AfterDawn: Tech news

Jammie Thomas hit with another gigantic P2P verdict

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 04 Nov 2010 22:37 User comments (12)

Jammie Thomas hit with another gigantic P2P verdict Jammie Thomas-Rasset must be kicking herself today.
Thomas-Rasset, the American woman who has been fighting the RIAA in court for the last four years over 24 unauthorized songs she downloaded and shared online, has lost again in court, with a jury finding her liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages.

That equals out to $62,500 per song she shared.

The RIAA was ecstatic with the decision (via Cnet): "We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."

In 2007, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for $1.92 million in damages, but a retrial saw the fine dropped to $220,000.

Earlier this year, however, a Federal judge found the fine to be "shocking" and reduced it to just $54,000. The RIAA told Thomas-Rasset that they would accept $25,000, if she would agree to ask the judge to remove the decision from the record. She did not accept the terms of the deal.

Lawyers for the Minnesota woman have vowed another appeal.

Previous Next  

12 user comments

14.11.2010 23:44

This is Madness!!! 1.5 Million for 24 songs Thats BS man!

25.11.2010 0:04

This is just keep bouncing around between judges...even the best offer she has had so far (the 25K offer) was insanely high.



35.11.2010 0:53

And how much was the jury paid for under the table by the RIAA, or what were they promised?

45.11.2010 1:31

Originally posted by Tristan_2:
This is Madness!!! 1.5 Million for 24 songs Thats BS man!
Madness? No. Pure sanity in the global corporatocracy. Individuals mean nothing. Only business greed matters.

55.11.2010 9:40

The jury must be in bed with the RIAA and their cronies, or are they just plain stupid.

65.11.2010 10:33

I think it would be better for her to prove that file sharing a song is actually worth the $62,000 in the first place.

and what is the song really worth as I think these were all old songs.

MS paid the rollins stones $45,000 so they had full copyright on 1 song.

If she appeals she could in turn force the court to make her a copyright holder for the total amount she is being forced to pay out on these songs.

To which she could in turn sue the record companies for selling her song that they haven't given her royalties to.

75.11.2010 13:52

I think Ms Thomas' lawyers must be really bad if they can't get across the point to 3 jurys that these million $ awards are outrageous

85.11.2010 17:46

She should sue the music producers for making crappy music in the first place


Oh, Im sorry... Did the middle of my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours?

99.11.2010 23:42

I would like to know why the "RIAA" does not go after the BIG companies that target the users. For instance it is Sony who produces the dvd burners and the tens of millions of blank dvd media and also the software for burning everything. Why is Sony even in business ? (Reminds me of the Reagans(1980-88) war on drugs).They could not go after the large drug cartels in Columbia so they still are going after all the poor users out there. Why is Sony,HP,JVC,LG Electronics,Memorex,Philips,Consumer Electronics,TDK,Verbatim just to name a few (there are many more much larger corporations)out there still reaping in the huge profits while the average person is getting raped by good old Uncle Sam.

1012.11.2010 13:18

Originally posted by beanos66:
I think Ms Thomas' lawyers must be really bad if they can't get across the point to 3 jurys that these million $ awards are outrageous
She actually had great lawyers. They gave the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves. They almost got the whole file share thrown out. They appealed by asking the RIAA lawyers to prove the file sharing was against the law. Although they blew all sorts of smoke they never went through with that and everything was on hold more than a year later the MN case wound up in a CA court probably near Hollywood. That judge basically said WTF and said she was guilty with out much of a hearing. There wasn't any jury. She hasn't paid a dime and will not until the fine becomes reasonable which it never will.

1112.11.2010 17:43

Originally posted by Semperfipal:
The jury must be in bed with the RIAA and their cronies, or are they just plain stupid.
They may have been given instructions by the judge on how to vote, or they must be stupid.

1212.11.2010 18:37

What jury? Only the first trial had a jury. I am not sure they came up the amount, just that she was guilty.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive