Woman Faces The Music, Loses Download Case

Jury Finds Minn. Woman Violated Copyright Law, Orders Her To Pay Record Companies $220K

(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.

[tmn]

"If found guilty, Thomas faces the death penalty"...

[klingon69]

Oh yes, we must make sure that they have their big bank accounts, their private jets, limos...etc. How about if everybody in the US stops buying cds, movies, tapes...etc. Will they then try to sue to make us buy more. How is this any different than recording a song heard on the radio? How would it be any differnet than recording a program with tivo or a VCR or laptop? This is such BS.

[mitch0927]

Klingon69, you''re not quite understanding what they are after. She is charged with "Sharing" the music on her computer, those were the 24 songs he is busted with. She was sharing those songs, and wasn''t hit with the other 1702 songs she had, because she wasn''t sharing them. You can only get into trouble if you are caught sharing music that has copyright protection. During the hay day of downloading music, if you weren''t sharing anything, the people you were getting the songs from would cut you off before you could get the thing downloaded. It is not compared to recoding a movie to TiVo or on your VCR...now if you were to publicly share those said movies, you would be in trouble.

[mitch0927]

I took every album, tape and CD I had and put them on my computer, but I don''t share them at all. It''s called a backup of my music. I can''t understand why Microsoft is in any trouble for setting up their latest versions of Media Player that allows a person to RIP the music from a CD.....that is uaually the first step in converting the music to a smallerfile called an MP3

[mitch0927]

GOOD.
In Richardson , Texas State Trooper was running radar.
He had a perfect
spot to watch for speeders, but wasn''t getting any.
Then he discovered the
problem. A 12 year old boy was standing up the road with a hand painted sign which read "RADAR TRAP AHEAD!" The officer later found a young accomplice down the road with a sign reading, "TIPS" and a bucket full of money. (And we used to just sell lemonade!)

BETTER.
A motorist was mailed a picture of his car speeding through an automated radar post in Plano , Texas . A $40 speeding ticket was included. Being cute, he sent the police department a picture of $40.
The police responded
with another mailed photo of handcuffs.

BEST!
A young woman was pulled over in Austin , Texas for speeding. As the TX State Trooper walked to her car window, flipping open his ticket book, she said, "I bet you are going to sell me a ticket to the Texas State Police Ball." He replied, "Texas State Troopers don''t have balls."
There was a moment of silence while she smiled and he realized what he''d just said..He then closed his book, got back in his patrol car and left. She was laughing too hard to start her car.

[jsmithcsa]

Hmmm...ya gotta wonder if this is tied to the 16-20% drop in CD sales (depending on who you ask).

[cyinzl8r]

You know sony should sue themselves since they manufacture CD and DVD burners and media who''s main use is in copying material. Everyone knows you cant really back up a 250gig or 500 gig drive with 700mb cds. Now they are making dual layer dvd burners and media who''s only use is to copy movies. They give on one hand and take with the other.

[emsaund1]

RE: Klingon1969 %u2013 Typical Liberal response. They have fancy cars and Limo%u2019s and I do not. That%u2019s not fair (Even though that%u2019s their profession and they worked for it and own the copyrights to their individual creativity) and now, I want some of it. Or, I%u2019m ticked because I do not have what they have.
Don%u2019t be mad because they have more money than you. They earned it! Go get your own and stop asking for Liberal handouts%u2026.

[blackbug99]

Dammit, I''m sure there are weapons of mass destruction in here somewhere.

Maybe, if they actually made a CD that had more than 2 good songs on it we wouldn''t feel ripped off. The music industry has done nothing but make itself look like the villain here.

[billpl-2009]

Ultimately it''s the Music industry that will have to face the Music.

What they won''t admit is they''re not and never were in the "music" business, but rather in the "media" business.
They sold pieces of vinyl with music on it.
Simply a way to distribute the music not the music itself

Well, media is now electronic and cheap
and music is culture not a commodity
they''ll have to figure out how to make money some other way.

[renwoman1]

Kllingon69 makes a good point, Mitch0927, but does not go deep enough. His point is different from your point.

Currently, there are far too many grey areas in the Copyright Protection Act http://www.copyright.gov/title17/.

Those grey areas are what shall be on trial far more than her. At this point, precedent shall be set by the outcome of this trial. It shall determine what course the entertainment industry shall take.

Quite frankly, what the entertainment industry wants to do can literally take over our lives. And that scares me when you figure the impact it has on us. If they win, anything we do can end up costing us BIG bucks, not to mention jailtime, etc. if we do not comply with their wishes. "Big Brother" will be far more evident than ever before. Yet, if she wins, the entertainment industry may be left in shreds.

This case bears watching.

[mitch0927]

Renwoman1 thanks for clearing that up for me, even though I still believe she''s on trial for copyright infringement for sharing the files and not just because she was possessing them.

[mitch0927]

cyinzl8r, dual layer DVD R/W''s will hold 9GB, and who in their right mind would have a full 250-500GB hard drive without partitioning it?

[nolalou]

superchez1 , saying "when you sell your product then your release your rights to it" shows you don''t know anything about copyright law! When you buy a CD , you own that copy of the music on it, you don''t own the rights the songs! (Just as you don''t have the right to make a bootleg copy of Windows, and give it to someone else to put on their computer). There is was is called "Fair Use" that says you can make a backup copy, or a copy for use at home, and another for use at work.

Having said that, I understand downloading music for free has become prevalent, so people just assume the are entitled to it.

[klingon69]

RE: Klingon1969 %u2013 Typical Liberal response. They have fancy cars and Limo%u2019s and I do not. That%u2019s not fair (Even though that%u2019s their profession and they worked for it and own the copyrights to their individual creativity) and now, I want some of it. Or, I%u2019m ticked because I do not have what they have.
Don%u2019t be mad because they have more money than you. They earned it! Go get your own and stop asking for Liberal handouts%u2026.
Posted by emsaund1 at 03:10 PM : Oct 04, 2007

First of emascualted, I am not now, nor have I ever been a liberal.
Second, I am not talking about the artists. I am talking about thew record company execs, those who don''t do any creating, they distribute. They arethe ones pushing this, not the artists.
Third, Make sure of who and what you are talking, before you prove again to be an idiot.
I don''t care that the artists make lots of money, BTW, not too many of them create their songs, most have them written and they just sing. Or in the case of Brittney...and the others of their ilk, they simply shake their money makers.

[emsaund1]

RE: Klingon69 -- Ok, you got me on that one. But I still carry the same message. Corporate "Fat Cats" ALSO, have a right to make money. That''s "Capitalism" at its best.

Do they make too much? Yes. Could they share with the artists themselves? Absolutely. But, this is America, if the recording artists dont like the contract, they shouldnt have signed on. There is always some one around the corner that would produce/distribute for a cheaper price. Or, they have the opportunity to produce their own records, etc... (albeit, they would have to make it big before doing so)

But, my main point to you is this (whether I thought you were talking about the artists or the fat cats or whatever), you obviously hold some kind of grudge against the fat cats, or whoever, who line their pockets with money. I say, more power to them. Because ultimately, it''s a business. And that means, it''s all about the money.

[emsaund1]

RE: Klingon69 -- Followup..... BTW, calling me an "Idiot" will do nothing for you. You can call me what you want.

If you place more value on someone breaking the copyright laws over a corporate fat cat that lines his pockets with money (LEGALLY, MIND YOU), then your the one not looking too bright in this case.

If you dont like it, then go vote for a democrat. They will be more than willing to take all of the "Fat Cats" money and redistribute it to people that dont deserve it.

[pwrslm]

Ever bought a CD?

Sure, it has a blurb about copy right. But you just spent 12 bucks, you have a right too. There is no technical license agreement on the outside of the CD Disk/tape/record. Does that imply that one doesnt exist? No? Yes, if its not disclosed, it doesnt exist.

It also says all rights reserved....but does not tell you what the rights are supposed to be.... are they yours, or theirs, or both? Its not even a contract of adhesion, because the details are left out...
Any license agreement must be disclosed prior to the purchase of the item in question. Authorized duplication is not mentioned, yet copyright law allows for duplication of the music, a backup just in case you could say.

The just and proper thing to do is to find for the purchasing party, who can not be held liable for undisclosed non-agreements.

Putting the music on your hard drive, and sending it to your friend in Indiana and his friend in PA, and on and on, isnt prohibited. Its sharing, and that is not restricted.

These suits are bogus. Its another slant for money mongoring greed, the green moster that is one of the seven deadly sins.

[hypnotoad72]

Everything has property and value.

I know some websites say ''if you comment, your submission becomes our property''.

That might be why some people put in less effort online than other venues. Why give away top notch goods? (And why would an employer take what anyone says online as examples of their character?)

Besides, has anyone listened to modern ''music''? It''s repetitive, manufactured rubbish. It''s not worth buying, stealing, or pretty much anything else.

And I am not a supporter of those who download and distribute millions of songs. Besides, downloaded music quality is far less than that of a CD. I''d rather pay for quality.

[DocD--2008]

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

This part upsets me. The courts and juries are NOT there to send messages, but to see justice is done. I am tired of these lawyers that are trying to "send a message" as that is NOT your job, and not what court is about!

If she is found guilty for damages on 24 songs, I hope they reward the companies the cost of one music CD, as that is what it is worth period. Maybe about $19.00 would be the right award %u201Cif%u201D they proved she did it, which as far as I can tell, they can%u2019t. If they realized this was all they were going to get, maybe they would shut up for one moment in their greedy life.

[michellem99-2009]

I play a movie on DVD on compter and there is a code on there have won''t allow me to make a copy..I think it is CSS or somrthing. Yer can''t cory it to the drive or make copy of.
I know years ago I use to tape off the radio. I never dared to put my cd music on the drive and maybe put it on an mp3 player. Sure I bought the music on cd but there is a song or 2 I like.I don''t share music I like. We all did. Now I am going to add an external TV tuner to compter. Used to tape the news or a show to watch on an VCR. Greed.

[emsaund1]

RE: MichelleM99 -- I think you''ve been drinking....

[dan9111]

It is total hypocrisy that these companies claim to favor free markets, anti-censorship and so on, and then leverage governments and our tax-dollars to enhance their business and control the offenders using the policeman''s guns. If they want to protect their property, then great. But they ought to do it entirely at their own expense. They do not need the "
violence-coerced "charity" of those who have no interest in their product -- legal or not.

[kemetorigin]

It is incredibly dishonest for the record association to purport to defend the rights of the artist when the artist only receives $0.10 from the purchase of every CD--and that is if the artist has proved himself. Many majorly successful artists receive pennies (i.e. TLC--the best selling female group prior to Destiny''s child). It is pathetic that the talent is paid near nothing, yet record companies want us to believe that they are fighting for the artist. They are fighting for their $9.90-18.90. The artists would fair much better by selling their music for download anyway. That is the best solution to this problem. Cut out the middle men and sell it yourself.

[Krazcarl]

ensaund1... You blithering idiot M99 is one of our most honest and sincere posters besides we come from the same neck of the woods. In my opinion you owe her an apoligey be a man and step up to the plate if you have any backbone.

[mitch0927]

Some of you are getting it...she was found guilty of SHARING...not downloading.....please read the story and you will know.....she is convicted of SHARING, SHARING, SHARING....it was a folder on her hard drive that contained 24 songs that she was sharing for anyone using KAZAA....

[afmca]

This is a crock... the music industry is just like organized crime ... the jury was a bunch of idiots. I would have charged her 99 cents for each download - the penalty does not fit the crime. Just another legality used to screw middle America. Luckily I don''t buy or download music - with this I will never even be tempted to buy anything from these leeches.

[mitch0927]

crzmeat, I concur.....

[Krazcarl]

I don''t understand all these lawsuits everyone was recording music since cassettes I don''t see any recording artist going broke.

[sevenveils]

When I was a kid a bought an album, later I bout the cassette of the album. Still later I bought the CD of the album. I think I more than purchased my right to listen to the music regardless of the media it is on. Music should now be treated as software. You have a license for the music, you legally can listen to it on your computer, mp3 player and the hologram cube player from the future.

[mitch0927]

MichelleM99 sweetheart....she was charged and convicted of sharing, not for just having the song one her computer. When people signed up for KAZAA, there was a folder on that program called "share"....it was in that folder that contained the 24 songs. A person can do logally what you were referring to, they just can''t share them in a way that people can easily download them.

[mitch0927]

During the seventies, I purchased every rock and roll album I could find. I still own them (795), and I have every one of those songs on my computer. I uploaded them through my sound card a couple of years ago. I have put some on CD''s for my car and house. I don''t play my albums for pleasure anymore. I have no fear of what I have on my computer, and mp3 player and the cd''s in my car. They are copies of something I already owned. If I were to open up a port on my router and allowed anyone to download them, I would be breaking the law.

[mitch0927]

A lot of people these days, especially the kid generation are stingy, except when it comes to music and movies. WIth everything else, they are tight a$$es. On the other hand, I am stingy with my music, because I paid hard earned dollars for them, why should I allow perfect strangers to enter my computer and download them. Kind of silly, isn''t it?

[gmond]

Does anyone who knows how to spell ever proofread these articles?

[incog-nito]

I haven''t bought a CD in years. I just listen to streaming music from Shoutcast. Better than radio, very few commercials. I bet people who bash this lady have at one time or another shared music with their friends. They make it sound like she committed a huge crime, when it''s just thoughtlessness that a lot people are guilty of. How is she going to come up with $220,000? Going after regular people is not going to win the music industry any friends. They can keep suing all they want and make enemies out of the public, and it still won''t stop the problem. With music going digital they should find new ways of distributing it instead.

[jlwesley]

I think her lawyer and a lot of other people have missed something here, as a computer tech, I have run into situations where computers have been hacked and nefarious data placed on them in hidden files. I recently caught someone trying to do it to one of my computers and have found such files on customers computers when they complain of problems with running slow.

Maybe she is telling the truth, maybe she has grounds for appeal

[gmond]

Here is what the defense should have been - when the average person buys a wireless router and sets it up, it defaults to open connections with no secured access. The majority of home users don''t know that there is more to configuring and securing a wireless router than just plugging it in. So there is no base protection against your neighbor down the street hopping onto your connection with their own wireless router - in fact they may not even know they are using your internet account instead of their own, and you would not know that they can be using your account and your IP address for whatever illegal activities they choose. Their activity is tracked to your IP address and the account in your name, even though you did not actually engage in any illegal activity and there is no evidence on your hard drive. Too late for the woman in this case, she tried being slick and swapping hard drives when she should have just been claiming ignorance.

[sofi2hot]

wow.. aren''t laws made to be broken? i used to take my cassette tapes and record off of the radio... back in the 80''s.. its basically the same thing.. i shared those with my friends.. gave them as gifts.. as a child it was a novel idea for a personalized gift.. and i agree.. these artists are not going broke.. they should be honored that we even listen to them.. my husband plays music he writes and i much prefer it to whats on the radio anyway.. maybe i should record him and share his music.. he wouldnt mind.. he would be blown away by people finding him talented..

[emsaund1]

RE: CRZMEAT (and Mitch) -- The apology from me that you hope to hear will never happen. BTW, after reading that incoherent post from the "Space Cadet" you so proudly lump yourself in with as being from the same area, justify''s to me, that you sir, are a "GadFly".

[finsher77]

Man, the legal system in this country is a frickin travesty, the juries in this country represent just about the lowest form of intelligence possible while still being able to actually verbalize, and the record companies are not only vindictive and money grubbing, but are woefully behind the times and in a state of severe denial regarding the progression of technology.

This is going to put a lot of people off of buying music from a major label. I personally can live without it; what will I do without being able to listen to some whiny prima donna who cannot sing, or some wannabe bad-boy try to mix poor rhyming with poor rhythm? Plain pathetic.

The major labels just do not get it; transferring files over the Internet -- piracy, sharing, whatever you want to call it -- isn''t going away, and they cannot actually hope to enforce their copyrights effectively against such a pervasive technology. They need to learn how to make digitization and expanding communication work for them. They are pitifully out of the loop, and I look forward to seeing them continue to lose customers and revenue as the world moves on past their "vinyl" mentality.

[clandross]

Having been in the record business as a recording artist, I am on the side of the people in this fight. Record companies routinely abuse artists and destroy peoples dreams with false promises etc. The business model was developed by the mafia after all..

This womans defense lawyer was obviously not very tech savvy. I see unprotected wireless routers all around my neighborhood. My laptop will jump on the first open network by default. I could download ANYTHING on that connection and disappear. The police will only be able to trace it down to that internet connection. (If you look at the list of songs she was accused of sharing, does she seem like the type who would have that wide a genre of taste anyway?) There may or may not still be records of my computers MAC address on there. But what if I had spoofed that address to begin with?? Moral of story, protect your wireless router. Don''t broadcast SSID, use WPA protection with custom keys, enable MAC filtering to only allow YOUR computers on your network. Make your custom key a difficult and long password. Don''t use passwords like, "jenna69"..use passwords like 4J3nn6A9 instead. Now that "they" feel empowered by the court, the suing will be out of control now. Protect yourself.

[cbsblogger]

A single lowly consumer is sued $220K because she saved $20 by downloading 22 illegal songs, yet American business in general gets away with importing 20 million illegal immigrants for increased profits and cheap labor. American business needs sued for billions because these illegal practices cost Americans billions in lost wages and increased taxes.

[avenger09123]

The Music Industry, understandably, is protecting their rights to earn money. But who gives them the right to put defined "spyware" into our computers, report that we have illegally downloaded 1 thing, and open the door to our entire HD (trojan horse). The music industry is breaking privacy laws itself, but I''m glad she stood up for herself, I''m sorry the jury is a bunch of amish people with little understanding of how a computer works, and I''m sorry there are dishonest lawyers who make it big off of twisting the truth into a lie. The judicial system itself is failing these days because of dishonesty of lawyers and poor prehand knowledge of the matters by the jurys. Good luck lady, I was rooting for you.

Long live those bold enough to face the law, and long live those bold enough to fight for what they believe in.

[chaz006]

Many laws are wrong - pandering to the rich and powerful. I realize it''s a pipe dream, but all who are targeted by the RIAA should hide all possessions in a "trusted" relatives'' name and then force a court challenge, never to pay the fines levied against them.
The RIAA will lose exorbitant amounts in legal fees, and grind the courts down to a screeching halt. Finally, the PEOPLE can actually use the law to their advantage.

[chaz006]

Many laws are wrong - pandering to the rich and powerful. I realize it''s a pipe dream, but all who are targeted by the RIAA should place all possessions in a "trusted" relatives'' name and then force a court challenge, never to pay the fines levied against them.
The RIAA will lose exorbitant amounts in legal fees, and grind the courts down to a screeching halt. Finally, the PEOPLE can actually use the law to their advantage.

[avenger09123]

I''m going to correct something I said below.....what I mean by putting spyware in someone''s computer is putting software designed to send information without the computer owner''s knowledge back to a defined source. That, is quite illegal, where is the line going to get drawn, if the Music Industry is borrowing a line from the Blackhats of the world, doesn''t that make them just as bad and illegal as the Blackhats as well? What happens when a programmer figures out the code behind it, the music industry could be an accomplice to the biggest illegal data heist in the nation. But do you think they''ll accept responsbility for opening the door? No, they won''t, they''ll just blame it on the modifier and executer of the code. I apologize profusely to the artists and the music industry, however I will not pay 10 or 15 or $18.99 for a top quality CD(400+KBPS) for one or two songs and I will not pay the mp3 sources(iTunes) $1.99 for a low quality mp3(128KBPS) of the one song I want. Thats why I listen to the radio, it''s free and it''s good quality.
Long Live Pandora

[GuyInCT]

I''d love to see how much illegal and pirated software is on the computers of Recording Industry executives. My guess would be tons.

[GuyInCT]

I''d love to see how much illegally copied and shared software is on the computers of recording industry execs. That should be the next investigation. My guess would be tons.

[jyu1915]

As I understand it, Kazaa has already settled with the music industry for $100 million and is now a legal downloading service. For these corporations to go after people like this lady (who is a single mother of two according to other news reports) is just petty and vindictive.

[billpl-2009]

A single lowly consumer is sued $220K because she saved $20 by downloading 22 illegal songs, yet "American business in general gets away with importing 20 million illegal immigrants for increased profits and cheap labor. American business needs sued for billions because these illegal practices cost Americans billions in lost wages and increased taxes."
Posted by CBSblogger

Downloading Mexicans?