What's new
By:
Filters

Jammie Thomas-Rasset hit with $1.5 in damages

Interesting note from the comments section, apparently from a lawyer(?) (Bolding mine):
So what, then, is the point? Just to hurt her? To create an example that no one will be deterred by? I wish Congress would step in here—assuming there’s enough members not on the industry’s campaign contribution payroll.

I would have a hard time being an RIAA lawyer right now. I just don’t think I have the ruthlessness to ruin someone’s entire life for a big corporation’s whims—even if it was legally entitled to do so. It’s hard to see it as much more than blood money. Legal blood money, but blood money nonetheless.

I’ll tell you at least one source of income the RIAA has lost forever—mine. I stopped (or have tried to stop!) spending any money that will wind up in the RIAA’s hands when they decided to treat people like this.
Click to expand...
I think the RIAA Is giving themselves a bad name with this case...
 
While some will say the amount that was awarded to RIAA might seem excessive we have to remember 1 thing. She was found guilty of sharing 20+ songs and she was part of a larger problem (file sharing). She was the one that got caught in the act but how many time after had those same files been passed around that were tracked to her computer. That is when you begin to add up the lost revenue. If she shared a file with just one person on line and that file continued to be shared, doesnt she have to bear some of the responsability? Isn't that the same as stealing from the artist themselves. She as innocently as she could probably said something like "your honor, I didn't think it was wrong cause everyone else did it and nobody seemed to care" (actually I have read that she claimed to have not been the one to do it). We as represnetives of the music industry MUST let people know that this way music is to be aquired is illegal. The courts have spoken! 3 tries you are out. The amount awarded will never be collected but is should send a message to those that file share to look over your shoulder big brother might reach out and grab ya!
 
I have to say that I'm impressed. I think anyone continuing to download illegally is a bit stupid...
 
rumbolt said:
If she shared a file with just one person on line and that file continued to be shared, doesnt she have to bear some of the responsability?
Click to expand...

Yes, she should SHARE SOME of the responsibility, but $1.5 million? Seriously???

rumbolt said:
Isn't that the same as stealing from the artist themselves.
Click to expand...

Not even close. That's why you see a lot of artists going independent and wanting nothing to do with the RIAA. Do some research and try and find out just how much those artists REALLY get!
It certainly ain't what ya think!
There's a reason the artists go out on tour so much and sell their t-shirts , key chains, and whatever else they can hawk.
And yes, I do have personal experience with this. My hubby had a band several years ago and they had a minor hit in some areas. We have personal experience with this as well as with Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, et al).

Not saying I side with piracy here, but seriously, there really is a limit, especially when you martyr one person... And that's all it appears to be, because it certainly isn't a deterrent. It goes on as we speak, and all that's happening is that the RIAA is making themselves look worse than they already do with this fiasco.
 
It will again be set aside by the judge, and reduced to about 2% of the jury award.

The RIAA is not after her money - they are trying to set a legal precedent. In other words, having failed in the legislature - they are trying to write law themselves in the form of prior verdicts and awards.

They already offered her a post-judgement settlement of $25,000 but ONLY if she agreed to petition the judge to rescind his decision and restore the original damage award to the trial record. The RIAA is not after money they are trying to make an end run around Congress.

Piracy is not the major issue here - it is who do you want writing Federal law...elected representatives or multi-national corporations and lobbyists??
 
Diafel said:
Yes, she should SHARE SOME of the responsibility, but $1.5 million? Seriously???



Not even close. That's why you see a lot of artists going independent and wanting nothing to do with the RIAA. Do some research and try and find out just how much those artists REALLY get!
It certainly ain't what ya think!
There's a reason the artists go out on tour so much and sell their t-shirts , key chains, and whatever else they can hawk.
And yes, I do have personal experience with this. My hubby had a band several years ago and they had a minor hit in some areas. We have personal experience with this as well as with Performing Rights Organizations (ASCAP, BMI, SESAC, et al).

Not saying I side with piracy here, but seriously, there really is a limit, especially when you martyr one person... And that's all it appears to be, because it certainly isn't a deterrent. It goes on as we speak, and all that's happening is that the RIAA is making themselves look worse than they already do with this fiasco.
Click to expand...

If there were a per incident penalty (say 100k per) then she would owe over 2million dollars for the 20+ downloads so she go out cheap since the threat of liability was already known by her (although she claimed she didn't know of the downloading) ahead of time. She got out with a discount. She was the one that got caught and this was the test case. Downloaders beware.

What should have been a proper fine?
 
I've been thanking both sides here. Good points all around. The point about setting legal precedent makes sense. Get the award on the books, at least.

However, I also agree that it will never get collected, and some settlement will be reached at some point. I don't believe that the plaintiff eveer thought of actually receiving that amount.

On the other hand, I'm not one for kicking a single personal entity to death to "set an example". Kinda hard when you know that AIG is still in business...

Tough call
 
I've always thought the legal process with music piracy is backwards. I understand legally why they're going after the uploaders (aka sharers) but from a common sense prospective it seems backwards not to go after the guy who actually got the music for free.

Even then the sharers should only be liable for the cost of what the Plantiff can prove you provided copies of plus a small punitive penalty per track. Say you shared 1,000 songs and you get all 1,000 songs on iTunes for $.99, the music industry is only really out $990, and that's only if in fact the people would've bought the music if they couldn't steal it. The industry is only out $990, I say double that for punitive damages so settle at $1980 and call it a day. That's fair. Millions of dollars in damages for sharing music is just ludicrous, ridiculous, and assine even more so when they will never collect in that persons lifetime.
 
Big Dan said:
I've always thought the legal process with music piracy it's backwards. I understand legally why they're going after the uploaders (aka sharers) but from a common sense prospective it seems backwards not to go after the guy who actually got the music for free.

Even then the sharers should only be liable for the cost of what the Plantiff can prove you provided copies of plus a small punitive penalty per track. Say you shared 1,000 songs and you get all 1,000 songs on iTunes for $.99, the music industry is only really out $990, and that's only if in fact the people would've bought the music if they couldn't steal it. The industry is only out $990, I say double that for punitive damages so settle at $1980 and call it a day. That's fair. Millions of dollars in damages for sharing music is just ludicrous, ridiculous, and assine even more so when they will never collect in that persons lifetime.
Click to expand...

Agree 100 percent!
 
Big Dan said:
Say you shared 1,000 songs and you get all 1,000 songs on iTunes for $.99, the music industry is only really out $990, and that's only if in fact the people would've bought the music if they couldn't steal it. The industry is only out $990, I say double that for punitive damages so settle at $1980 and call it a day.
Click to expand...

That's often exactly what happens, you pay $900 in damages ....and then 1.2 million for the plaintiff's legal fees. :)

Seriously, it is very commonin copyright cases for the legal fees awarded the plaintif to exceed the damages by 4 or 5 times the amount. The damages awarded to SC if they took one of these KJ cases to court would turn out to be rather small, (possibly only in the hundreds.) Yet, if they win they can recover their legal fees which are likley to be about $6,000 per case. (...Does that number ring a bell?)
 
Diafel said:
Interesting note from the comments section, apparently from a lawyer(?) (Bolding mine):

I think the RIAA Is giving themselves a bad name with this case...
Click to expand...

For those who have not followed this case from the beginning - she was offered the opportunity to settle for $5000 and declined when she got some anti-copyright lawyers to handle her case pro bono. Then after losing once at $88,000, her lawyers wanted another trial and the second time the RIAA was granted an award of $1.92 million by the Jury! The RIAA offered to settle it for $25K and she (and her lawyers) declined again and the activist judge said that it should not be over $2,250 per song ($54,000). The most recent trial was solely on the fines and again, the jury (NOT THE RIAA) saw fit to "punish" her with the $1.5 Million for her 24 songs.

In Trademark infringements, the Statutory penalty is $200,000 a mark (we have two of them) and the maximum Statutory for Willful infringement is 10 times as high or $2,000,000 a mark.

Sort of makes our $1.42/song settlement ($6800/4800 songs) seem way undervalued. And the opportunity to "get legal" in advance by licensing the catalog of 6000 songs for $4480 a relative "steal" (pun intended).

Hmm, makes me think that all those advocating that a KJ host, using our stolen tracks for commercial purposes, should go ahead and fight us in court, just don't realize that recent cases have NOT been in favor of the pirates.
 
Proformance said:
That's often exactly what happens, you pay $900 in damages ....and then 1.2 million for the plaintiff's legal fees. :)

Seriously, it is very commonin copyright cases for the legal fees awarded the plaintif to exceed the damages by 4 or 5 times the amount. The damages awarded to SC if they took one of these KJ cases to court would turn out to be rather small, (possibly only in the hundreds.) Yet, if they win they can recover their legal fees which are likley to be about $6,000 per case. (...Does that number ring a bell?)
Click to expand...

Pro - you have absolutely no clue what it costs to litigate a Federal case - I suggest that you do what several defendants have done and contact an IP attorney to get a dose of reality. The minimum to go through a Federal case is about $50,000 - I doubt that a defendant could get a lawyer to take their case for less than about a $10K retainer. And that lawyer would not be doing their fiduciary responsibility by not advising their client of such costs AND that they really would have little chance of winning as well.

Go ahead and make a few calls (pretending that you are being sued). But don't sugar coat the situation with the attorney - flat out say that you (hypothetically) have been accused of stealing thousand of tracks by making illegal copies or buying an illegal hard drive loaded with illegal copies and using them in a commercial business and have the opportunity to settle for $6800. What should you do?
 
Sound Choice said:
For those who have not followed this case from the beginning - she was offered the opportunity to settle for $5000 and declined when she got some anti-copyright lawyers to handle her case pro bono. Then after losing once at $88,000, her lawyers wanted another trial and the second time the RIAA was granted an award of $1.92 million by the Jury! The RIAA offered to settle it for $25K and she (and her lawyers) declined again and the activist judge said that it should not be over $2,250 per song ($54,000). The most recent trial was solely on the fines and again, the jury (NOT THE RIAA) saw fit to "punish" her with the $1.5 Million for her 24 songs.

In Trademark infringements, the Statutory penalty is $200,000 a mark (we have two of them) and the maximum Statutory for Willful infringement is 10 times as high or $2,000,000 a mark.

Sort of makes our $1.42/song settlement ($6800/4800 songs) seem way undervalued. And the opportunity to "get legal" in advance by licensing the catalog of 6000 songs for $4480 a relative "steal" (pun intended).

Hmm, makes me think that all those advocating that a KJ host, using our stolen tracks for commercial purposes, should go ahead and fight us in court, just don't realize that recent cases have NOT been in favor of the pirates.
Click to expand...

Kurt, I'm aware of the fines mostly because of the FBI warnings and the beginning of movies and me being curious and going to read more about it. Even if you can legally get up $2,000,000. How is that number even remotely fair?

That being said, The RIAA is an association of lawyers. I'm sure they have some very talented people on their payroll. Just because one lawyer out talks another doesn't mean Mrs. Thomas-Rasset is guilty.

I haven't followed the specifics in this case but have you considered that Mrs. Thomas-Rasset didn't settle because she not guilty? If she got a lawyer pro-bono they must have had confidence in her innocence.
 
Proformance said:
It will again be set aside by the judge, and reduced to about 2% of the jury award.

The RIAA is not after money they are trying to make an end run around Congress.

Piracy is not the major issue here - it is who do you want writing Federal law...elected representatives or multi-national corporations and lobbyists??
Click to expand...

They are not trying to make an end run around Congress - the award, while incredibly high, is less than the maximum that could have been awarded and Congress and various government agencies (The Copyright Tribunal for one) set the numbers, not the RIAA. The RIAA recognizes the huge negative publicity this has created for them but even the LIBERAL Obama administration and Congress have come out in support of the existing laws as they are.

Why isn't anyone banging on Rassert -Thomas for not settling for $5000 when she could have? And she eggregiously tried to hide the fact that she was involved in the illegal sharing - that is one reason the juries have been so hard - they haven't taken a liking to her and her legal team and their attitude from some of the commentary I have read.

Hmm, I definitely think in light of some of these numbers that we are being too lenient - but if we ask for more, will we be acused of being "greedy" by some? Our amounts take into account a variety of factors - but considering that it could be as high as $4,000,000 - no one can REASONABLY accuse us of being "greedy"!
 
Big Dan said:
I've always thought the legal process with music piracy is backwards. I understand legally why they're going after the uploaders (aka sharers) but from a common sense prospective it seems backwards not to go after the guy who actually got the music for free.

Even then the sharers should only be liable for the cost of what the Plantiff can prove you provided copies of plus a small punitive penalty per track. Say you shared 1,000 songs and you get all 1,000 songs on iTunes for $.99, the music industry is only really out $990, and that's only if in fact the people would've bought the music if they couldn't steal it. The industry is only out $990, I say double that for punitive damages so settle at $1980 and call it a day. That's fair. Millions of dollars in damages for sharing music is just ludicrous, ridiculous, and assine even more so when they will never collect in that persons lifetime.
Click to expand...

Dan, this is exactly backwards of what some are saying concerning the Sound Choice suits, many are saying leave the guy using them alone and go after the hard drive sellers and sharers.

I think the approach of going after both is the only reasonable thing for anyone to do, smack down a few users with some hefty fines and the "user" will get the idea pretty quick. Same will go for the sellers!
 
Sound Choice said:
For those who have not followed this case from the beginning - she was offered the opportunity to settle for $5000 and declined when she got some anti-copyright lawyers to handle her case pro bono. Then after losing once at $88,000, her lawyers wanted another trial and the second time the RIAA was granted an award of $1.92 million by the Jury! The RIAA offered to settle it for $25K and she (and her lawyers) declined again and the activist judge said that it should not be over $2,250 per song ($54,000). The most recent trial was solely on the fines and again, the jury (NOT THE RIAA) saw fit to "punish" her with the $1.5 Million for her 24 songs.

In Trademark infringements, the Statutory penalty is $200,000 a mark (we have two of them) and the maximum Statutory for Willful infringement is 10 times as high or $2,000,000 a mark.

Sort of makes our $1.42/song settlement ($6800/4800 songs) seem way undervalued. And the opportunity to "get legal" in advance by licensing the catalog of 6000 songs for $4480 a relative "steal" (pun intended).

Hmm, makes me think that all those advocating that a KJ host, using our stolen tracks for commercial purposes, should go ahead and fight us in court, just don't realize that recent cases have NOT been in favor of the pirates.
Click to expand...
Any reason you quoted me, specifically?
Not sure who you're referring to about advocating that KJ hosts using your stolen tracks should fight anything. Certainly, no one here sides with those who have actually stolen tracks.

Here's some interesting reading on the subject of copyright and trademark:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/TrademarkExtortion/TrademarkExtortion.shtml

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/site_index.shtml

Do a little exploring. Very interesting stuff.

PS: Care to share just what these "recent cases" fought in court against karaoke pirates have been? Got any links?
 
I for one wish you would be "greedy". I would like to see much higher settlements and I believe that would bring more attention to the problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top