Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

Beware 12 Scams of Christmas

Online schemes take advantage of the holiday spirit

Nov 21, 09 3:12 PM CST
TRAVEL

Anonymous Posters Bedevil TripAdvisor

Hotel ranking site shows dangers of crowdsourcing

Nov 20, 09 2:35 PM CST
big brother

Vulgar Online Comment Costs Man His Job

He posts dirty word, then gets tracked via his IP address

Nov 20, 09 8:40 AM CST
BIG BROTHER

Cops Use Facebook to Bust Underage Drinkers

Phony 'friend' gains access to drinking photos

Nov 19, 09 6:19 PM CST
FARHAD MANJOO

Microsoft Office 2010:
Worthy, But Not Worth It

Why buy what you can get for free?

Nov 20, 09 9:45 AM CST
Your Boss Can't Read Your Email, Courts Say

Judges start to sympathize with employees in privacy disputes

Nov 19, 09 11:42 AM CST
JUDGE HANGS UP ON AT&T

Verizon Ads 'Sneaky' But OK

AT&T-bashing campaign can stay on air, judge says

Nov 18, 09 9:01 PM CST
Twitter Founder:
Murdoch Will 'Fail Fast'

Biz Stone thinks plan to put up online paywalls is folly

Nov 19, 09 12:00 PM CST
Facebook's
Most Annoying
Parents

Enough with the sonogram pictures and toilet training status updates

Nov 18, 09 12:12 PM CST
Secret Google Phone Is Real—Really

It's rumored to be a VoIP-only device made by Samsung or LG

Nov 18, 09 2:14 PM CST
Computer Glitch Causes Nationwide Flight Delays

Planes in the air not affected

Nov 19, 09 8:23 AM CST
ANTISOCIAL NETWORKING

OMG, Enuf With Ur Duckface

Social networks groan under weight of bad profile mugs

Nov 15, 09 1:50 PM CST
Google Ditches
Mapmakers,
Hires ... You?

Google ditches industry giant for user content, and others follow

Nov 17, 09 9:56 AM CST

|NEXT STORY »

Minnesota Mom Fined $1.9M for Illegal Music Downloads

Guilty verdict given in do-over of country's first file-sharing trial

By Rob Quinn| Posted Jun 19, 09 4:12 AM CDT|

(Newser) – A Minnesota woman has been fined $80,000 per song for each of 24 music files she illegally downloaded, CNN reports. The court ordered Jammie Thomas to pay $1.92 million to the Recording Industry of America. Her original trial—America's first for music file-sharing—granted the RIAA just $220,000, but a retrial was ordered after a mistake in jury instructions came to light. She plans to appeal.

[Images (3)]

[Quotes (2)]

Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been ordered to pay $1.92 million to the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally sharing music files. (AP Photo/Julia Cheng, File)

Jammie Thomas of Brainerd, Minn., left, leaves a federal courthouse after the jury returned a verdict against her in her first civil trial for alleged music pirating. (AP Photo)

Jammie Thomas has been found guilty of illegally downloading and sharing music over the Internet. (AP Photo/Julia Cheng)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do. - RIAA spokeswoman Carrie Duckworth

There's no way they're ever going to get that. I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now. - Jammie Thomas-Rasset

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.20.09

The Health-Care Wars Have Just Begun

11.19.09

Sarah Palin Deserves Some More Attention

38 comments

VIEWING:

drlarrymitchell
Jun 19, 09 4:31 AM CDT

This is bullshit. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 6:32 AM CDT

The punishment exceeds the crime but it is a crime nonetheless.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

oldgoat
Jun 19, 09 4:33 AM CDT

It is way too much, but she did know that it was illegal to download so she deserves some kind of fine. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

riffran
Jun 19, 09 5:26 AM CDT

lime wire?..what lime wire?..*hitting the format button in a panic*...wow...they are sure making an "EXAMPLE" out of this person, as a warning no doubt Reply

| 0 minutes ago

nick
Jun 19, 09 5:48 AM CDT

Utter nonsense and a waste of time. No, where were we ... Reply

-1

| 0 minutes ago

Graymatter
Jun 19, 09 7:11 AM CDT

What a massive waste of tax payer dollars to just to teach people a lesson. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

nathanielfoster
Jun 19, 09 7:32 AM CDT

She is being used as an example to scare people. Plain and simple. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Rembrandt_Q_Einstein
Jun 19, 09 8:08 AM CDT

Obviously this woman doesn't know how to steal stuff off of the internet. ;) Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Observer
Jun 19, 09 8:19 AM CDT

This really scary - There must be 100M Americans that have downloaded songs or movies. So the DOJ or state, county and city courts can go after 1/3 of Americans with outrageous fines and extort billions of dollars? It is time to kick the shit out of prosecutors and judges that turn loose murders and millionaires but bust music downloaders. This is true tyrrany! Reply

IN RESPONSE:

jbuberel
Jun 19, 09 12:43 PM CDT

This is not tyranny. Nobody has been tortured, due process was not suspended. This woman was found guilty by two juries of her peers. If you don't like copyright law, ask your legislator to change it.

-1

| 0 minutes ago

kaja
Jun 19, 09 8:31 AM CDT

Sad, just sad. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

kirei_gaisuto
Jun 19, 09 8:31 AM CDT

Fuck you RIAA. And to everyone who's like, she downloaded music illegally she deserves it: fuck you too. Like you've never done it. And 1.9 million dollars is WAY too much for something I could buy online for 1 dollar. This is just another example of the RIAA and the music industry refusing to keep up with the times. Instead of evolving to adapt to new technology, they're insisting that everything stay the same and it's only hurting their cause. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 8:41 AM CDT

No, I have never downloaded music illegally. Never will. I get the majority of my music from legal downloads via a paid monthly subscription to eMusic: great artists, great selection and great prices. I agree with you that 1.9 million is way to much to pay for something she could have got for a dollar. If she had been bright, she may have thought of that herself and saved herself the legal issues. And your issue is not with the RIAA - your issue is simply you want to take something for free that was meant to be sold to you. I want to see you try that in another retail establishment and see where it gets you.

-3

IN RESPONSE:

SomebodyElse
Jun 19, 09 9:53 AM CDT

To robert_dada, while you're point that the 1.9 million dollars was a punitive consequence for breaking the law and had she chosen not to break the law she'd need pay it is well taken, however I take issue with your assertion that the issue is simply with wanting to take something for free that was meant to be sold to you and that it is comparable to any other retail establishment. That is a logical fallacy. If kirei were to take something meant for sale in any other retail establishment, he would be depriving that establishment of the product without due compensation. However, in the case of music downloading, there is no deprivation taking place. Though it has been downloaded, the original owner still maintains possession of the music.

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 11:41 AM CDT

Somebody: How can you say downloading does not deprive the owner of the product due compensation? If I am the artist and I record a work (and incur the associated costs of studio time, engineer, marketing, etc), which is my livelihood that pays the bills, but everyone is downloading it for free, how is that not depriving me of due compensation?

-1

IN RESPONSE:

SomebodyElse
Jun 19, 09 12:22 PM CDT

Dada: Firstly, my point was that by downloading a cd, I am not depriving the artist that created it or anyone else of the cd, he still retains , I am merely creating a copy of it. If I were to steal a cd, the store that is selling the cd no longer has that cd. Secondly, as far as your point of depriving the artist of compensation the loss of income is entirely hypothetical. Someone downloading a song does not imply that they would have purchased the song if they had been unable to download it. Finally, while I do believe that artists deserve compensation for their work, perhaps it is time to rethink the business model and focus on selling the tangible, such as special edition CD packages, memorabilia, and concert tickets, to the people who are only familiar with the band because of the easy access to their music through the internet.

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 12:40 PM CDT

Somebody: So by your logic then, if I copy some software and install it on my PC, I am not depriving revenue to the software developer that created it and invested in all the R&D effort up front in order to provide an application that you choose to copy and use for free. That is ludicrous. And just because something doesn't exist in a physical form (download vs CD), does not mean you can acquire it at will with no payment, without it being considered theft. If you truly believe that, tap into your neighborhood's cable lines for free programming and see where that leads. And trying to make the assertion that just because you illegally downloaded something doesn't imply you would have purchased it otherwise does not hold legal water. The fact is, the download is illegal and the person downloading it is presumably enjoying the music at will, on a potential multitude of playing devices without having compensated the owner of the music. From a legal standpoint, it doesn't matter 'what you would do otherwise." As for your business model suggestion, that may have limited success with artists who are already heavily established in the industry, but would do little to nothing for newly emerging artists, who have limited recognition and little to offer in the way of special packaging.

-1

IN RESPONSE:

jbuberel
Jun 19, 09 12:47 PM CDT

@Robert_Dada: You only deprive the publisher of value if you WOULD have bought it in the first place. If you download a song (or install a piece of software) that you did not pay for but would not have purchased were you required to pay for it - then you have not deprived anyone of actual value: They never would have been paid by you in the first place. I know, the argument is lame, but does hold together (mostly)

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 12:58 PM CDT

jbub: it doesn't hold together legally at all. By taking possession of the material via illegal download, you are violating the legal terms and conditions of its use. At that point, it doesn't matter at all what your choice would be if the only option were to pay for it.

IN RESPONSE:

Jezze
Jun 19, 09 2:16 PM CDT

@DADA - downloading music adds to the musicians fanbase, therefore should increase their concert ticket sales. if one person downloads a cd, likes the band, then buys a concert ticket, that cancels out that "case of pirating" and the musician comes out ahead in that case because a cd = $10 to $20 verses a concert ticket = $40 to $100. but im sure u wont agree...

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 2:38 PM CDT

Sorry jezze, your logic is flawed. Illegally downloading does not automatically equate to adding to an artist's fan base, especially if the downloader does not in any way otherwise financially support the artist. Which leads to my second point: if a person's interest in an artist is superficial to the point where they aren't even willing to buy their work, a fair percentage of them also won't bother to go to their concerts. This plays into a previous argument on this thread: "Well if I didn't download it for free, then I wouldn't have bought it in the first place." If that is the prevailing attitude, then it's not likely that many of these people will fork out the cash to attend a concert by the artist, because, as you say, the price of a concert is so much higher than a CD. Which brings me to my third point: Yes a concert can be $40-$100 vs. $10-$20 for a CD. However, you can't just do the simple math difference and say the artist makes way more. Built into the ticket cost is not only the fee to the artist, but also the fee to the venue, promoter, security, insurance, local taxes/fees, etc. But look, these philosophical statements don't matter anyway because illegal downloading is just that, illegal (that's why there's all the little fine print on published material in case you were wondering). When you purchase a published piece of material, you also consent to any legal terms and conditions that go along with it. When you flagrantly disregard it by illegally downloading, from a legal standpoint, you are consenting to any legal ramifications of taking that action. Now, should this woman be fined $1.9 M? No. But when she, or anyone else chooses to take that risk, they better understand the ramifications of incurring that risk.

IN RESPONSE:

Poludamas88
Jun 20, 09 5:58 PM CDT

dada, your arguments are correct from a legal standpoint, you can't argue against that, but nobody who has responded to you has tried to invalidate your claim that this is illegal. They are arguing that the reasoning behind the laws are somewhat flawed. I'm more on their side, the music industry, especially copyright laws need change and it is impractical and impossible to try and stop pirating. Only a police state could completely stop it(even then it would only be 90%-99% stopped) and more pragmatic laws are needed for this issue, not archaic methods such as this case, where they are trying to imitate the effect of a public execution. If people see how bad her punishment is, they will stop doing it out of fear. The only problem is they messed it up IMO. While I'm sure, if they even though about it, they wanted to target a "normal" citizen to show that even seemingly good, tax paying citizens can be targeted and fined, I think if they had targeted a seedier individual they could have at least not looked like douchebags by appealing to peoples morality instead of their survival instincts.

IN RESPONSE:

Poludamas88
Jun 20, 09 6:02 PM CDT

Also, I'm not arguing that the government should come out and tell people it is okay to steal music, you won't be considered a criminal. All I'm saying is that we don't need to enforce it so strictly since the presence of anti-copyright laws are enough to stop the people who are inclined to obey everything that is a law.

| 0 minutes ago

kaja
Jun 19, 09 8:33 AM CDT

I would like to see a few CEO's get fined proportionate for all the wrong doing they have done Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Reader65069154
Jun 19, 09 8:58 AM CDT

Digital media is changing faster than many of the antiquated establishments in place. The RIAA is a dinosaur thrashing on its heels and the only way it can stay relevant is to sue consumers. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 9:04 AM CDT

Agreed, but digital media (in any format) that is produced by others for your entertainment consumption should be paid for.....right???

-1

IN RESPONSE:

Reader65069154
Jun 19, 09 9:55 AM CDT

Oh - I don't disagree with the premise that the woman committed a crime. Perhaps I didn't fully explain myself on that part. I would add that the fines/penalties in place do not seem to be reasonable.

| 0 minutes ago

TerrifiedCitizen
Jun 19, 09 9:08 AM CDT

These kinds of frivolous decisions are made by potential Supreme Court nominees; that's why their case records and adherence to constitutional citizen protections are so important to weigh during any vetting process. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

jbuberel
Jun 19, 09 12:48 PM CDT

Note that she has been found guilty TWICE by a juries of her peers. These were not decisions handed down by judges. It was jurors - people like you and I - who found her guilty.

| 0 minutes ago

2-bits
Jun 19, 09 9:53 AM CDT

I can't believe how many people support this decision! Have you no sense of proportion (or justice, for that matter). How does the punishment even remotely fit the crime? This is like getting the death penalty for jaywalking! Reply

IN RESPONSE:

jbuberel
Jun 19, 09 12:49 PM CDT

The punishment is too sever, but this is now the second time she has been found guilty in a trial by jury. The current law (that your legislator helped enact) determines the level of the fines, not the juries who found her guilty.

IN RESPONSE:

2-bits
Jun 19, 09 4:54 PM CDT

jbuberel, I am interested to know who you think "my legislator" is.

| 0 minutes ago

triordan
Jun 19, 09 10:23 AM CDT

You're winning RIAA! YEAH! Where can I buy more of your products! BS! You're a dying industry RIAA, leave Americans alone. You will not gain customers by suing them, their friends, and their families. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

sache
Jun 19, 09 10:44 AM CDT

Whoa, isn't this a bit much. Next the poor woman will have to rob a bank to pay the fine. Get caught doing that and it will be time on top of fine. Where will it end? Seriously, i think a retrial is in order. That fine is way out of line. $1.92 millon no way. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Jezze
Jun 19, 09 2:01 PM CDT

that is ridiculous, there is no way, that a woman like that will ever be able to pay that kind of fine. i think they are trying to make an example out of her, but what is it going to solve? nothing, people are not going to stop downloading songs no matter what the "punishment" is. get over it. times have changed. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

emptycalm
Jun 19, 09 2:59 PM CDT

The music industry will do anything to hold on to it's profits. Even if it means getting BS laws created and suing people for outrageous amounts of money. I hate to tell them but their profit is going down because the content is so awful these days. No wonder people download! They don't want to waste money on a 20 dollar cd that will probably be watered down, overly-accessible garbage. Get with the times assholes. The market evolves even to many peoples dismay. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

Robert_Dada
Jun 19, 09 3:17 PM CDT

I agree. The vast majority of what the major labels release is crap - which is why I stay mostly in the independent or underground scene: Psychic TV, Prong, Ministry, Skinny Puppy, Legendary Pink Dots, et. al. - artists that release meaningful things. And I reward them by PURCHASING their work. You should do the same, with whoever you support.

| 0 minutes ago

Shannonals
Jun 19, 09 11:49 PM CDT

Waste of the legal system Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 38 comments »

music downloads • file sharing • RIAA • Jammie Thomas • copyright infringement • illegal downloading

from our news partners

Jenna Fischer Knows As Much About Her 'Office' Baby As...
(48 minutes ago)
Jon Gosselin Brings Roses to Successful Divorce Meeting
(3 hours, 44 minutes ago)
Michael Jackson Glove Sells for $350,000
(4 hours, 25 minutes ago)
Tween Girls Go Wild at Justin Bieber Mall Event; 5...
(4 hours, 46 minutes ago)

Ahmadinejad in Tehran has a plot / But the US...
(29 minutes ago)
Be glad for the tryptophan in the turkey on Thanksgiving....
(57 minutes ago)
Las Vegas passes law requiring all dogs and cats be...
(1 hour, 42 minutes ago)
Brits up in arms over proposal to have their national...
(2 hours, 12 minutes ago)

First Look At Xeno Lovegood From The Deathly Hallows
(Nov 21, 09 8:48 PM CST)
New Moon Has Best Opening Day Of All Time
(Nov 21, 09 11:41 AM CST)
Writer Hired For Underworld 4
(Nov 20, 09 4:44 PM CST)
Brad Pitt Producing Dark Void Video Game Adaptation
(Nov 20, 09 4:36 PM CST)

Associated Press

Lawmakers want to restrict use of 'peer-to-peer' after disclosure of ethics...
(Nov 18, 09 7:37 AM CST)
Lawmakers want to restrict use of 'peer-to-peer' after disclosure of ethics...
(Nov 17, 09 5:28 PM CST)
A history of Intel and AMD's legal battles
(Nov 16, 09 12:58 PM CST)
A history of Intel and AMD's legal battles
(Nov 12, 09 5:30 PM CST)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

Minnesota Mom Fined $1.9M for Illegal Music Downloads