woman fined $222 000 for file sharing
lukin2006
Posts: 9,087
Woman fined $222,000 for file-sharing songs TheStar.com - Music - Woman fined $222,000 for file-sharing songs
Record firms awarded money after jury finds she violated copyright
October 05, 2007
Joshua Freed
Associated Press
DULUTH, Minn.–The recording industry won a key fight yesterday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay $222,000 for sharing copyrighted music online.
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.
"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not okay," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.
In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified she didn't have a Kazaa account.
"She's devastated," her attorney, Brian Toder, said after the verdict. "This is a girl that lives from paycheque to paycheque, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheque garnished for the rest of her life."
Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the firms a few thousand dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.
Similar lawsuits launched by the recording industry in Canada have faltered.
In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada denied a request from music labels that it compel Internet service providers to reveal alleged file sharers' names. Judge Konrad von Finckenstein cited privacy grounds, but also questioned whether file sharers were breaking Canadian copyright law at all.
The verdict was essentially upheld on appeal the next year.
Record firms awarded money after jury finds she violated copyright
October 05, 2007
Joshua Freed
Associated Press
DULUTH, Minn.–The recording industry won a key fight yesterday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay $222,000 for sharing copyrighted music online.
The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights.
"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not okay," said Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies.
In the first such lawsuit to go to trial, the record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified she didn't have a Kazaa account.
"She's devastated," her attorney, Brian Toder, said after the verdict. "This is a girl that lives from paycheque to paycheque, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheque garnished for the rest of her life."
Record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits since 2003 over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores. Many other defendants have settled by paying the firms a few thousand dollars.
The Recording Industry Association of America says the lawsuits have mitigated illegal sharing, even though music file-sharing is rising overall. The group says the number of households that have used file-sharing programs to download music has risen from 6.9 million monthly in April 2003, before the lawsuits began, to 7.8 million in March 2007.
Similar lawsuits launched by the recording industry in Canada have faltered.
In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada denied a request from music labels that it compel Internet service providers to reveal alleged file sharers' names. Judge Konrad von Finckenstein cited privacy grounds, but also questioned whether file sharers were breaking Canadian copyright law at all.
The verdict was essentially upheld on appeal the next year.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
"Similar lawsuits launched by the recording industry in Canada have faltered.
In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada denied a request from music labels that it compel Internet service providers to reveal alleged file sharers' names. Judge Konrad von Finckenstein cited privacy grounds, but also questioned whether file sharers were breaking Canadian copyright law at all.
The verdict was essentially upheld on appeal the next year."
like that.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Canadian copyright law does not equal American Copyright law (they are two different countries). If US courts have decided that file sharing is illegal, how exactly would you defend yourself.
apparently she didn't. as far as i know, this has never reached the supreme court. until that happens there is an argument (albeit a weak one) that the previous cases were decided wrongly and not a proper application of the law.
for me, i don't understand why you can make a copy of a cd for a friend and it's legal, but share things in other ways and it isn't.
that is illegal ... what is legal is for you to make a copy for yourself ...
i think the copyright laws are similar between us and canada on this one however, what is different is that the record companies asked the internet service providers to rat out who's been downloading and sharing ... and they said no ... upon taking it to court - the courts ruled in favour of the ISPs
i'm not sure about the history of this case - but she should have settled - her lawyer screwed her up ...
It does seem like her lawyer definetly screwed her. I think I read or heard a story that the people who settled were paying way less.
i doubt she will ever pay that much. i think the record companies just wanted an example and they're going to cut her a deal under the table.
what about taping a song off the radio? isn't that illegal?
that's why i like bands that allow tapers etc...
not sure about the radio thing (prob is) i read somewhere it comes down to quality. a burned cd is exactly like the one you burned it from
I own over 1,400 CDs, DVD-Audio and SACD discs/albums. Not to mention I also still collect new and old/pre-owned vinyl records.
But................
Maybe if all the recording companies actually invested and made an effort to improve recording quality, mastering quality and production quality; then, your average joe on the street (who is not that heavily into music/audio ) would notice a difference between a correctly recorded/mastered CD, and some compressed mp3 file on the internet.
The record labels have only themselves to blame.
When you listen at a lot of the remasters most labels have been doing for several years now, they sound horible. They jack up the levels so every instrument is EQed at the same level. It's that whole "Wall Of Sound" crap.
As a result, dynamic range is completely eliminated as is the whole emotional and musical effect of what the artists intially intended.
When recorded well and mastered correctly.....CDs can sound so damn good! Extremely close to the warmth and emotion of analogue/vinyl, but without the weakness of vinyl records.
Thank god some artists/bands are taking control of their remasters project and retaining the integrity of the recording, integrity of the dynamic range and musicality.
Furthermore, these big lables no longer really develope and nurture artists/bands. For so long now, they get these bands to write, record and play the labels approved formula for songs, they market their first album, make a ton of money and then hang the artist/band out to dry.
Just like the neverending conveyer belt product they turn out, of bands who sound like Blink 182...etc...etc...etc.
They do this because they don't want to share royalties from CD sales and publishing. They know any band who they may want to keep for the long term, will want to own their publishing rights. As well as want a fair cut on CD and DVD sales.
So instead of being reasonable and coming to a contract fair in terms, they each (the label and artist) want everything to themselves. Greed.
A lot of these artists are just as greedy and unreasonable as the labels.
The endless parade of shitty bands, talentless pop stars, one crappy remaster/reissue after the other, their collective greed; along with their poor recording/production values, is what has destroyed them.
This isn't going to be an issue much longer. With bandwidth and wireless networks getting more prolific all the time, people soon won't have to download the music at all. They can just play the music from somebody else's collection. Kind of like hearing loud music from a car driving down the street or going over to your friend's house and playing their stereo.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yea the recording industry has pretty much dropped the ball as far as trying to get people to keep buying music. Not that this excuses people downloading (and not that I haven't done that in the past) but their efforts could be put to much better use.
It is the same thing with the movie industry, if you want to stop people from downloading movies, make the theatre going experience a better one. I would love to see 70mm movies on the big screen. And from what I have read if the increased the film speed of movie cameras the effect is really cool.
TV actually has done it right so far. They realize people watch TV shows on the computer, so at least they are trying to get in on the act and find ways to make money off of it.
I think you are right on the money with that statement. Instead of making examples of people who file share, they perhaps could look into why record sales are in decline, quality of product and quality of music.
It will be interesting to see how Radiohead's experiment goes.
if you're a band i'd suggest you build your business plan around touring and merchandise, because CD sales are never going to increase at the rates they used to.
are you serious? didnt you read the article?? they just nailed one of the ringleaders!
Come and get me.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Easy defense...
Your honor, I don't know about you, but I was brought up to share. And my teachers always said, if you don't have enough for the entire class, then put it away. Well I've grown up now, and I DO have enough for the class. As a matter of fact, I have enough for EVERYONE. I also like to ask you, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus fed a starving crowd by magically duplicating bread and fish for everyone to eat. Would you sue Jesus for copyright infringement for multiplying bread and fish without the consent of the bread and fish store owners? He wasn't authorized to make copies. And I'm sure the bread and fish store owners would claim they lost millions of shells (or whatever they used back then for money) due to Jesus' "illegal" duplication tricks. I for one think Jesus with his magical powers did more good than harm for those people. And if you rule against my client, it would be like ruling against Jesus. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself one thing, do you WANT to burn in hell? I think not.
Thank you your honor.
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
guilty as charged!
Very true...!
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
hehehehe
I did that with a CD of Radiohead!
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
do they go after both groups or just the ones that are sharing? ive wondered this for awhile now.
i understand that it is illegal, but that is a very steep fine to pay.
i think they already know they make most their money from tours and merch.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
How is that fine anywhere near the proportion of the supposed crime? Even if she'd have to pay 10 times the value of the songs, it still wouldn't go past a couple houndred. Well, add the trial expenses, but that's tops.
It seems to me that legislation which in no way was intended to apply to individual downloaders/sharers on the net, is applied anyway with moronic results like this.
Know1, I'm with you on this.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Hell yeah it's a bullshit verdict!!
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."
LOL!!
"What a stupid lamb."
"What a sick, masochistic lion."