AfterDawn: Tech news

DOJ calls Jammie Thomas' $1.92 million file sharing fine "constitutional"

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 15 Aug 2009 15:24 User comments (36)

DOJ calls Jammie Thomas' $1.92 million file sharing fine "constitutional" Last September, Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas was convicted of sharing 24 unauthorized tracks via P2P and was told to pay the RIAA $220,000 in damages. Thomas was granted a retrial however, and the case went to verdict again in June.
Thomas was found to have "committed willful violation" of the copyrights on all 24 songs and the jury awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million USD, equivalent to $80,000 for each song.

Today, the U.S. Department of Justice has called the gigantic fine constitutional, and acceptable.

The legal brief, via Cnet, says: "Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed."

Prosecutors, during the case, made sure to note that current intellectual property laws allow copyright holders to sue for up to $150,000 USD per work "stolen."

More news

Previous Next

Related news

 

36 user comments

115.8.2009 15:46

Jammie, don't worry... Just declare bankruptcy and get on with your life... The same laws that are screwing you over will also get you off with out having to pay... :)

215.8.2009 18:32

Quote:
Jammie, don't worry... Just declare bankruptcy and get on with your life... The same laws that are screwing you over will also get you off with out having to pay... :)

God bless America...

315.8.2009 18:32

Congress took into account the need to deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe that they will go unnoticed
--

So basically the courts are pissing on someone's constitutional rights because they want a scapegoat. Isn't that nice :)

415.8.2009 18:40

You can't clear court-ordered fines with bankruptcy, unfortunately. She will be paying that fine for the rest of her life.

515.8.2009 19:32

so let me get this right...She is haveing to pay $80K a song because the RIAA cant find anyone else to sue?

edit- anyone to sue successfully....

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 15 Aug 2009 @ 21:09

615.8.2009 19:47

lol again, luck (not) being an american tonight..**** the RIAA

715.8.2009 22:57

I am not sure what to think about this case anymore i still think its just been dragged on for far too long.

816.8.2009 0:25

Originally posted by qwert99:
You can't clear court-ordered fines with bankruptcy, unfortunately. She will be paying that fine for the rest of her life.
Move to Canada.

916.8.2009 1:46

man F**k the riaa

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Aug 2009 @ 1:48

1016.8.2009 3:19

i wouldn't pay them shit, i would draw all my remaining cash from banks
and store it in jars just like thee good'ol Days. then move to oregon and get me a log cabin in them there woods.

set some bear traps for the feds that come looking, oregon bears are mean you know.then id get some army surplus materials like a Gas mask some Mark 4 body armor and a couple of M60's. be looking like the guy From DOOM box art.

1116.8.2009 4:53
pphoenix
Inactive

I suppose this is what happens when you appoint a half-dozen ex-RIAA attorneys to top spots in the Justice Department.

Punishment should fit the crime: otherwise it is just government-sanctioned brutality.



Well the studios have lost a customer in myself and everyone i manage to educate into seeing just how these corporate entities should be avoided.

support the artists by going to live concerts avoid all merchandise and CD's, borrow them from the library if you really have to & copy them that way you are not at the small risk of being caught downloading.


Quote:
Morrissey tells netdepressives to boycott his re-releases
Big mouth strikes at big media 14th August 2009 23:29 GMT


Lyricist and sardonic crooner Morrissey has urged loyal fans to steer clear when the big music labels re-release his old tunes.

Mozzer has asked fans not to buy either a planned boxed set of his solo work or a re-released set of CDs and vinyl from his days with the legendary Smiths.

The EMI, HMV, and Parlophone record labels in November plan a boxed set of Morrissey singles and B sides from his post-Smiths years spanning 1985 to 1999.

But Morrissey told the True to You site: "Morrissey does not approve such releases and would ask people not to bother buying them. Morrissey receives no royalty payments from EMI for any back catalogue, and has not received a royalty from EMI since 1992."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/14/morrissey_objects_online/





lets not for get who is actually behind the MPAA - RIAA, these are the companies that need to be targeted and boycotted into changing their ways, purchase only 2nd hand media and do not purchase anything branded sony, why allow the fecktards to dictate hardware DRM any-more.

Name and shame the companies as all the **AA trade group name is for is to protect the capitalist corporate globalists from bad press.


RIAA, CRIA, SOUNDEXCHANGE, BPI, IFPI, Ect:

# Sony BMG Music Entertainment
# Warner Music Group
# Universal Music Group
# EMI

MPAA, MPA, FACT, AFACT, Ect:

# Sony Pictures
# Warner Bros. (Time Warner)
# Universal Studios (NBC Universal)
# The Walt Disney Company
# 20th Century Fox (News Corporation)
# Paramount Pictures Viacom—(DreamWorks owners since February 2006)



====================================================================
If sony payola (google it) wasn't bad enough to destroy indie competition you have this:

Is it justified to steal from thieves? READ ON.



RIAA Claims Ownership of All Artist Royalties For Internet Radio
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/04/29/0335224.shtml

"With the furor over the impending rate hike for Internet radio stations, wouldn't a good solution be for streaming internet stations to simply not play RIAA-affiliated labels' music and focus on independent artists? Sounds good, except that the RIAA's affiliate organization SoundExchange claims it has the right to collect royalties for any artist, no matter if they have signed with an RIAA label or not. 'SoundExchange (the RIAA) considers any digital performance of a song as falling under their compulsory license. If any artist records a song, SoundExchange has the right to collect royalties for its performance on Internet radio. Artists can offer to download their music for free, but they cannot offer their songs to Internet radio for free ... So how it works is that SoundExchange collects money through compulsory royalties from Webcasters and holds onto the money. If a label or artist wants their share of the money, they must become a member of SoundExchange and pay a fee to collect their royalties.'"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/4/24/141326/870
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Aug 2009 @ 5:04

1216.8.2009 10:54

As for "Move to Canada." She can only do that once all debt to her country is cleared. Canada will not protect, let alone allow in our country, any immigrant currently in debt. Not only that she has to pay to be a citizen in our country.

1316.8.2009 18:20
homesick
Inactive

mc hammers brother there that got caught modding consoles for cash was fined and he denied donations saying he was going to declare bankruptcy. i am assuming he is a smart man, so tell me, how can you not file bankruptcy. she isnt in debt to the country, she is in debt to the music ppl right? if thats the case, court ordered or not, i am pretty sure she can declare bankruptcy.


1416.8.2009 19:15

I dont' support piracy, but wtf is just about that? Nothing! That's what!

That's something a dictatorship would do! "Ok, so the people are getting unruly, let's pwn one of them to set a public example."

Absolutely ridiculous. Absolutely.

1516.8.2009 19:33
llongtheD
Inactive

@qwert99,
I'm not sure what state you live in, but in most states, court judgements can be cleared by bankruptcy. The only things that usually can't be cleared are federal taxes, and child support.
Guilty or not, the RIAA has to be pretty proud of themselves suing someone into bankruptcy for 24 songs.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 16 Aug 2009 @ 19:37

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

1616.8.2009 23:42

Originally posted by Mysttic:
As for "Move to Canada." She can only do that once all debt to her country is cleared. Canada will not protect, let alone allow in our country, any immigrant currently in debt. Not only that she has to pay to be a citizen in our country.
Wrong. I had a $hitload of debt, had zero problems gaining permanent residence. Could go full citizen if I wanted but not sure I want to cough up another grand. Dont know where in Canuckland you live but I am on the east coast and Immigration didn't say squat about my (rather LARGE sums of debt -- including defaulted student loans).

1716.8.2009 23:46

Originally posted by llongtheD:
@qwert99,
I'm not sure what state you live in, but in most states, court judgements can be cleared by bankruptcy. The only things that usually can't be cleared are federal taxes, and child support.
Guilty or not, the RIAA has to be pretty proud of themselves suing someone into bankruptcy for 24 songs.
And student loans are almost impossible to get rid of with bankruptcy. Wasnt always the case however. In the 80s they changed the laws because many were getting out of their federal student loans by claiming bankruptcy. Im sure there are ways to get around it these days if you are connected to the right people..but such is the exception, not the rule. And, I would not be surprised to find in 20 years many other things added to that long list. Our Congress Critters truly do suck rotten eggs (along with all the damnable lawyers associated with them).

1817.8.2009 0:01
llongtheD
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
@qwert99,
I'm not sure what state you live in, but in most states, court judgements can be cleared by bankruptcy. The only things that usually can't be cleared are federal taxes, and child support.
Guilty or not, the RIAA has to be pretty proud of themselves suing someone into bankruptcy for 24 songs.
And student loans are almost impossible to get rid of with bankruptcy. Wasnt always the case however. In the 80s they changed the laws because many were getting out of their federal student loans by claiming bankruptcy. Im sure there are ways to get around it these days if you are connected to the right people..but such is the exception, not the rule. And, I would not be surprised to find in 20 years many other things added to that long list. Our Congress Critters truly do suck rotten eggs (along with all the damnable lawyers associated with them).

Agreed.
And Until lobbyists corporate or otherwise are barred from Washington, and we have true accountability from our elected officials, this is what we'll live with. Corruption, and completely idiotic lawsuits like this.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Aug 2009 @ 0:55

If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.

1917.8.2009 0:59

in this day and age justice is in your own hands, you can only help yourself.

2017.8.2009 5:21

THE PUNISHMENT MUST FIT THE CRIME!

If you punish her for my actions then you (DOJ, RIAA ...) should be put in jail. Punishing her for my actions, rather than her own, is the same as punishing an innocent person.

THIS IS PURE EVIL! GREED OVER JUSTICE!

Millions litter, so let's deter this action by cutting off the hands of anybody who does. Not because we think it's a fair punishment for the offense, but because we want to deter others.

2117.8.2009 6:08

"Millions litter, so let's deter this action by cutting off the hands of anybody who does. Not because we think it's a fair punishment for the offense, but because we want to deter others."

Actualy, the goal was to brutaly masacure one litter bug in public in order to scare the others.

Personaly, I am leaning more and more towards becoming a pirate. I have boycotted just about every media producer, and have gone to buying 2nd-hand only. I use netflix to see the movies I cannot find used, but if the media producers are going to keep pissing on the poor, bribing judges, and shreding our constitution...then I might as well just start making copies of every netflix movie I get (no more buying 2nd hand movies either...buying the 2nd hand copy might lead to someone else buying it new).

Jammie - Go to Jamaica, they don't give a **** about your credit score, and there are plenty of jobs for americans who can speak american (not english, american).

2217.8.2009 6:35
llongtheD
Inactive

Originally posted by KillerBug:
"Millions litter, so let's deter this action by cutting off the hands of anybody who does. Not because we think it's a fair punishment for the offense, but because we want to deter others."

Actualy, the goal was to brutaly masacure one litter bug in public in order to scare the others.

Personaly, I am leaning more and more towards becoming a pirate. I have boycotted just about every media producer, and have gone to buying 2nd-hand only. I use netflix to see the movies I cannot find used, but if the media producers are going to keep pissing on the poor, bribing judges, and shreding our constitution...then I might as well just start making copies of every netflix movie I get (no more buying 2nd hand movies either...buying the 2nd hand copy might lead to someone else buying it new).

Jammie - Go to Jamaica, they don't give a **** about your credit score, and there are plenty of jobs for americans who can speak american (not english, american).

Thats the system we live in. They just had to put up their fences before tightening their grip.

2317.8.2009 9:26

Am I the only who has read this properly, the DOJ have said "the sentence is unconstitutional...."

Surely this means the DOJ can overturn the court ordered fines? If here in the UK the Home Office found a sentence to be unfair or illegal (as in unconstituional) then it would be changed.

The filing paper is still unclear as to what action can and will be taken and in fact leaves the decisions in their entirety upto the court.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 17 Aug 2009 @ 9:35

2417.8.2009 12:15

I wonder if they released the titles of the songs she shared. Maybe those artists can get together with Jamie and appeal. Were they well established pop stars? If there's enough of them, why can't they pool their money together to at least reduce the amount, and then maybe spearhead a fundraiser for music lovers everywhere and other artists to help cover the cost. That would make a statement that it's wrong to destroy someones life over something so minor. The DOJ wants to make an example of this individual woman, why can't the artists step up and show how ridiculous this is and make a public outcry to Congress?

2517.8.2009 13:15

Wouldn't that be a conflict of interest. Obama filled the DOJ with media mafia lawyers.

2617.8.2009 13:41

Originally posted by emugamer:
I wonder if they released the titles of the songs she shared. Maybe those artists can get together with Jamie and appeal. Were they well established pop stars? If there's enough of them, why can't they pool their money together to at least reduce the amount, and then maybe spearhead a fundraiser for music lovers everywhere and other artists to help cover the cost. That would make a statement that it's wrong to destroy someones life over something so minor. The DOJ wants to make an example of this individual woman, why can't the artists step up and show how ridiculous this is and make a public outcry to Congress?
The DOJ are stating that award for damages was unconstitutional how can you be having a go at them, it wasn't the DOJ who made the award it was a Jury filled with RIAA paid retards :) As for the artists and song titles they were released including such hits as Shania Twain "more than a woman" so hardly huge hahaha

2717.8.2009 14:15

Serialluv, you miss-read the title or something. The damage WERE, not were NOT constitutional.

Why would the DOJ filled with media mafia lawyers go against their 'brothers'.

2817.8.2009 14:40

Quote:
Originally posted by emugamer:
I wonder if they released the titles of the songs she shared. Maybe those artists can get together with Jamie and appeal. Were they well established pop stars? If there's enough of them, why can't they pool their money together to at least reduce the amount, and then maybe spearhead a fundraiser for music lovers everywhere and other artists to help cover the cost. That would make a statement that it's wrong to destroy someones life over something so minor. The DOJ wants to make an example of this individual woman, why can't the artists step up and show how ridiculous this is and make a public outcry to Congress?
The DOJ are stating that award for damages was unconstitutional how can you be having a go at them, it wasn't the DOJ who made the award it was a Jury filled with RIAA paid retards :) As for the artists and song titles they were released including such hits as Shania Twain "more than a woman" so hardly huge hahaha
The article clearly states that the DOJ found it constitutional.

2917.8.2009 16:04

Holy crap sorry peeps, yes I completely misread the whole thing, I swear to god I thought it said unconstitutional, hmm what was I on when I read that ha.

Please note I retract all my previous statements and say BAST**DS!!!!

3018.8.2009 12:09

The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed

3118.8.2009 16:44

Originally posted by mystic:
The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed
Or utilise better routes then P2P and torrents, dead distribution far too open to abuse by the RIAA and all other such entities, direct links and file hosting only :) If you're going to do it, be smart enough not to get caught.

3218.8.2009 17:10
homesick
Inactive

Originally posted by Serialluv:
Originally posted by mystic:
The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed
Or utilise better routes then P2P and torrents, dead distribution far too open to abuse by the RIAA and all other such entities, direct links and file hosting only :) If you're going to do it, be smart enough not to get caught.
yea... limewire isn't exactly the best route...

3320.8.2009 7:46

I do not think persons think that she shouldn't be punished, well, maybe they are quite a few that think that way. What is the outragious part is the fine for something that is quazilegale. It is like giving the death penitaly to jay-wakers.

Do you REALLY think you should be fined 2 million dollars for having a P2P system on your computer? With 24 files she really hadn't used it much. The problem was she was sharing 24/7 till they got her because she is a moron.

She was using Kazaa which is worse than Limewire because it runs in the backround any time your computer is on (no way to turn it off while you are using the computer).

3420.8.2009 16:43

When will the dumbed down, doped up American populace learn that it's up to them to stand up to this. Jury's have a legal right and obligation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The jury system was put into place to keep the government from abusing it's legislative powers to oppress it's citizenry. Judges might (HAH will and DO lie to you about your powers and responsibilities, but a jury has the right to vote not guilty if they disagree with the law or possible/probable punishments. Check out www.fija.org for some info on this.

3520.8.2009 20:07

Originally posted by Tarsellis:
When will the dumbed down, doped up American populace learn that it's up to them to stand up to this. Jury's have a legal right and obligation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The jury system was put into place to keep the government from abusing it's legislative powers to oppress it's citizenry. Judges might (HAH will and DO lie to you about your powers and responsibilities, but a jury has the right to vote not guilty if they disagree with the law or possible/probable punishments. Check out www.fija.org for some info on this.
Erm hello?!!?!? Have you not heard of jury screening?!?!?!?

3621.8.2009 14:20

Quote:
Erm hello?!!?!? Have you not heard of jury screening?!?!?!?
I know, that's how Doctor Phil made his money and got famous, he wrote the book on how to select a jury based on the verdict you want. Unfortunately, far too many americans are far too stupid, thus jury screening works, and it's too late for us to change anything now without mobs and probably pitchforks.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive