File-Sharing Mom Loses Again

[Andy Chalk]

File-Sharing Mom Loses Again

Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the famous file-sharer who's been fighting with the RIAA for almost half a decade, has lost her latest appeal and now faces a fine of $1.5 million for sharing music online.

You may recall the case of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the mom from Minnesota who was busted by the $1.92 million fine [http://www.riaa.com/].

Earlier this year a judge declared that the verdict was "grossly excessive" and reduced it [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/102010-Judge-Declares-File-Sharing-Fine-Unconstitutional] to a still-painful $54,000. The RIAA, mindful of the awkward and ugly PR surrounding the case, offered to settle for $25,000 if she would agree to ask the judge to vacate the decision, removing it from the record. She said no.

So it was back to court for a third trial, which has ended with another big loss and another big fine. A Minneapolis jury has again found in favor of the RIAA, this time pasting Thomas-Rasset with a fine of $62,500 per song, ringing up to a cool $1.5 million. The RIAA has said the money, if it ever collects, will help fund its "ongoing education and anti-piracy programs."

The odds of collecting aren't exactly great, however. The award will probably again be reduced and Thomas-Rasset said after the $1.92 million verdict in 2009 that she'd never be able to pay it anyway. "Good luck trying to get it from me," she said. "It's like squeezing blood from a turnip." But she's not yet ready to give up the fight, or to make it easy for the RIAA to step out of the spotlight of disastrous PR: Her lawyers said they're warming up for yet another appeal.

Source: TorrentFreak [http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-wins-big-against-file-sharer-15m-for-24-songs-101104/]


Permalink

 

[GiantRedButton]

wow the riaa sure are assholes.
Steal a cd and you pay 50 bucks (and some shop even lost a cd in that case)
Not paying 12 bucks for a cd still takes the moral highground over a insane coporation trying to ruin your life forever with a 1.5 million dept.

 

[cobrausn]

You know, I want to feel bad for her. But I don't.

 

[Lazarus Long]

I respectfully disagree with the headline. Every time this lady "loses," she wins. She's obviously trying to make the RIAA look like soulless corporate golems. Which, while not hard to do, is endlessly amusing. It'll be interesting to see which party runs out of conviction first.

 

[Orcus The Ultimate]

You know, I want to feel bad for her. But I don't.

At least this woman has courage to face the company, not many people would have taken so much after a while ...

i surely hope they will dismiss the case because in our Age of Communication etc, there is no such place for this kind of trial, it's just absurd.

 

[cobrausn]

At least this woman has courage to face the company, not many people would have taken so much after a while ...

i surely hope they will dismiss the case because in our Age of Communication etc, there is no such place for this kind of trial, it's just absurd.

Let me clarify my stance.

RIAA = Assholes
Pirates = Assholes

As such, I can't bring myself to feel bad for her. You know what would have required real courage and discipline? Not buying music from assholes if you don't like the way they operate, and not stealing it either. Just find something else to do.

 

[Worgen]

its stories like this that make me want to pirate stuff just as a matter of principle

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

She said no.

Wow, I respect her for kicking the RIAA in the shin, even if it resulted in worse punishments.

And this is very extreme, paying thousands for a each songs when a few hundred probably downloaded it.

Well, not to say the justice system is forgiving.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

At least this woman has courage to face the company, not many people would have taken so much after a while ...

i surely hope they will dismiss the case because in our Age of Communication etc, there is no such place for this kind of trial, it's just absurd.

Let me clarify my stance.

RIAA = Assholes
Pirates = Assholes

As such, I can't bring myself to feel bad for her. You know what would have required real courage and discipline? Not buying music from assholes if you don't like the way they operate, and not stealing it either. Just find something else to do.

considering the RIAA owns almost ALL music, that would be very hard to do unless you LIKE living your life in silence.

OT: seriously RIAA, good luck getting even 1/100th of that cash (but how does this lady pay her lawyers, i wonder?)

 

[IamQ]

wow the riaa sure are assholes.
Steal a cd and you pay 50 bucks (and some shop even lost a cd in that case)
Not paying 12 bucks for a cd still takes the moral highground over a insane coporation trying to ruin your life forever with a 1.5 million dept.

She's an asshole for stealing, and they're assholes for making her pay up too much. It evens it out.

 

[UnravThreads]

And this is very extreme, paying thousands for a each songs when a few hundred probably downloaded it.

And? She got caught, the others didn't. Stealing from a shop and not being caught is no less of a crime than stealing and being caught.

I don't really have much sympathy for her, either. I will agree with the above sentiments that it's a bit over the top, but at the end of the day, she got caught doing something she shouldn't have done and regardless of whether the RIAA are arseholes or not is irrelevant.

 

[tkioz]

See this is why I don't like punitive damages, it's just plain freaking stupid, if you need to punish someone or make an example of them (look up what punitive means) you should be doing it in a criminal court, that's what they are there for, not in a civil court.

 

[Celtic_Kerr]

I respectfully disagree with the headline. Every time this lady "loses," she wins. She's obviously trying to make the RIAA look like soulless corporate golems. Which, while not hard to do, is endlessly amusing. It'll be interesting to see which party runs out of conviction first.

While the judges are fining her 62 GRAND a song, the RIAA said that they wanted 25000 for the whole thing. People forget that the loser in a legal battle pays all legal fees except the opposition's lawyer fees. $25,000 settlement was a fucking STEAL, but she refusedm and each time she appeals, the fees she has to pay increases. They're just defending themselves at this point.

 

[cobrausn]

considering the RIAA owns almost ALL music, that would be very hard to do unless you LIKE living your life in silence.

Last I checked, music is not necessary for survival, entertainment, or pretty much anything (except maybe dancing?). If you enjoy it that much, then pay for it. If you have a moral objection to doing so, don't. I will buy the occasional CD now and then. I will then burn the music to mp3 (not illegal) and archive the CD, because it is now mine and 'fair use' dictates I can use it as I please. But I will not 'share' it with anybody. And my conscience is clear.

OT: seriously RIAA, good luck getting even 1/100th of that cash (but how does this lady pay her lawyers, i wonder?)

My guess is they are working for free. Good publicity.

 

[Popido]

The RIAA has said the money, if it ever collects, will help fund its "ongoing education and anti-piracy programs."

aka. Lawyers.

She deservers it though, being all terrorist criminal and stuff. I read it from a book.

 

[DonTsetsi]

I hope she wins in the end. Stealing is not a lesser crime than copyright infringement, the punishment shouldn't be that different just because the RIAA and some publishers want to make an example of someone.

 

[fenrizz]

I am very glad that I live in Norway, and not in the US.

The amount she has to pay is excessive, to say the least.
Your legal system is flawed.

 

[cobrausn]

I am very glad that I live in Norway, and not in the US.

The amount she has to pay is excessive, to say the least.
Your legal system is flawed.

We know. Every time we try and fix it, we just end up with more lawyers. It's like they feed off of anger and injustice.

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

considering the RIAA owns almost ALL music, that would be very hard to do unless you LIKE living your life in silence.

Last I checked, music is not necessary for survival, entertainment, or pretty much anything (except maybe dancing?). If you enjoy it that much, then pay for it. If you have a moral objection to doing so, don't. I will buy the occasional CD now and then. I will then burn the music to mp3 (not illegal) and archive the CD, because it is now mine and 'fair use' dictates I can use it as I please. But I will not 'share' it with anybody. And my conscience is clear.

I bet you have a lot of friends.

And this is very extreme, paying thousands for a each songs when a few hundred probably downloaded it.

And? She got caught, the others didn't. Stealing from a shop and not being caught is no less of a crime than stealing and being caught.

I'm afraid you don't understand... Stealing from a shop and BEING caught is more of a crime than sharing a digital copy of something. I've been caught for stealing music from a cd shop, and in the end my total expenses didn't even hit $1000 to get the charges completely cleared.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

This is ridiculous! I'm kind of glad to hear someone has the balls to stand up against the corporation. They'll never get a million + out of this woman.

It's cases like this that make me consider alternatives to buying the CD.