US Court Denied Appeal of “File-Sharing Mom”Added: Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013
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.extratorrent.com
The story of Jammie Thomas-Rasset continues: the mother of four, who downloaded and shared 24 music tracks via Kazaa, was denied an appeal to the US Supreme Court. At the moment, she is eligible to pay a fine of $222.000 in damages to the music industry.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has been fighting against the legal system of the United States for a long time now. After a number of pleas and appeals, Jammie finally agreed it was the right time to take the case to the US Supreme Court. She hoped that financial claims of the Recording Industry Association of America will be reduced to an appropriate figure. As a result, her lawyers filed a petition to ask the Supreme Court to change its mind about $222.000 to be paid in damages, but the Supreme Court declined her appeal last Monday.
For many industry experts, this decision didn’t come as a surprise, particularly taking into account that Joel Tenenbaum faced the same result when he filed an appeal to the Supreme Court over a decision to pay $675.000 in damages for uploading 30 songs. Most of them believe that this decision put an end to Jammie’s struggle. The file-sharing mom was the first to take a stand against the Recording Industry Association of America, but regardless of her multiple efforts to stress an abusive legal system which allowed damages of up to $150.000 per each case of infringement, the battle is now over.
In the meantime, Jammie has said from the very beginning that she didn’t have at the moment nor she anticipated in the future having $220,000 to pay the fine. In case the industry decides to try and collect, Jammie will file for bankruptcy as her only option.
April 2nd,2013Posted by:
Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013
|posted by (2013-04-03 01:10:21)|
|sad really sad the land of the free no more it`s the land of the $ yes the $ the us is going down the toilet|
|IN GREED WE TRUST....|
Love Thy Country, Hate Thy Government....
|Honestly, I don't feel sorry for her at all! She should've paid the original amount they had requested but she was stupid enough to think that she could not only break the law but also make a lame attempt at covering it up to make it look like someone else did it when she knew it was her that downloaded and shared those songs. I hate the MPAA and RIAA as much as anyone else but she was stupid enough to keep fighting even after getting a lower amount so the dumb bitch can suffer now!|
|posted by (2013-04-03 08:23:50)|
|@DeputyDawg: What if that dumb bitch was your mom? @ everyone else: Funny how the industry can screw over artists since its inception and call it business as usual, but the moment someone shares some music, they lawyer up; they're the F#%$ing thieves!|
|posted by (2013-04-03 13:19:14)|
|do the crime do the time.its what you knew when started downloading.yes its sad they sue here for way more then what the downloade is worth. imo should be ok you download the track you.you get a fine of lets say pay what the price would be + a 500 $ fine.no more no less.thats fair imo|
|posted by (2013-04-04 00:26:51)|
|@DeputyDawg, that is just ignorant. There are several problems with holding her liable for infringement, which fly in the face of existing non-digital copyright laws. The "first sale" doctrine, for example, which says that when you buy a copyrighted work, you can resell it as you see fit without the new buyer paying a new royalty. Example: Vinyl LP's. In college, we used to buy used records in a used record shop, i.e., people had already bought them and then sold them to the shop, which sold them to me. Same issue, different technology. No one ever said that I was infringing by buying a used LP where no royalty was paid by me. My friends would make cassette recordings of my albums. No one ever said that those cassette recordings were illegal. Same in the digital era, just easier. P2P is just a huge dormitory. How about file sharing portals? How are they any different than a copying machine? You copy a copyrighted book using a Xerox copier for your own use. Should Xerox be liable for contributory infringement because you used their copier for an improper purpose? Congress has lost sight of the reality of copyright law and just cowtows to RIAA and MPAA because they spread money around. Why would Congress give a shit otherwise? Did you see the EU study that found that people who download free music actually end up buying more music than others who don't download? The whole piracy thing is a myth.|
|Well said numbnut. I am over 50 now and remember the days that we would all get together and share by way of vinyl to cassettes. No one came to the door asserting that they were private property once they had been sold. But now, with so much money coming from two of the most malicious organizations in the US, the recording and movie industries, into the hands of dirty politicians, there is no end to the persecution of file sharers. The golden rule applies, "He who has the gold, rules".|
For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? Mark 8:36
|posted by (2013-04-04 06:38:33)|
|LP cassette etc aint digital thats why.|
|posted by (2013-04-04 14:09:06)|
|@Taker, that is the point . . . The US copyright system has been in place for a long time. Music is music, whatever the medium on which it is stored. LP, cassette, iPod . . . just changes in technology. The royalties to which an artist is entitled is exactly the same as it was in 1976. The fact that the same song is being treated differently depending on whether it is on an LP or a hard drive is precisely why this whole piracy issue is screwed up. An artist gets the same royalty whether a song is digital or on an LP. So why should a used record sale between private parties be fine, but a trade of a song digitally by someone that originally purchased the song be treated as infringement?|
|posted by (2013-04-04 18:23:33)|
|@10 likely because there is a 'chain of evidence' they can use. How could Vertigo know you sold your Black Sabbath LP for a 10 USD note to someone at your College? With P2P those parties are in some way now recorded in not only who they are but also what they are exchanging.|
Anyway wrt the Article I am pleased the claim amount isn't as ludicrous as past claims have been.
|PlaidSlacks mate, do you really think these scumbags have got souls, all they got are calculators|
|@ skreamer, quote: "Anyway wrt the Article I am pleased the claim amount isn't as ludicrous as past claims have been."|
Are you serious? Did you even read Sam's post? $220,000 USD! For downloading & sharing 24 music tracks! PLEASE...........
|posted by (2013-04-05 17:01:20)|
|Happy'. I looked more at the periods and commas than the triple digit behind them so eg $222.000 is $222.00 rather than $222,000. The periods and commas do change in the article while the triple digits don't from which I inferred the commas and periods were accurate and the triple digits were an error. I didn't do any maths.|
But if it is $222,000 it is once more crazy and they are looking for headlines to scare every basic P2Per away from sharing.
I wonder if I bought the DVD for The Croods and thought I'd been ripped off once I had seen it, could I claim hundreds or thousands times more than the cost of the DVD, for damages/time lost/misrepresentation etc. like they do?
Would love someone to do this on the basis of the magnitude of the damages The Man claims from the little guy.
If every user of the P2P network were to donate 1, 5, or 10 $ do you realize that amount would make the MPAA/RIAA look like peasants and we could probably buy them out? Why don't we do something like that? Beat them at their own game.
|This story is so sad and pathetic. Unfortunately, the world is run by a lot of egotistical, megalomaniacal greed driven heartless crones. The word is run by $$, the chsase for material happiness. More, must have more. Corporations led my aforementioned aliens run the world.|
It's all, very sad.
If I were Jammie Thomas-Rasset, i would walk into the Supreme court, drop my pants and let the 4 or 5 bars of ex-lax and the 200 buffalo chicken wings from the night before and shit everywhere. Absolutely everywhere. Then do my time in the clink having refused to pay, with the satisfaction I made of the US legal system what it actually is. SHIT.
|Sorry for the typos and grammar.|
|posted by (2013-04-06 20:26:59)|
|@skreamer, you're definite right that it is much easier to track downloaders now, but that is not really the issue. In the "old" days, the RIAA could have sued a used record store for re-selling records under the same theory that they are using now. So enforcement may be easier now from a tracking standpoint, but it would not have been difficult in the "old" days either. The point is that the underlying claim is the same, whether a song is on an LP or an mp3. The copyright laws should apply equally whether it is sheet music, an LP or an mp3, and as I said, the "first sale" doctrine should be an absolute defense if RIAA/MPAA did not have Congress in their pockets. Think about it this way-- you buy a copyrighted photograph from a photographer's gallery. Two years later, you want to sell or give that framed photograph to someone else. Would anybody really contend that you could not give it to someone else or sell it? Of course not. Same concept, different medium.|
@trailNerror, great idea. if 50% of the people who used this site donated $1, she would easily be off the hook . . .
|posted by (2013-04-06 22:56:44)|
|Hello numbnut, I get you now. The first sale doctrine apparently applies to a single entity. So yes an LP and yes even (I think) to a hard drive with your collection MP3 collection on it. How P2P contravenes this is that reproductions are made. Even if the reproduction is only in existence as the transfer occurs, it is still a reproduction.|
This was recently discussed wrt ReDigi where their old system of transfer was classed as illegal as the transfer gave rise to a copy, even though once transferred the original copy was deleted.
|posted by (2013-04-06 23:00:23)|
|btw I only know this because I googled a few things as I was interested too|
|i wouldnt pay them a penny, lock me up, pay for my 3 hots n a cot.|
|There is nothing new about sharing music. It has been a part of American culture for decades, since the cassette tape came into being. Why has it never been an issue until now? When the music industries profits exceed anything that has ever been? As far as I am concerned, once a song is played "over the air" it becomes public domain. The sharing of particular songs on any given album can only improve the sales of the album from which it came. This kind of tyranny must be stopped. This kind of greed must be stopped. Fight on, fight on.|
|posted by (2013-04-08 18:57:36)|
|The only reason some of these fools here agree with that woman getting thumped by the Govt. is because they aren't in her shoes. If they got jammed up like her they'd be whining all the way to their Mothers you know what. I have never in all my years have been able to figure out how the US legal system has gotten so messed up. It's based on old english common law as ours is here in Canada but you don't hear of lawsuits up here anywhere near the absurdity of the USA. No wonder they are in the mess they are in. I lived there 22 years and I loved that country, but man, gimmee a break. $222,000.00 for some songs. How does that amount rise to fairness? Those judges on the Supreme Court have their heads so far up the Eagles rear end they lost sight of fairnes.|
|posted by (2013-04-09 14:39:52)|
|@julio99, so true. Not sure if this is still the case in the Great White North, but several years ago, when Napster was fighting RIAA, a judge in Canada on a similar case agreed that the P2P model was simply a more sophisticated copier, and they couldn't hold the manufacturer of a copier liable for copyright infringement just because the copier was used to make a copy of a copyrighted book, even if it was foreseeable that it would be used that way by someone, so why should the P2P be liable? That exact theory was rejected by the federal court in California. I guess Canada is somewhat more enlightened . . .|
|posted by (2013-04-09 21:08:58)|
|I can't say for sure what the exact law is up here right now except to say that the bill about copyright infringement has been stalled in parliament for the last 2 years. it was up for some reading and that was the last I heard of it. For a while there the States were calling us the worst file sharing country in the world. I think our PM was feeling a bit of pressure over that, but it still stays in Parliament stalled. I think our politicians are wasting their time on somewhat more important things. File sharing is just not a big issue up here as far as running around and dinging people for sharing something. Mind you, if they catch you bootlegging movies or music and selling them you will get popped. I'm just embarrassed for my brothers and sisters in the USA that are being thrashed by these archaic punishments that just don't fit.|
|she should have taken the 5,000 dollar settlement figure offered since she has now gone to the highest court of appeal its final and 220,000 is a truckload of money for a single parent to find.|
|I wonder how much of the damages fees collected will go the Artists of the songs that were copied?|
Probably F'all so how can they justify this.
@trialnerror we dont need to chip in for lawyers, we need to all chip in to hire some assassins!!
Most Popular Stories