Print 67 comment(s) - last by jimhsu.. on Nov 8 at 8:29 AM

Thomas fined $1.5M by jury  (Source: AP)
It's like Deja Vu all over again

The battle between Jammie Thomas and the Recording Industry Artists Association (RIAA) has reached epic proportions. The battle revolves around allegations that Thomas illegally shared music and downloaded pirated music using the peer-to-peer sharing platform Kazaa. 

Thomas was back in a courtroom fighting the jury award that would have seen her pay $1.92 million for illegally downloading 24 songs working out to $84,000 per song. The judge in the case reduced that fine to $54,000 in an appeal stating, "The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music."

The RIAA later offered to settle with Thomas for $25,000 to be paid to a music charity. Thomas and her attorney refused the offer, and the RIAA then rejected the judges reduced fine of $54,000. After the reduction was rejected, the case went back to court. The jury deliberated for two hours according to the 
Star Tribune and came back with bad news for Thomas. The jury awarded the RIAA a record fine of $1.5 million, which is about $400,000 less than the original judgment against Thomas.

A RIAA representative named Cara Duckworth said, "We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognize the severity of the defendant's misconduct. Now, with three jury decisions behind us, along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."

Neither Thomas nor her attorney was available for comment on the decision. Looking at the history of the case, it would be unsurprising for another appeal to follow along with another plea from the Thomas camp to reduce the fine.  Thomas' attorney Kiwi Camera said in closing arguments, "She may have engaged in the conduct. That doesn't mean they can take her head and stick it up on a pole."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Heh
By amanojaku on 11/4/2010 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 5
What are you talking about? What song on this list ISN'T worth $62,500???

Aerosmith "Cryin'"
Bryan Adams "Somebody"
Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me"
Destiny’s Child "Bills, Bills, Bills"
Gloria Estefan "Here We Are"; "Coming Out of the Dark"; "Rhythm Is Gonna Get You"
Goo Goo Dolls "Iris"
Green Day "Basket Case"
Guns N' Roses "Welcome to the Jungle"; "November Rain"
Janet Jackson "Let's Wait Awhile"
Journey "Faithfully"; "Don't Stop Believin'"
Linkin Park "One Step Closer"
No Doubt "Bathwater"; "Hella Good"; "Different People"
Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart"
Richard Marx "Now and Forever"
Sarah McLachlan "Possession"; "Building a Mystery"
Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run"
Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last"

Outside of GnR and a couple of other songs on the list the RIAA should consider itself lucky anyone listens to them at all. Brian Adams? Vanessa Williams? Hell, if I was on the jury I would have been held in contempt of court for laughing at the prosecution (prostitution?)

RE: Heh
By FITCamaro on 11/4/2010 12:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
"Pour Some Sugar on Me" has resulted in countless women taking their clothes off and thus is worth the fine all by itself. ;)

RE: Heh
By Boze on 11/4/2010 7:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe when you were young and cameros were cool, FIT. Its a different ball game out there nowadays... playa.

RE: Heh
By Solandri on 11/4/2010 1:49:07 PM , Rating: 2
You have to keep in mind the RIAA is double-dipping (or multiple-dipping). The $80k+ per song award is just for this one person. Conceivably the RIAA could sue everyone who downloaded these songs and collect $80k+ per song from each of them. If you tally the award properly that way, then it's obviously grossly disproportionate.

Either the penalty per song has to be proportionate to the crime of not paying ~$1 for a song she downloaded for personal use, or the award has to be viewed as a penalty against some sort of copyright infringement ringmaster and indemnifies everyone else who downloaded the song from being sued. You cannot sue one person for damages caused by thousands of downloaders, win, then go about suing those thousands for the exact same crime.

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki