$222,000 for distributing music

[BNaylor]

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.

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.

[Damien]

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&%$.

[gw84]

Originally Posted by Damien

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.

[03cavPA]

Originally Posted by gw84

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.

[gw84]

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?

[drunken monkey]

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.

[BNaylor]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

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.

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.

[03cavPA]

"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.