Copyright Infringer Fine Decreased to $54,000Added: Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Jammie Thomas case has been going on for at least 4 years, and still isn’t over. The trial in question was described as a “first of its kind” case with a file-sharer being pursued for sharing music in the United States. Today the news is there’s a new development in this long-lasting trial. Meanwhile, the news may be seen as a major blow to the Recording Industry Association of America.
4 years ago the question was the following: if someone is caught sharing music on a peer-to-peer network, then goes to court and lose, what should the fine be for them? Today the question remains the same. When the plaintiffs cite the minimum and maximum statutory damages, it doesn’t count, because the court needs a specific amount. As we can see, this question has become the major hitch for the court system now. It is still unclear how an exact dollar amount fitting non-commercial infringement can be proved. In fact, this case made it clear that no solid argument can be provided to prove that the non-profit file-sharing can cause a certain amount of dollars in damage.
Back in 2009, this file-sharer was fined nearly $2 million for merely distributing two dozen songs. Unsurprisingly, the fine was found not satisfactory for one of the parties in the case and Jammie Thomas appealed. Now the question remains how much the fine should be, and this question has haunted the courts for the last four years, with different judges suggesting different figures.
Some time ago, the EFF pointed to the recent court ruling in this landmark trial. The judge decided that the latest award of $1.5 million for merely sharing 24 songs for personal use is nonsense. The judge believed that such an award was too severe, oppressive, entirely disproportioned to the offense, and therefore unreasonable. So, in regards to this particular case, an award of $2,250 per each case of infringement, which makes a total award of $54,000, can be the maximum award consistent with due process for the defendant of limited means who is liable of unauthorized non-commercial file-sharing.
The RIAA hasn’t commented the latest court ruling yet, so it is unclear whether it is going to appeal the decision at all. Since the moment when largest copyright owners started pushing to filter the web to the detriment of the Internet and national security, the file-sharing trials have become an outdated practice. Indeed, even major record labels have already given their flawed approach to the web.
August 3rd,2011Posted by:
Wednesday, August 3rd, 2011
|thing is the first judgment was around 2 million then lowered to 54000 rejected and again new judgment applied AGAIN at 1.9 million..|
Has anyone asked how much money have the lawyers made in all of this?
I want to know...
|posted by (2011-08-04 12:32:28)|
|Ah the RIAA, first fines then perhaps bill propositions. If you look at it from a neutral perspective, the RIAA isn't really doing anything effective to combat the piracy the so utterly hate (i.e. piracy hasn't explicitly fallen since the association's both).|
|Why will they not be pissed off? With chicken change be awarded to them... Just imagine the difference.|
|posted by (2011-08-05 22:51:16)|
|if the film & music company's are sick of being pirated and moan about losing millions why don't they pay the actors less and sell music and dvd's cheap enough so every one can buy them. and if they don't screw them|
|posted by (2011-08-06 06:07:51)|
|2 million dollars for 24 songs is completely ridiculous. They might as well of said 2 bazillion! LOL...If it they want any retribution for profits lost they need to start being realistic. What did it cost for that CD in the store 20 bucks? It amazes me that the judge who decided this can even tie his own shoes.||
Most Popular Stories