$222,000 for distributing music

Recording industry attorney Richard Gabriel said the first music file-sharing copyright infringement case to go to trial wasn’t about how much money his clients could get. The major record labels wanted to send a message.

A jury of 12 Northern Minnesotans sent that message to a Brainerd, Minn., woman — and perhaps put a chill into others — by deciding she’s liable for $222,000 in damages for willfully committing copyright infringement by distributing 24 songs on the KaZaA peer-to-peer file sharing network.

Capitol Records Inc., Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, Warner Bros. Records Inc. and UMG Recordings are the prevailing parties in the lawsuit against Jammie Thomas.

The record companies alleged that SafeNet, their anti-piracy contractor, found a KaZaA user called “tereastarr’’ offering 1,702 songs for others to download on Feb. 21, 2005. SafeNet downloaded tracks whose copyrights belonged to the record companies and linked them to Thomas’s Internet address with Charter Communications.

“What we appreciated most about this case was an opportunity to put out in daylight the facts and evidence that we collect in these cases,’’ Gabriel said to a media horde assembled outside the courthouse after the verdict. “This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our copyright recordings is not OK.’’

The Recording Industry Association of America has brought more than 26,000 lawsuits against individuals who allegedly have illegally downloaded and/or distributed copyrighted music files.

The head of litigation and anti-piracy for Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Arista Records testified at trial that music piracy has caused billions of dollars of harm to the industry. Gabriel told jurors that the piracy has hurt those who record and distribute music, as well as those who find new artists, run sound boards and work as backup musicians. All are facing threats to their livelihoods because of pirated music, he said.

Defense attorney Brian Toder and Thomas left the courthouse after the verdict. He was later reached by cellphone. Toder said he was disappointed in the verdict and his client was devastated. “She’s in tears,’’ he said. “She’s worried about her home, she’s worried about her car payments. She’s a woman who lives paycheck-to-paycheck and now they want a quarter of a million dollars from her.’’

Thomas, 30, works for the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe in its natural resources and environment department. She’s the single mother of two, ages 8 and 11.

Toder hinted that he took Thomas’ case for the $3,000 the plaintiffs initially wanted to settle the case. He said he hasn’t earned any more money from her and won’t ask her for any more. He said Thomas is also facing huge attorney fees to be paid to the plaintiffs as the prevailing party.

Gabriel said he hadn’t talked to his clients and couldn’t say whether they will seek to collect on the judgment. Toder said he would attempt to negotiate with the plaintiffs to lessen the burden on his client.

“I’m hoping to talk to those guys; they’ve made their point,’’ Toder said.

The jury decided that Thomas should pay $9,250 in damages for each of the 24 copyright infringements. Jurors declined comment as they were escorted from the courtroom by courthouse security. A phone message left at the Iron Range home of the jury forewoman wasn’t returned. A Duluth woman juror also declined comment when reached at her home Thursday night.

After about three hours of jury deliberations Thursday, it became apparent things were going in favor of the plaintiffs. That’s when jurors sent a note to the judge with a question asking what the damage range was if they found that the defendant committed a willful act of infringement. U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis assembled the parties in the courtroom and said he would be informing jurors that the willful damage range was from $750 to $150,000 for each copyrighted work.

Toder said he may have appealable issues, but he wouldn’t publicly second-guess the presiding judge. “As far as rulings go, Judge Michael J. Davis was brilliant; he’s one of the best judges in the state,’’ Toder said.

One decision that went against the defendant was Davis’ ruling that the plaintiffs weren’t required to prove that Thomas actually transferred music to someone else. Under Davis’ instructions of law to jurors, the act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network violated the owners’ copyright regardless of whether actual distribution was shown.

Toder started his closing argument by telling jurors he had “a tough row to hoe.’’ He said his client didn’t know what happened, only that someone else used her computer user name and IP address, a number assigned to a subscriber connected to an Internet service provider.

“We can’t prove spoofing [someone pretending to be somebody else by taking over their IP address], we can’t prove any other kind of evil,’’ Toder told jurors. But more importantly, he said, the plaintiffs didn’t prove that “Jammie Thomas — the human being’’ – did anything illegal. “Jammie Thomas was not the person masquerading as ‘tereastarr,’ ’’ he said.

Gabriel called the defense case a combination of misdirection, red herrings, smoke and mirrors.

Jurors were instructed by Davis to make their decision based on the “greater weight of the evidence,’’ a lower standard that the “beyond a reasonable doubt’’ required in a criminal case.

The case was followed by computer-savvy people around the world. Gabriel, of the Denver law firm of Holme Roberts & Owen, has some experience in high-profile trials. He was part of the team that successfully defended Michael Jackson in 1994 when another singer sued Jackson claiming he infringed one of her songs.

Gabriel was a soft-spoken gentleman in his questioning of witnesses and during his interactions with opposing counsel throughout the three-day trial. He actually winked at Toder across the aisle as jurors entered the courtroom with the verdict in one of the most important cases of his 20-year career. Why did he do that?

“I think Mr. Toder is a professional,’’ Gabriel said. “To use his phrase — he’s a standup guy. He’s doing the best job he can do for his client and I’m doing the best job I can do for my client.’’

Gabriel said he plans to keep doing the best job he can do for the recording industry in enforcing its copyrights.

Damn, that sucks.

Good thing I wasn't on the jury. I would have voted to award them $0.99 per song, and that's generous. Their current product isn't even worth that.

The flucking Recording Industry of America (RIA) is the biggest ripoff orginazation ever and brings these suits to protect its own profits while passing on legal and security fees to the actual artists so that they actually get charged in these cases for "protecting the intellectual property. The RIA profits twice. I'm glad to see major artists fighting back by using alternative distribution methods such as Prince giving his CD away in the newspaper in England and Radiohead putting their songs online for anyone and asking you what it's worth. More here on the Radiohead move: Radiohead Snubs Current Distribution Model, Lets Fans Decide Pricing http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/10/radiohead-snubs.html

That sucks for her. Brainerd is about an hour and a half north of here and it's not a wealthy city. Apart from the casino in Mille Lacs. Thats why I DL all my shit from iTunes

RIAA can blow it out their asses. Where the hell is Teddy Roosevelt to break up a monopolizing asshole infested corporate trust when you need him?

Why not charge her what the songs are actually worth? 24 songs? That's like an album - so what $20 - to $25?


The head of litigation and anti-piracy for Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Arista Records testified at trial that music piracy has caused billions of dollars of harm to the industry. Gabriel told jurors that the piracy has hurt those who record and distribute music, as well as those who find new artists, run sound boards and work as backup musicians. All are facing threats to their livelihoods because of pirated music, he said.

This is also a total load of complete bullshit. Interestingly, it contrast with what a manager of a local shop said - and that was that he believed more people were buying music after they downloaded it - simply because it gives more exposure to more bands that most people wouldn't ever bother to look at. In other words he was basically saying it was free advertising, and it was helping him sell a wider variety of music to a wider variety of people than he was doing before the internet was around. I think there was an article in Wired that said basically the same thing, but sourced several store owners.

Damn, that sucks.

Good thing I wasn't on the jury. I would have voted to award them $0.99 per song, and that's generous. Their current product isn't even worth that.
How could you actually vote on the side of the recording industry?

If anyone wants to talk about corporate greed, the heads of the music companies take the cake.

RIAA can blow it out their asses. Where the hell is Teddy Roosevelt to break up a monopolizing asshole infested corporate trust when you need him?

Wow, what an obscure reference. Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican way back when the party actualy fought monoplistic companies rather than embrassing them. Wouldn't it be nice if the Republithugs of today would go back to their roots?

yes this is screwed up. I found it odd that they got her for sharing music and not for downloading it. Seems backwards to me. What is the difference between downloading an album and buying it on ebay or a second-hand store? Neither give any reimbursement to the record company or the artist. Both however have at one point in time have done this. SOMEONE likely has purchased the cd at some point and put it on the net for other people, much in the same way that the record company has gotten paid for a cd that is bought on the internet or a secondhand store. I understand that it is against the law to share, however I think most people would agree that most artists make plenty of money already!! If they don't make their money off of the music itself, so what? they make a killing on ticket sales and merchandise, not to mention the large number of people who actually still buy cds. I must say that I buy a heck of a lot more cds now that the prices aren't outrageous as they were a few years back. I think $.99 per song is quite reasonable. It's actually cheaper a lot of times to just buy the album rather than pay the .99 for each song. Like someone earlier said, downloading music gives the fan a taste of the album before buying it. I like the idea of paying $.99 for a song so that I can actually preview a song that isn't on the radio, because let's face it, the radio stations are only playing what they think we want to hear. It annoys the hell out of me that people don't listen to songs that aren't on the radio (as if they aren't good)...but that's another topic! The $222,000 seems quite high and I think it's horrible that this woman's family will suffer over something so stupid, but if it gets a point across then more power to the already fat-wallet record companies.

This is just rediculous... did this woman get a lawsuit because she didn't protect her computer/files well enough? Perhaps she just ripped the music onto her computer (from a cd!!), then someone hacked in and got it? I doubt this is the case, but what is the difference between having this and someone loaning their cd's to someone to "listen to"? You don't know if they're going to copy them...basically it's beyond your control! Basically my point here is ...sharing a file on the internet and loaning a cd to someone doesn't really seem that much different...especially considering that a lot of people will eventually buy a cd after hearing it.

How could you actually vote on the side of the recording industry?


Actually, a piddling little sum like that is considered more of a slap in the face in these types of trials. I'm no fan of the RIAA by any means, but a settlement of mere pennies tells them they aren't worth spit, and they shouldn't have bothered to file a suit in the first place. I would have paid the 24 bucks myself, just to tell the RIAA to STFU.

Bottom line is this: there is a lot of money being made in the entertainment industry, and they can buy a lot of judges and court time. They've certainly bought a fair chunk of congress.

A boycott is the best action, but the sheeple can't seem to be able to give up the "product" long enough to make a big enough dent. If no one displays any interest in their music, and that includes no buying OR downloading, they'll have to do something besides sue all their customers.

go here: www.boycott-riaa.com (http://www.boycott-riaa.com)

I've told my kids there is no downloading on my network, and the colleges are now clamping down, it's just too much hassle. I agree that there is nothing to stop them from getting together with friends and holding "ripping parties". God only knows how long it will be until the RIAA convinces the courts that it's in the country's best interest to let them search house to house for "illegal" music.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this and recording it off the radio, which is also technically illegal.

sharing equates to distribution and it's probably easier to prove that you're sharing a file.

Actually, a piddling little sum like that is considered more of a slap in the face in these types of trials. I'm no fan of the RIAA by any means, but a settlement of mere pennies tells them they aren't worth spit, and they shouldn't have bothered to file a suit in the first place. I would have paid the 24 bucks myself, just to tell the RIAA to STFU.

Bottom line is this: there is a lot of money being made in the entertainment industry, and they can buy a lot of judges and court time. They've certainly bought a fair chunk of congress.

A boycott is the best action, but the sheeple can't seem to be able to give up the "product" long enough to make a big enough dent. If no one displays any interest in their music, and that includes no buying OR downloading, they'll have to do something besides sue all their customers.

go here: www.boycott-riaa.com (http://www.boycott-riaa.com)

I've told my kids there is no downloading on my network, and the colleges are now clamping down, it's just too much hassle. I agree that there is nothing to stop them from getting together with friends and holding "ripping parties". God only knows how long it will be until the RIAA convinces the courts that it's in the country's best interest to let them search house to house for "illegal" music.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this and recording it off the radio, which is also technically illegal.The problem with ruling with them, and awarding them anything, is that it legally validates their case. It won't just be $24 that gets paid, they will also be owed all legal fees.

I will protect the women and children in my life by making sure they understand that they cannot be sharing or excessively seeding the content back to the world!!

I spoke to the RIAA while I was doing a story on the Digital Freedom Campaign and they weren't too bad on the phone. Unfortunately, I only got a bunch of PR out of them. The way that it was explained to me is, by me using a song that I own on a powerpoint and distributing it by presenting said powerpoint, I could be sued for illegal distribution. Now THAT is bullshit.

Actually, a piddling little sum like that is considered more of a slap in the face in these types of trials. I'm no fan of the RIAA by any means, but a settlement of mere pennies tells them they aren't worth spit, and they shouldn't have bothered to file a suit in the first place. I would have paid the 24 bucks myself, just to tell the RIAA to STFU.

Bottom line is this: there is a lot of money being made in the entertainment industry, and they can buy a lot of judges and court time. They've certainly bought a fair chunk of congress.

A boycott is the best action, but the sheeple can't seem to be able to give up the "product" long enough to make a big enough dent. If no one displays any interest in their music, and that includes no buying OR downloading, they'll have to do something besides sue all their customers.

go here: www.boycott-riaa.com (http://www.boycott-riaa.com)

I've told my kids there is no downloading on my network, and the colleges are now clamping down, it's just too much hassle. I agree that there is nothing to stop them from getting together with friends and holding "ripping parties". God only knows how long it will be until the RIAA convinces the courts that it's in the country's best interest to let them search house to house for "illegal" music.

Personally, I don't see any difference between this and recording it off the radio, which is also technically illegal.
Glad you didn't take me out of context. My question sounded a bit rude.

I quit downloading a few years ago myself. I slowed down a lot towards the end of my college years and stopped once I graduated.

It's all good. Blazee has a good point. The loser gets socked with the costs of litigation.

I think she had a weak case, if the information is accurate. How damn hard is it to turn off sharing in those file sharing programs? That 's the first rule of downloading if you want to fly under the radar.

Other accounts also say she swapped out her hard drive AFTER she was notified of the suit. Oh sure, she claimed that it died and had to be replaced. It doesn't sound like her lawyer presented a very good case, either. That, and the RIAA got lucky on this one, and they actually filed suit against a live person, instead of the dead one they went after a while back.

I also think the jury should have been a little less friendly to the plaintiffs. I say, if the RIAA doesn't want people to download the music, everyone should oblige them and just kick it all to the curb. Don't buy the CDs, either. Let 'em choke on it.

Recording industry attorney Richard Gabriel said the first music file-sharing copyright infringement case to go to trial wasn’t about how much money his clients could get. The major record labels wanted to send a message.

If you read the article posted this case has nothing to do with damages or attorneys' fees. The reason why the case was pursued was to send a message. Even I may not agree with the jury's decision but they have spoken so there has been due process.

Furthermore, the jurors are stuck between a rock and a hard place. The jurors get detailed jury instructions based on the law. Technically, jurors have to follow the law, review the evidence presented and then render a verdict. To get jury nullification in a case like this is next to impossible. IMO the Defendant's attorney did a poor job of defending the case and the jurors saw through the subterfuge and B.S. story presented by the Defendant. That is why it probably only took them 3 hours to reach a verdict. If I was on the jury that alone may have convinced me to rule in favor of the Plaintiffs. See below. :rolleyes:


Toder started his closing argument by telling jurors he had “a tough row to hoe.’’ He said his client didn’t know what happened, only that someone else used her computer user name and IP address, a number assigned to a subscriber connected to an Internet service provider.

“We can’t prove spoofing [someone pretending to be somebody else by taking over their IP address], we can’t prove any other kind of evil,’’ Toder told jurors. But more importantly, he said, the plaintiffs didn’t prove that “Jammie Thomas — the human being’’ – did anything illegal. “Jammie Thomas was not the person masquerading as ‘tereastarr,’ ’’ he said.

Next, what good is a jury decision in favor of the Plaintiffs with damages awarded and attorneys' fees when the lady sounds judgment proof. How do they plan on collecting on the damages and attorneys' fees? In just about every state in the U.S. her income is exempt and cannot be garnished to satisfy a judgment. Also, certain property will be exempt like a house, single car, furniture and her personal possessions. In a worse case scenario all she has to do is file for bankruptcy. The bottom line is ignorance of the law is no excuse.

I do not have any peer to peer file or music sharing programs on any of my computers. :grinno:

Well, if no one file shared then how would we download? The way to fly under radar is to turn it down on how many an individual can download and how much of your stuff is downloaded.

But for sake of arguement, this is the same BS as marijuana. It's illegal, ok? But thousands are doing it. Why pick one poor woman out of everyone and bust them? Either the f'ing law needs to do their d$%# job and arrest/fine everyone or no one at all.

That was more leaning towards MJ, because it pisses me off that it's illegal and cops could bust hundreds going around campuses same with downloading. It's like it's a law they can use if they have nothing better to do, but until then who gives a f&%$.

Well, if no one file shared then how would we download? The way to fly under radar is to turn it down on how many an individual can download and how much of your stuff is downloaded.

But for sake of arguement, this is the same BS as marijuana. It's illegal, ok? But thousands are doing it. Why pick one poor woman out of everyone and bust them? Either the f'ing law needs to do their d$%# job and arrest/fine everyone or no one at all.

That was more leaning towards MJ, because it pisses me off that it's illegal and cops could bust hundreds going around campuses same with downloading. It's like it's a law they can use if they have nothing better to do, but until then who gives a f&%$.

Damien makes a very good point. How can they punish one woman (severly) out of millions of people who download?? Seems like they could've found several people and fined them [less severly] to get their point across. If the headline had been: "hundreds of people fined $5,000 for file sharing" some people would've had the same reaction...OMG!! $5,000 still seems harsh to me, however it might not have as huge an impact on a family like $222,000 will. I don't know about the financial situation of the woman's family, but a blow of that magnitude could certainly prove life-changing. All this over F*****G music!!!! I don't know if the fine would really matter as far as the dollar amount, it's still going to have an impact, but people will still find ways to share files.

Seems like they could've found several people and fined them [less severly] to get their point across. If the headline had been: "hundreds of people fined $5,000 for file sharing" some people would've had the same reaction...OMG!! $5,000 still seems harsh to me, however it might not have as huge an impact on a family like $222,000 will.
Where have you been? The RIAA has been routinely filing suit against hundreds of people every month, using scare tactics and the threat of large fines like we're discussing here. They "offer" to settle out of court, and the "usual" settlement has been 3-4 thousand dollars. Such a deal, since the potential penalty is 750 to 150,000 dollars per song.

Nice work if you can get it. File some papers, don't even have to show up in court, and the accused gives you 3 grand to leave them alone. I think most of them have to sign some sort of nondisclosure statement, but I'm not sure. Sure beats having to put out a quality product at a fair price.

The whole situation is messed up, from the iPod on down. An iPod will hold how many gigs of music? No one reallly believes people actually bought every song they put on the thing, do they?

Physical CDs for music are old tech. The industry needs to develop a new model and embrace the technology. Digital distribution is the way to go, at a decent price. 99 cents a song is NOT it. People don't want to buy a whole CD for a couple of decent songs. They want it in a more convenient format, so they can pick and choose. THAT is why the RIAA is in trouble, they aren't keeping up with tech. The only thing they can do is toss around lawsuits.

And yes, no one can download if no one shares. That's a no-brainer. However, people aren't being sued for downloading; they're being sued for uploading, or making the files available. The RIAA has copyright law on their side, or so it seems, and the courts are helping them out. So is Congress. So, share away, and bear the risk. Chances are you'll be fine, but I bet Jammie Thomas felt the same way.

I agree with Bob; she IS judgment proof. I'm not sure what the RIAA gained, since it hasn't been well publicized, but they now have precedent. Seems like a catch-22 to me; if they make a big deal out of it, they look like heartless bastards, out to kill the little guy. By the same token, they can use it to fire another warning shot across the bow of file sharing.

It just looks to me like it's not working. They're shaking people down, and file sharers are giving them all the ammunition they need. If there was no file sharing, they'd dry up and blow away.

I didn't realize that they had dealt more than the 1 big suit. What I find weird about all this is that when you have a program for downloading music, any music that you rip to your computer seems to become availiable for others to download unless you go in and tell it to "stop sharing" the file. Basically, if you didn't know better, you could be unknowingly putting numerous files out there for other users to download. I don't see how anyone could get in trouble for this if all you're doing is putting music on your computer from CDs. What if you intention was NOT to share music?

if i remember my tort law, ignorance is not defence.
but then again, i can't remember the specifics of that bit of latin that I have completely forgotten.

if i remember my tort law, ignorance is not defence.
but then again, i can't remember the specifics of that bit of latin that I have completely forgotten.

:werd:

Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Meaning "Ignorance of the law is not an excuse." A person who violates the law or commits an actionable tort cannot claim ignorance as an excuse for why they committed it.

"Let the buyer(user) beware" comes to mind here, too.

Those programs install with sharing turned ON by default. It's up to the user to turn it off. Most(not all) of the people using those progs aren't that savvy.

Sucks to be them.