RIAA Wins $220,000

[HardOCP News]

Well, the first person to take the RIAA to trial has lost and the jury made her pay the RIAA over $9,000 per song. Appeal?

The jury didn't buy her argument. Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs. The decision is important in that it sends a message to file sharers that Internet anonymity won't protect them from lawsuits, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and longtime music industry executive.

 

[Wshmaster0]

The details on the case are vague, but the main part of the article is:

What is precedent-setting about this case is that the jury decided it doesn't matter who was sharing music on Thomas' computer.

"The answer that the court gave was 'It's your account, you're responsible,'" Castle said. "'It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it.'"

How is this any different than a person stealing your identity and reeking havoc. How is this any different from someone hacking into your computer and using it for DoS attacks...

She didn't seem to have a solid case as it specifically says 'screen name' meaning it may have been through some type of AOL or Netzero type account. If they are referring to a registered user account on the p2p program itself then she may have been fighting a lost battle to begin with.

 

[Cantroy]

I was waiting, and am still waiting for the uproar about this... Where is the drama? Surely someone somewhere has gone on a rant about it.

I'm just surprised that I don't see it yet, but I could be looking in the wrong places. In any case, wherever it is, it isn't public enough for me to have heard about it on the news, etc. Either they are covering it up, OR, no one really cares as the rest of the world will just continue downloading music anyway... meaning that for the majority of people out there, this case really meant nada. I will say that 9k is a far cry from the $168 cents the RIAA might have made off of those 24 songs per download, if we assume that someone copied them from her pc at 10 downloads a song and had instead paid for them... Definitely profitable for them to continue raking their customers into court to extort them.

 

[Kendrak]

FTP?

I don't mess with dl-ing stuff, but back in the day this was all done over FTP with a un/pw. Will we see that come back? I bet a lawyer can defend: The "RIAA hacked into my FTP!"

 

[Jakalwarrior]

Its so dumb how courts typically only suits against companies to come to sums which the company is actually able to pay and only reflected gains or damages. When its a citizen the only rule is whatever astronomical figure they feel like arbitrarily picking that day.

 

[Cannon_Fodder]

There will almost definitely be an appeal. If you a little bit of research on the case, the RIAA withheld information from the judge that might have changed his ruling on the soon to be infamous rule #14 to the jury.

 

[Elios]

yea the judge botched this one pretty bad imo
this isnt going to stand for long i hope

 

[wopsang]

The rich get richer

 

[RoBo]

I nearly died when I saw the RSS Feed.

 

[dR.Jester]

Meh, thats what people get for using Peer-2-peer networks. Serves them right.

There are other ways...

 

[forcefed]

There will almost definitely be an appeal. If you a little bit of research on the case, the RIAA withheld information from the judge that might have changed his ruling on the soon to be infamous rule #14 to the jury.

What info?

 

[kush]

The jury didn't decide that it was her fault because it was her computer, internet line, etc, it was the judge's shitty order that forced them to their "decision". NOT justice, and it leaves a BIG hole for a successful appeal. Maybe this is what C_F means by "rule #14"?

On the other hand though, I think she was guilty as sin, and ended up getting what she deserved (no matter how against the overall outcome I am). It was her computer, her access, noone else used the said computer, the KAZAA (her first mistake) account name matched her match.com (and others) name...She waffled from her deposition testimony (and damn near committed perjury) when she tried to say in court her hard drive was replaced before she got notice from the MAFIAA, yet it was like 4 months AFTER the fact. She wrote a college paper on Napster/file sharing (or something like it) - I think she was guilty. She really should have settled when she had a chance, it would have been FAR less costly for her.

 

[slacker6]

i would like to see jury demographics. Bet they are all older than 50 and less than 50% have internet access.

Probably less than 10% actually understood the case thus why they were the judge's lemmings.

 

[TechLarry]

This is bad. Really bad. It ad's another layer of hardship that could fall on someone if their identity is stolen, or their WiFi hijacked.

This needs to go to the Supreme Court. If it is left as is, consumers/victims are very, VERY screwed.

Not that the RIAA has any trouble victimizing anyone.

The details on the case are vague, but the main part of the article is:

What is precedent-setting about this case is that the jury decided it doesn't matter who was sharing music on Thomas' computer.

"The answer that the court gave was 'It's your account, you're responsible,'" Castle said. "'It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it.'"

How is this any different than a person stealing your identity and reeking havoc. How is this any different from someone hacking into your computer and using it for DoS attacks...

She didn't seem to have a solid case as it specifically says 'screen name' meaning it may have been through some type of AOL or Netzero type account. If they are referring to a registered user account on the p2p program itself then she may have been fighting a lost battle to begin with.

 

[Dr.LaRd]

there are two ways to look at this....

1.What the jury decided - it's wrong, she's responsible blah blah blah (and my 2 cents....not sure if she has kids or not...but if she does she probably knew what was happening and hell she probably either had downloaded some herself or had her kids do it for her!)

2. how much of this is about the RIAA trying to use fear tactics to scare people "in line"? now this case has everyone's eye, and they're going to sue her ass off by making her pay 1000% more per song than what you can buy them for on itunes.

here is where things get really interesting...look whats happening with the pirate bay....the RIAA has tried to nail them to the cross for YEARS now but they can't do a damn thing about it. I really think that there isn't a need for labels anymore....look what radiohead did....yes they are a established band, but i think it would be much better to take a bank loan out before you go to a record label and sell your soul. at least if you're a new artist, and you fail, you know its YOUR fault - not some rich bastard trying to make you into a profit machine.

all record labels do is pad their own pockets....and now they're behind the times and trying oh so desperately to catch up. well in days when 10 year olds can hop on a computer and download a discography of almost any band they want - you know you really have to rethink your strategy.

all i can say - thank god i live in canada

 

[Elios]

i would like to see jury demographics. Bet they are all older than 50 and less than 50% have internet access.

Probably less than 10% actually understood the case thus why they were the judge's lemmings.

your damn close and none of them knew any thing about PCs or fairuse im sure
only 5 of the 12 even owned a mp3 player
1 was dismissed be for the trial started for admitting to using file sharing software
so the one guy that might of actually known some thing about this was kicked out lame

 

[rocketfodder]

There is no "fair use" here. This ruling is 100% in accord with US copyright law. Whether or not you agree with US copyright law is another story. Check out some case law on contributory liability.

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

Sounds like the judge was paid off by the riaa. and the jury hehehe

Either way. I hope she appeals this, as it stinks of somthing bad.

And there is no way a song can cost 9k. thats just messed up, If a song was 9k to buy. you can gaurentee no one would buy it. so why is it worth that much in court? sounds like extortion to me.

 

[kllrnohj]

There is no "fair use" here. This ruling is 100% in accord with US copyright law. Whether or not you agree with US copyright law is another story. Check out some case law on contributory liability.

Yes there is, because as I understand it, it was never proven that she ever shared the files or that it was even her computer used with the Kazaa account. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

Yes there is, because as I understand it, it was never proven that she ever shared the files or that it was even her computer used with the Kazaa account. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

In today’s sociatiy its guilty untill proven guilty.

 

[AmnChode]

Yes there is, because as I understand it, it was never proven that she ever shared the files or that it was even her computer used with the Kazaa account. What ever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?

It went out the window, along with the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992...

 

[Tokamak]

In today’s sociatiy its guilty untill proven guilty.

Unless you're rich and famous. Then it's guilty until you buy your way out of it.

 

[SamuraiInBlack]

I disagree with the outcome of this.

And to show how I disagree, I'm not purchasing CDs anymore. At least not from bands that are affiliated with RIAA labels. There's a few sites I'm sure where people can legitimately download and/or purchase music from bands that aren't on RIAA labels. Those bands will be geting my money from now on as long as that remains true of them.

Fuck this bullshit. A song doesn't cost $9,000. The day a song costs as much as a used car is the day I stop purchasing music.

 

[rocketfodder]

Read the Grokster and Napster cases.

"Fair use" is for secondary authors who require some (occasionally all) of the original work in order to complete their own, new work. She's just downloading and sharing files.

Under contributory infringement, she induced, caused, or materially contributed to others' infringing conduct, and knew about it. It's constructive knowledge to use a P2P program and offer to share your files. You can't say "oh, shit, I left all of these copies sitting around on the internet, but I didn't realize other people could download them!" She even wrote a paper on P2P stuff.

Willful ignorance is knowledge in copyright law, that's just how it is.

 

[rocketfodder]

Also, $9,000 is from statutory damages. It has nothing to do with the harm suffered by the RIAA.

Call your Congressman if you don't like it.

 

[[RIP]Zeus]

I stop buying CD's about 11 years ago...

#1 they cost to god damn much for a cd with 2 to 3 songs that are good.. "fuck that"

#2 buying a cd with the riaa stamp of aproval is in support of the whore bags trying to stop file sharing

#3 i can buy a spindel 100 pack for the same damn price as 1 music.

#4 fuck the riaa, there nothing but Hitler wannabies and they fucking kiss my ass.

#5 i support the bands by buying tickets to there concerts or stuff they sell for a profit. fuck the middle man... imo bands who don't go with the middle man shit "aka, the nazi riaa" do alot better.

and #6 FUCK THE RIAA AND THE MPAA

 

[moon02]

I really do not see whats wrong with the conviction. She had a horrible case and should of been convicted. There is a big difference between someone that can prove ID theft or being hacked, then her. From the sounds of it all the evidence pointed straight at her. Whether you agree or disagree with the studios, it does not mean you do not break the law when you download stuff.

The only portion I disagree with is the judgement award. I seriously would love for them to explain how she caused 220k worth of damages or losses from sharing 24 named songs.

 

[DeFex]

So how much of that do the lawyers get and how much for the artists?

also i would like to see the list of songs. i bet they were top 40 cRAP.

 

[insanarchist]

"...And of this nearly quarter-million dollars, the artists' whose work was stolen will be rewarded their $3.95 before taxes."

 

[DeFex]

Also, $9,000 is from statutory damages. It has nothing to do with the harm suffered by the RIAA.

Call your Congressman if you don't like it.

they wont do anything for you unless you have a few million to bribe them with, and even then the RIAA might offer them more.

 

[Dr.LaRd]

Read the Grokster and Napster cases.

"Fair use" is for secondary authors who require some (occasionally all) of the original work in order to complete their own, new work. She's just downloading and sharing files.

Under contributory infringement, she induced, caused, or materially contributed to others' infringing conduct, and knew about it. It's constructive knowledge to use a P2P program and offer to share your files. You can't say "oh, shit, I left all of these copies sitting around on the internet, but I didn't realize other people could download them!" She even wrote a paper on P2P stuff.

Willful ignorance is knowledge in copyright law, that's just how it is.

here is the funny thing....she's only in trouble because she SHARED the files....this is what people forget...it's not the DOWNLOADING of this material....the act of downloading in and of itself isn't what is being fought over in these cases.....

all she had to do to avoid all of this, was untick that little box that says "share my files with others" or hell...MOVE THE FREAKING FILES FROM THE DEFAULT DOWNLOAD FOLDER....

i really don't feel for this woman, she doesn't get sympathy from me, but i do feel that the ruling on this can be used a precedent, which could hurt someone who is genuinely innocent.

i don't buy cds....i've got an 8gb mp3 player that hooks into my car's stereo....cds only clutter up my car

 

[Night Black]

Goddamn, I am glad I live in Canada where the RIAA has no jurisdiction.

That being said, If the RIAA wanted to reduce this sort of thing, the price of CDs should go down to make it more accessible, not upwards.

 

[NeghVar]

What is precedent-setting about this case is that the jury decided it doesn't matter who was sharing music on Thomas' computer.

"The answer that the court gave was 'It's your account, you're responsible,'" Castle said. "'It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it.'"
.

So they also think if someone stole a gun that was registered to me and the thief killed a cop with it, I should be the one convicted of his murder. If someone steals my car and lives out Carmageddon, I should be convicted for the deaths.
Just like debt collectors or creditors. They don't care who spent or stole the money/credit card, they only care whose name is attached to the account(s)

Meh, thats what people get for using Peer-2-peer networks. Serves them right.QUOTE]
Tell that to the grandmother who was accused of using kazaa when all she had was a MAC
Tell that to the family who didn't even own a computer
Tell that to the person who moved into a house and gets blamed for what the former tenant did
Plus more
These are all cases of false accusations in which the RIAA demanded they pay $3000 or would take them to court. Along with that, these people did not have the money to challenge the RIAA's claim, so they paid up. Thus the RIAA committed extortion, which according to the RICO act, is a criminal offence.

 

[NeghVar]

Goddamn, I am glad I live in Canada where the RIAA has no jurisdiction.

That being said, If the RIAA wanted to reduce this sort of thing, the price of CDs should go down to make it more accessible, not upwards.

I live in Texas, and if Texas were to ever deannex itself from the USA, which it is the only state that can, The RIAA, MPAA, BSA, copyright laws and the infamouse DMCA would no longer apply.

 

[Dr.LaRd]

I live in Texas, and if Texas were to ever deannex itself from the USA, which it is the only state that can, The RIAA, MPAA, BSA, copyright laws and the infamouse DMCA would no longer apply.

and if texas does that, they become sweden...only with oil and cowboys

 

[Doodle]

What I find most amusing is that the RIAA is fighting for something that musicians traditionally never had.

Having music "copyrighted" is a new thing. Mozart didn't get paid for his sheet music, he got paid for his performance. It's only in recent years that artists have been getting paid for something other than live performance.

The RIAA is the oxymoron, the dinosaur, the person out of touch with society. Society is simply moving back to the normal state of affairs where music is in the public domain and concerts are what we pay for. We'll see how long it takes them to figure that out.

me.

 

[theDreamer]

I live in Texas, and if Texas were to ever deannex itself from the USA, which it is the only state that can, The RIAA, MPAA, BSA, copyright laws and the infamouse DMCA would no longer apply.

Actually this is in correct, Texas can not do this. (Note: I grew up and currently live in Texas.)

This is upsetting that the RIAA is winning, but if someone is doing something illegal should they not be held accountable? I just wish the RIAA would actually go after people who are doing much worse than these small time problems.

 

[NeghVar]

The RIAA is the oxymoron, the dinosaur, the person out of touch with society. Society is simply moving back to the normal state of affairs where music is in the public domain and concerts are what we pay for. We'll see how long it takes them to figure that out.

me.

This whole thing is not about the artists getting paid, its about thr RIAA's existence. The internet and file sharing technologies can allow the artist to work directly with the consumer via a website completely by-passing the RIAA. This is what they are scared to death of. These technologies can make them obsolete and allow the artist to get a lot more of the money their works produce.

 

[s_s256]

I am glad to be living in Canada where this crap was dealt with by the government 1.5 decades ago.

The Canadian version of the RIAA and movie organisation just gets a small tax on all blank media sold. Problem solved.

 

[kllrnohj]

This is upsetting that the RIAA is winning, but if someone is doing something illegal should they not be held accountable? I just wish the RIAA would actually go after people who are doing much worse than these small time problems.

Yes, they should be held accountable - but the problem is that the RIAA doesn't care who it targets, so long as they get paid. They aren't checking to make sure they are only targetting people sharing songs so much as they are just randomly drawing people's names out of a hat, assume they share, and then sue them.