Infamous file sharer gambles and loses. Again.

[Ns1]

The third time was not the charm for Jamie Thomas-Rasset, who has spent the last several years wrapped up legal wranglings with the Recording Industry Association of America over 24 songs she downloaded through Kazaa back when people still used Kazaa. The latest development -- a jury in her third trial has found her liable for $1.5 million ($62,500/song) in damages to Capitol Records.

Earlier this year, the judge in the second trial had reduced the "monstrous and shocking" original $1.92 million judgment to only $54,000, with the RIAA willing to cut that to $25,000. Thomas-Rassett, however, rejected the offer and opted for a new trial.

hahahahahahahhhahahahhahahah

how can she continually afford all these lawyers?

 

[ravana]

She has lawyer friends maybe?

$62,500 a song is kinda nuts though. I wonder if the artists will see even a penny of that.

 

[zokudu]

Didn't the RIAA only take action against those who uploaded music and not downloaded?

 

[Ns1]

Didn't the RIAA only take action against those who uploaded music and not downloaded?

that's why she's getting railed.

 

[Raduque]

What the fuck are these juries smoking to be able to hand out these kinds of sentences? That's some hardcore bullshit, right there.

 

[zokudu]

who has spent the last several years wrapped up legal wranglings with the Recording Industry Association of America over 24 songs she downloaded through Kazaa back when people still used Kazaa.

This made it sound like shes in trouble for downloading them when she was more likely than not uploading her whole collection.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Pro bono work maybe? I dunno.

It boggles the mind how they can possibly come up with these absurd "damages". Regardless, WTF difference does it make anyway? If I'm in the position where I can't afford it...suing me for $25,000 is the same as suing me for $25 million.

 

[waggy]

good. hope she wins.

 

[sactoking]

how can she continually afford all these lawyers?

How can Peter Griffin afford all those helicopters and blimps and whatnot?

No, but seriously, some consumer group is doing the defense pro bono for her.

Didn't the RIAA only take action against those who uploaded music and not downloaded?

Except with Kazaa your download folder was shared by default so everyone was an uploader unless they took the active step of disabling it (which most people didn't).

 

[bfdd]

Why hasn't a judge laughed in the face of the RIAA for claiming 1 song = 65k in damages? These things are worth at MOST a dollar a song because that's what they retail for. Hell the RIAA doesn't even get that whole dollar.

 

[Ns1]

Why hasn't a judge laughed in the face of the RIAA for claiming 1 song = 65k in damages? These things are worth at MOST a dollar a song because that's what they retail for. Hell the RIAA doesn't even get that whole dollar.

She could've provided said 1 song to 65k people. And if each song was "only a dollar" then fuckers who download songs should start paying for that shit. It's "only a dollar"

 

[bfdd]

She could've provided said 1 song to 65k people. And if each song was "only a dollar" then fuckers who download songs should start paying for that shit. It's "only a dollar"

She could have then that would be fine. Can the RIAA prove she shared those 25 songs to 65,000 people? I highly doubt they can.

 

[sactoking]

She could have then that would be fine. Can the RIAA prove she shared those 25 songs to 65,000 people? I highly doubt they can.

I don't think the RIAA has to. It's my understanding that for 'facilitating' infringement there is a statutory penalty written into the copyright law. There is no need for the RIAA to prove actual damages.

The courts have decided that having a song available in a folder shared through a P2P application is 'making it available' which fits the definition of facilitation in current law.

This woman was fighting a losing battle: arguing that the penalties were unjust. The penalties were statutory, you're not going to win a justice argument there. Instead, what the vast majority of anti-RIAA people think is that Congress needs to be pressured into changing the law to at least forcing plaintiffs to prove damages.

Unfortunately the only ones pressuring Congress are the RIAA and MPAA, so things just keep getting worse (ACTA).

 

[Raduque]

Unfortunately the only ones pressuring Congress are the RIAA and MPAA, so things just keep getting worse (ACTA).

They aren't really "pressuring" Congress so much as buying them off. Unless by "pressuring" you mean "threatening to remove the billions in Lobby money".

 

[Patranus]

All the people advocating copy right infringement make me laugh.

You break the law, you pay the penalty. Its not like anyone didn't know this wasn't illegal.

 

[Ns1]

She could have then that would be fine. Can the RIAA prove she shared those 25 songs to 65,000 people? I highly doubt they can.

They didn't have to.

 

[Malak]

What the fuck are these juries smoking to be able to hand out these kinds of sentences? That's some hardcore bullshit, right there.

She is a repeat offender that refuses to stop, and you think fines are hardcore? She needs jail time.

 

[RKS]

She is a repeat offender that refuses to stop, and you think fines are hardcore? She needs jail time.

The OP wrote two sentences and you either didn't read them or couldn't comprehend them.

 

[0roo0roo]

She is a repeat offender that refuses to stop, and you think fines are hardcore? She needs jail time.

you need a million dollar parking fine or something.

 

[JulesMaximus]

She has lawyer friends maybe?

$62,500 a song is kinda nuts though. I wonder if the artists will see even a penny of that.

You kidding me? Lawyers will see probably a third of it and the RIAA will probably use the rest to hire more lawyers.