|Recently, a woman named Jammie Thomas-Rasset was taken to a federal trial, over her "copywright" infringement case. In a repeat of the verdict from her first federal trial, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for willfully infringing all 24 copyrights controlled by the four major record labels at issue in the case. The jury awarded the labels damages totaling a whopping $1.92 million. Outraged, and possibly shocked, she had no choice but to accept this.
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, spoke shortly after the trial. When asked about the $80,000 per song damage award, he then proceeded to state that he was "angry about it" and further went on to state he had been convinced that any liability finding would have been for the minimum amount of $750 per song.
Photo via geek.com
Miss Rasset, was very upset at the outcome, but stated she "didn't blame the jury". "They did their job," she said, "I'm not going to hold it against them." She also stated, "Good luck trying to get it from me... it's like squeezing blood from a turnip." Showing furthermore that this industry and the courts that hear such cases, are merely cohersed into such decision, leeches if you will.
The attorneys for the record industry, must have felt like real "winners" after such a insanely large win for them. It almost sickens me to speak of the amount, as it increased from $9,250 per song in the first trial to $80,000 during the second trial, simply amazing. All this can possibly do, is further escalate the motivation for those promoting file sharing, and encourage more to join their cause.
Cara Duckworth, spokesperson of the RIAA, whom was present during the trial, said to reporters, "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." Attempting to look as if they are the "victims" of these types of cases. Sadly, these blatant attempts for "sympathy" toward the industry, only help to fan the flames of those whom wish to "fight the power".
Thomas-Rasse's attorney stated that yes an offer had been made to settle it but also stated "I intend to file numerous motions if Thomas-Rasset wants to continue the fight". Many whom support her in her case, have stated that the large sums she was ordered to pay, are completley unconstitutional, and that she should appeal again. Miss Rasset appears determined to not give up, as she said of this judgement that it was "one for the RIAA, not the end of the war...".
Mr. Camara, the attorney, has said that he plans to continue with his class-action lawsuit against the recording industry, where it will be an uphill battle for sure to return all of the money that the recording industry has collected up until now in its devious legal crusades.
Even the great defense goals of Mr. Kiwi Camara and Mr. Joe Sibley could not persuade the jury, that the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. All facts that have came out of this case, have directed it to her computer, and even identified the "MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's ethernet port." stated the prosecution. She also was proven to have swapped out her harddrive and also failed to inform the investigating officers of this, and went by a screen name, "tereastarr", which she denied.
Along with stating a new means to her original alibi, the jury had been swayed to not believe her innocence.
Her attorney, stated he believed the jury was forced to believe she had lied in court, and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.
Cara Duckworth of the RIAA, stated, "The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here."
Trial records show that the jury decision stated that "Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000." During closing statements, defense team attorney, Joe Sibley stated in trial, that "even the minimum award would run $18,000 (24 songs x $750 = $18,000)", an amount that he said was "unfair and crippling" to Thomas-Rasset. In the end, the jury's decision was that the per-song penalty would be $80,000, and a total damage award of $1.92 million, over $1.7 million more than the award in her first trial. Amazing.
Protesters had gathered outside the trial, and word had spread online across many blogs and reports. Such an act is in ways despicable, as the reason the majority use these methods, is that they cannot afford the product to begin with. 1.7 Million USD? Insane. Miss Rasset obviously in no way, shape, or form, could ever afford this. Just one of many injustices that the American RIAA and similar groups, have financially used their leverage, to influence the courts. This is a great injustice. I say to those who agree, welcome to America.
August 13th, 2009Posted by: Date:
Thursday, August 13th, 2009
|posted by (2009-08-13 11:40:29)|
|for 24 songs!? omg|
|Indeed... just shows the utter lack of respect and equality in some nation's judicial systems, if you have the funds to fight it, okay, but most file sharers, do not, and this is well known. Any celebrity with enough money can beat a murder charge in the US, but a poverty level file sharer, of course, has no chance. As they say, "The Land Of Opportunity", if you have the funds to address these "opportunities".|
|posted by (2009-08-15 20:05:15)|
|This is just crazy..|
|posted by (2009-08-21 17:31:53)|
|I cant believe they expect anyone to pay $750 per song, let alone $80000. Sharing what you have is everyones God given right. Its not like she stole anything. That's what's wrong with the world today. Everyone is greedy to the bone and if your not...good luck. This is just sickening! Do they really think this will stop P2P file sharing? If anything it makes us more willing to give what we have to others.|
|posted by (2009-08-21 17:39:41)|
|it jsut show they dont think there is no way any artist can say you downlaod one off my song then you have to pay 80 k or even $750 per song come on you get it in itunes for 50 cent or so so why 80 they must have eating soemthing the wrong way imo sue them for over prices it USA you can sue any gain for anything|
|America,Home of the free! what a joke.|
|posted by (2009-08-21 18:36:17)|
|every thing is free for a small fee in america|
|you mean you guys dont make 80,000$ a dl? i thought everyone did.|
|posted by (2009-08-21 19:31:03)|
|Jeeze..so if I had say 2 TB of songs then Id be beheaded lol...|
|posted by (2009-08-21 20:25:12)|
|The RIAA DO AS THEY DAM WELL LIKE IT MONEY THEY ARE AFTER.If the people don't buy then prices will come down? If you buy a dvd/music cd/or any type of game then you should have the right to sell it or share it|
with your friends or those who can't afford to buy as they make trillins every day what's the problem well it'S the old greed say give me MONEY..MONEY..MONEY..OK ALL YOU OUT THERE STOP PAYING
THRER STUPID PRICES AND FIGHT BACK THEY WON'T WIN THE PUBLIC WIIL HERE ENDETH THE LEASON.....
|posted by (2009-08-21 22:55:28)|
|fluck them... they wouldnt get a dollar out of me... i would give them a copy of gi joe and tell them to call it even|
|FOCK the RIAA & the MPAA|
FOCK them all
|Great post OBS....|
thanx for all your good post!
|I have a question? Out of the money the RIAA has gotten for alledged "damage" p2p has they claimed caused; how much of the money has been passed on to the "artist"? They were the one's who either wrote and/or recorded the songs?|
Her lawyer screwed up in the first place;it was already proved the songs were downloaded; he should have instead had the RIAA prove the "real" value of the songs; bring in the artists and have them testify as to how much they get for "their" songs... Real book keeping documents; THAT IS WHAT HE SHOULD HAVE DONE in part of her defense - have again the RIAA prove "real" damages these 24 downloaded songs cost them...
|OH I forgot; 3 of the 4 recording labels are NOT IN THE USA. Now they also are trying to get a law passed where the radio stations have to pay a "song" tax.... Remeber it used to be that the RIAA used to pay the radio stations to play the songs.... How about the radio stations stop playing song from recording label companies and only play "free" label from artists? Many of these artists have gotten sick and tired of being screwed by the RIAA and have started to distribute their songs directly via internet. As on poster pointed out her lawyer should have made the RIAA prove the "real" value of damages as they claim since you can download music from iTUNES for about $.50 each song way way different than the stupid $80,000.00 per song award they got..|
|posted by (2009-08-22 01:34:08)|
|One basis for society is that of helping your neighbor -- but in the software world this is piracy. To prevent this, the U.S. is putting in place practices which are like those in the former Soviet Union -- computerized guards, propaganda in favor of licensing, rewards for informing on co-workers, and penalties which make distributing software as serious a crime as armed robbery. ...Hmmm sounds like an effort to divide and conquer and the only words that come to mind are F#CK EM SIDEWAYS ;)|
|That's what we call a "propaganda machine" and it not only exists in the USA but worldwide people. Fight the power! Promote file sharing as a right.|
|posted by (2009-08-22 09:00:43)|
|greedy yank lawyers and yes fight the power|
|posted by (2009-08-22 11:19:44)|
|Ok world, lets all pull together and stop buying any products, this way sales will slump, then who has the last laugh.|
|posted by (2009-08-22 12:03:45)|
|These cases are getting more amusing by the day. This is a field I work in, and the changing patterns are very interesting. In the main, most pirates couldn't pay off a Â£10k court judgement let alone over Â£1m. Courts tend to award massive sums when they're fully aware they won't be able to reclaim any of it - sends out the message nice and clearly, whilst being a waste of time and money for both sides :))|
|posted by (2009-08-25 15:26:26)|
|This is the biggest bunch of bs ive ever heard. So if she had to pay $80,000 a song does that mean when they come after me ill have to pay billions and billions of dollars cuz ive downloaded more torrents than satan? if they are allow to prosicute for file sharing that means that they should go after you for letting your friend borrow a dvd or a cd. Thats how rediculas file sharing trials have got. The people that take you to trail are just mad this technology wasn't around when they was young. Someone just needs to hook them up with a season of cheers and they'd chill out. Fight wit all you got fellow file sharers. We will continue file sharing. as long as we make a stand for our right to share they have not a shot at winning this war. They might win a battle here and there but they WILL NOT WIN THIS WAR!!!!! |
~FIGHT THE SYSTEM~
|I seriuously cant believe this crap. $80,000 a song thas insane .... its more insane that any one would get into trouble just for file sharing, its so ridiculous ,,, Jeez...|
|they really need to b taught a lesson ..they think bcoz they have the recources they can sue ane1 n create an xzapmle ...assoles||
Most Popular Stories