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.

[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.

[nexgen99]

Good, if you steal you should have to pay. Where do these people get off thinking they can steal other peoples work and not be punished. I hope they go after and catch every single one. We have become a society of crooks who think they can go around stealing music, books, movies, software and everything else.

[klingon69]

Please get real. Nobody shares the actual cd quality files and should not be prosecuted for any crime for a bad mp3 reproduction. It is only the ignorant jurors who commited a crime here. If you record a song off the air and put it on your computer or stick it in your cd player, what crime is that? If i sing in the shower will the music police bust down the door? are midi ring tones a copyright infringment?
Posted by krakosmako at 08:08 PM : Oct 05, 2007

What about karaoke? If someone sings a copyrighted song, do they have to pay fees? Is the club responsible, the karaoke team, or is purchasing the CDG enough?

[mamajoy2]

When looking at the lifestyles and amount of income available to most of the performers, I see the growing gap between the listeners and the performers. When they spend an average monthly salary on one meal, they just might realize they are contributing to the reason many people are downloading instead of buying. Be more realistic on ticket prices, cd prices, and be understanding of people that never will have the money to buy tickets to a concert or buy cds. People used to record the songs off the radio and edit, you couldn''t see that. It is the invasion of privacy in this computer age that is even allowing you (recording companies/artists) to see that sharing is going on.

[mamajoy2]

When looking at the lifestyles and amount of income available to most of the performers, I see the growing gap between the listeners and the performers. When they spend an average monthly salary on one meal, they just might realize they are contributing to the reason many people are downloading instead of buying. Be more realistic on ticket prices, cd prices, and be understanding of people that never will have the money to buy tickets to a concert or buy cds. People used to record the songs off the radio and edit, you couldn''t see that. It is the invasion of privacy in this computer age that is even allowing you (recording companies/artists) to see that sharing is going on.

[brianbwb-2009]

I only wish I could have given the closing argument to the jury, on behalf of the defendant. Sony, (the guys who put trojan viruses and spyware on your hard drive from legally bought CDs, google "sony drm case", or "Mark Russinovitch, sony drm") and the rest of them would have wound up paying the defendant.

[tcdelfin]

So, the record companies we no longer purchase ANY merchandise from are..

"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..."

Its time for the CONSUMERS to SEND A MESSAGE to the record companies.. the only way to do this, is to affect their bottom line $$$$
I say, we only listen to music that hasnt been tainted by this machine.. and is still musically honest.. support metal, indie, or make your own music.
Consider this too.. who exactly is the RIAA protecting here? And how exactly are the ARTISTS benefiting? I attend quite a few concerts, large and small, and can tell you, the majority of bands travel from gig to gig in U-haul and Ryder rental trucks, pulling their gear, and sleeping in their vans or rentals.. Record execs travel in luxury vehicles, fly first class, and sleep in suites at top hotels.. who''s protecting who?

[tcdelfin]

So, the record companies we no longer purchase ANY merchandise from are..

"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..."

Its time for the CONSUMERS to SEND A MESSAGE to the record companies.. the only way to do this, is to affect their bottom line $$$$
I say, we only listen to music that hasnt been tainted by this machine.. and is still musically honest.. support metal, indie, or make your own music.
Consider this too.. who exactly is the RIAA protecting here? And how exactly are the ARTISTS benefiting? I attend quite a few concerts, large and small, and can tell you, the majority of bands travel from gig to gig in U-haul and Ryder rental trucks, pulling their gear, and sleeping in their vans or rentals.. Record execs travel in luxury vehicles, fly first class, and sleep in suites at top hotels.. who''s protecting who?

[tcdelfin]

So, the record companies we no longer purchase ANY merchandise from are..

"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..."

Its time for the CONSUMERS to SEND A MESSAGE to the record companies.. the only way to do this, is to affect their bottom line $$$$
I say, we only listen to music that hasnt been tainted by this machine.. and is still musically honest.. support metal, indie, or make your own music.
Consider this too.. who exactly is the RIAA protecting here? And how exactly are the artists benefiting? I attend quite a few concerts, large and small, and can tell you, the majority of bands travel from gig to gig in U-haul and Ryder rental trucks, pulling their gear, and sleeping in their vans.. Record execs travel in luxury vehicles, fly first class, and sleep in suites at top hotels.. who''s protecting who?

[tcdelfin]

So, the record companies we no longer purchase ANY merchandise from are..

"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..."

Its time for the CONSUMER to SEND A MESSAGE to the record companies.. the only way to do this, is to affect their bottom line $$$$
I say, we only listen to music that hasnt been tainted by this machine.. and is still musically honest.. support metal, indie, or make your own music.
Consider this too.. who exactly is the RIAA protecting here? And how exactly are the artists benefiting? I attend quite a few concerts, large and small, and can tell you, the majority of bands travel from gig to gig in U-haul and Ryder rental trucks, pulling their gear, and sleeping in their vans.. Record execs travel in B''mers and luxury vehicles, fly first class, and sleep in suites at top hotels.. who''s protecting who?

[aidonais]

Hey Mr. Downloader,
I pay for everything myself. To be relegated to college radio, the cesspool of radio is a *** good start. Radio labels have to pay to play songs on the radio. Ok! It isn''t free! I paid for what I could afford. But because of ****** ***** like you, I couldn''t afford the bigger radio stations. On top of that, my music is for specialized radio play anyway. It''s too heavy for pop radio. *** ***** like you talk with big sticks because they have little *****. Before you spout off about something you don''t know, be sure to ask your mommy if it''s okay to speak. Besides, as an independent DIY musician, I''m pretty stoked that as many people heard my music as did. There was no one helping me. There''s just me. So when people steal from me, there''s no middle man. There''s just me. I''m not trying to get rich. I''m trying to feed myself.

[pwrslm]

the victims of the music industry needs to organize a nationwide boycot of CD''s from these distributors

maybe after 2 or 3 months without making money would wake them up