. Or they call the bloody law. We are taught as children by our parents to share. As as adults no.
A bloody self centred world.. I could not share in school my lesson book with another pupil due to my legal blindness. Father taught me to share. As a foster child I was the only girl so no there were times I did not share,selfish no it was they were personal things. There are things I don''t share. I buy my CDs in a store. I don''t want a boot leg album. Sure there are songs I don''t like then maybe I will like them. I think the record companies are too rich for their own good. Do they ever pay the artists or do they have to pay them. There artists that has never been paid they use them.

[ohwinter]

I''ve some Qs'' to ask:
--Is it illegal if files (any kind) shared during friends? Then what friend''s for?
--When we sit down doing some sharing things (I mean we''re not going out to steal/rub/damage other people''s property), we use the legal tools, such as Internet from Yahoo & AT&T, and then sharing something we think they''re useful/funny/interested whatever with friends by legal tools -Internet/DSL/Cable/Burner, could we suddenly become illegal? Then, what this world is?
Why legal department doesn''t sue Internet creater - CCICO/IEEE/FCC that they''re conspire at the front end. Again, If every time I buy something high-tech products, I''ve to worry whether or not commit a crime and later might get a lawsuit, what this world is?

[ohwinter]

I''ve some Qs'' to ask:
--Is it illegal if files (any kind) shared during friends? Then what friend''s for?
--When we sit down doing some sharing things (I mean we''re not going out to steal/rub/damage other people''s property), we use the legal tools, such as Internet from Yahoo & AT&T, and then sharing something we think they''re useful/funny/interested whatever with friends by legal tools -Internet/DSL/Cable/Burner, could we suddenly become illegal? Then, what this world is?
Why legal department doesn''t sue Internet creater - CCICO/IEEE/FCC that they''re conspire at the front end. Again, If every time I buy something high-tech products, I''ve to worry whether or not commit a crime and later might get a lawsuit, what this world is?
--In my opinion (You don''t need agree with me), The Internet, the whole network/wireless is a big crime that almost shares everything. I really mean it. it even shares a huge private parts ( I don''t mean underwear only) that labeling "under 18 are prohibited" is just something like gas out of the body.

[ohwinter]

I''ve some Qs'' to ask:
--Is it illegal if files (any kind) shared during friends? Then what friend''s for?
--When we sit down doing some sharing things (I mean we''re not going out to steal/rub/damage other people''s property), we use the legal tools, such as Internet from Yahoo & AT&T, and then sharing something we think they''re useful/funny/interested whatever with friends by legal tools -Internet/DSL/Cable/Burner, could we suddenly become illegal? Then, what this world is?
Why legal department doesn''t sue Internet creater - CCICO/IEEE/FCC that they''re conspire at the front end. Again, If every time I buy something high-tech products, I''ve to worry whether or not commit a crime and later might get a lawsuit, what this world is?
--In my opinion (You don''t need agree with me), The Internet, the whole network/wireless is a big crime that almost shares everything. I really mean it. it even shares a huge private parts ( I don''t mean underwear only) that labeling "under 18 are prohibited" is just something like gas out of the body.

[ohwinter]

I''ve some Qs'' to ask:
--Is it illegal if files (any kind) shared during friends? Then what friend''s for?
--When we sit down doing some sharing things (I mean we''re not going out to steal/rub/damage other people''s property), we use the legal tools, such as Internet from Yahoo & AT&T, and then sharing something we think they''re useful/funny/interested whatever with friends by legal tools -Internet/DSL/Cable/Burner, could we suddenly become illegal? Then, what this world is?
Why legal department doesn''t sue Internet creater - CCICO/IEEE/FCC that they''re conspire at the front end. Again, If every time I buy something high-tech products, I''ve to worry whether or not commit a crime and later might get a lawsuit, what this world is?
--In my opinion (You don''t need agree with me), The Internet, the whole network/wireless is a big crime that almost shares everything. I really mean it. it even shares a huge private parts ( I don''t mean underwear only) that labeling "under 18 are prohibited" is just something like gas out of the body.

[jyu1915]

I don''t condone what this woman did but I think there is something wrong with statutory fines being far in excess of actual damages.

And as far as stealing is concerned, what about all those musicians who have been ripped off by these same companies over the years and have had to sue for the royalties that were due to them?

And payola? And price fixing among the record companies? I find it amusing that the record companies are acting so sanctimonious regarding this case.