There is a lot of debate over whether the decision in the recent copyright infringement was fair.

Yes, the RIAA downloaded only 24 songs. But, she had 1704 available. She had a huge collection available.

The number the jury came up with is well within the statutory amount. They could have awarded up to $30k per infringement, but decided on a number just under $10k.

It is reasonable to assume that she knew that the songs she distributed were under copyright. She didn't own those copyrights. She could have learned what the penalties were with very little effort.

I think it was fair. I want to hear what every one else thinks.

I think the verdict was fair, but I think the fine was too much. Although you want a fine to be large enough to be a deterrent, I think complete financial ruination is going too far, especially since there's been no physical harm done, and absolutely no evidence of financial harm to the plaintiffs.

Fine her $2,000, or even $20,000, I can see that... it'll suck for her, but she can still have a life, and pay her debt within 5 years. $220,000 is more like a 30-year mortgage of payments! If she'd physically stolen 1,720 records, the jail time she'd get wouldn't equal 30 years... the dollar figure loss wouldn't equal $220,000.

The decision just seems too off-kilter to me. Feels like a witch-hunt trial (something 16th century men would pull on 16th century women who wouldn't have sex with them, or who wouldn't keep secret that they did) (also something jealous 16th century women pulled on other 16th century women who messed with their 16th century men)... the punishment doesn't fit the crime.

The RIAA are the ones who should be on trial for all the illegalities they've pul in pursuite of finding others who've done wrong.

She was apparently obviously guilty, but I think 24 songs and 220000$ just don't match up...especially since she apparently shared those files on kazaa which is pretty much a:deadhorse: as far as I know. I have not used it for quite some years...and even then it was pretty much useless...

You go to find the latest stuff and get versions that play all kinds of wierd noises. What the jury awarded the RIAA is way out of line and should be overturned.

They wanted a test case and for that one amount is as good as another.

I feel that the losses that the record industry has suffered in recent years are directly related to the poor quality products that they are producing rather than to piracy. I recently looked at the darknet (after a reference from an MR member in relation to MR book downloads being posted without attribution) and from what I could see most of the music posted was from back catalogs that were out of print and not available on Amazon or other stores but only through record collectors and auctions. This was not scientific or complete so I may have missed a lot.

All the current music being produced that I want I get directly from the artist. I find this a win-win for both sides. (It is a lot like getting the new Steve Jordan book directly from www.SteveJordanBooks.com)

I think the amount was way out of line, because I don't think the civil court system should be used for punitive purposes. If the corps had been able to show how they were actually hurt by her actions, it would have made sense to force her to pay damages, but they can't actually show that, so they went for "statutory" damages, meaning they can rely on the power of their legal lobby rather than actually having to do research to show that there is any negative impact on them at all. That's just strong-arm bullying, in my opinion.

It might be the case that the recording industry is actually being hurt by actions such as the defendant's, but in that case, they should have to show it through research. If they can't show that these actions cause harm (especially to the artists), there should be no crime attached.

And yes, I'm now a published author (non-fiction), and I'd feel the same way if it was my content being passed around. (Heck, at this point in my career, I'd be delighted if anyone cared enough about my book to pass it around the darknet, though I suppose my publisher wouldn't like to hear me say that.)

And yes, I'm now a published author (non-fiction), and I'd feel the same way if it was my content being passed around. (Heck, at this point in my career, I'd be delighted if anyone cared enough about my book to pass it around the darknet, though I suppose my publisher wouldn't like to hear me say that.)
Congratulations! So what is it that you have written? Is it available in ebook form if anyone here wants to read it?

I totally agree with Neko (well said!), ruining that woman (single with two kids to maintain!) without actually proving the harm she's done... what would the fine have been if she'd stolen 24 CDs??? 48? 96? How many CDs do you have to steal to get fined that much?

Did she benefit from what she did? No, there where no $$ involved. It's like it being illegal to show a film/football game in your bar without a license, because you earn money from that (more clients come in), or inviting your neighbours to watch it in your house (no earnings involved).

They wanted a test case and for that one amount is as good as another.

I don't know... if someone accused you of "probably costing someone else some unknown amount of money," convicted you, and took your house away, would that seem "as good as" any other punishment to you? I maintain that the punishment does not fit the crime, not even slightly.

All the current music being produced that I want I get directly from the artist. I find this a win-win for both sides.

One of the greatest strengths of the web is that it makes that possible. I expect more and more artists to become their own enterpreneurs this way, and more and more people going directly to the source for music and books.

I can't see this decision as being anything but overkill... like executing an embezzler with a howitzer. Can it result in anything but an outcry of support for Thomas, and a backlash against the music industry?

This poor woman is most likely going to become a burden to society thanks to the RIAA assholes who feel that even one song sent via the net is enough to destroy your life.

The RIAA does illegal things in the name of copyright and gets away with it. Let's ruin their lives first and see how they like it in the name of all the illegal activity they've done.

I can't see this decision as being anything but overkill... like executing an embezzler with a howitzer. Can it result in anything but an outcry of support for Thomas, and a backlash against the music industry?

As many people on this board will be aware, I regard people who engage in so-called "piracy" as the scum of the Earth. However, I share your view that the fine in this case is excessive. A $20,000 fine I would have welcomed. 10x that is ridiculous; it's definitely not a case of the "punishment fitting the crime".

HOWEVER, let's not forget that this criminal was given the opportunity to settle for a few thousand $. She declined to do so, and so in a sense brought this punishment down on her own head. Nobody here is going to claim that she wasn't guilty of the crime she was charged with, I take it?

While the fine was quite hefty, I think the woman will recover in the long run. They'll probably make a Lifetime movie out of the whole ordeal and she'll end up on the topside of things. If they took her house (did they, or is this speculation?) regarding this, I wonder if she can't just file Chapt 7 bankruptcy and be done with the matter? While it might sound harsh, if it's the only way she can get out from under the ordeal, what else can she do? What would you do if you were in her situation? Don't avoid the question by simply stating that you'd never do what she did, put yourself in her situation as it stands now. I'm curious.

HOWEVER, let's not forget that this criminal was given the opportunity to settle for a few thousand $. She declined to do so, and so in a sense brought this punishment down on her own head. Nobody here is going to claim that she wasn't guilty of the crime she was charged with, I take it?

Fair point. And yes, she was guilty, no question.

While the fine was quite hefty, I think the woman will recover in the long run. They'll probably make a Lifetime movie out of the whole ordeal and she'll end up on the topside of things.

If they did do such a thing, the profits would be applied to her brand new debt.

What would you do if you were in her situation? Don't avoid the question by simply stating that you'd never do what she did, put yourself in her situation as it stands now. I'm curious.

Okay, fine, since I can't just say "I'd never do such a stupid thing": I'd appeal for a smaller amount, see what kind of feasible payments I can make on the debt, take a vacation to Canada, and never come back. Happy?

Congratulations! So what is it that you have written? Is it available in ebook form if anyone here wants to read it?
Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.

Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.
Sounds interesting. And not to worry, I won't tell who you really are.

As far as I know, she's not actually a criminal, as it was not a criminal case but a civil one. Having said that she was certainly guilty of copyright infringement.

Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model. For one thing, it's a lot easier to contend that people who bought an illegal CD would probably have bought a legitimate copy instead. File sharing has neither the same profit motive nor the same mapping to lost sales.

In fact, there is a fair amount of evidence that file sharing has almost no measurable impact on CD sales. What has really hurt the market is the combination of high prices and a reduced selection of new music. When I go into a music store I find very few CDs that even look worth trying. I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.

Part of the problem here is that there are statutory damages involved, at a minimum of $750 per song, which puts a hard floor on the damages at $18000. Given the circumstances, I think that's what the award should have been. One issue here is that the penalties were originally created with pirate CD distributors in mind, and so are based on a completely different economic model.

Sounds like a good reason to amend the laws, to be more equitable in punishment to non-profiting activities (like file sharing), as opposed to illegal CD duplicating and sales. It also sounds like a good base for an appeal in Thomas' case. Personally, I think that "statutory damages" should not have been brought here, since the case was essentially based on circumstantial evidence and no physical harm was done. Since statutory damages was so far out of line for a file-sharing (not for profit) situation, the record companies should have been forced to provide a dollar figure of damages done, from which the punishment should have been based.

Alternatively, as the industry obviously chose to limit the number of songs involved, down from "over 1,700" to 22 songs, perhaps the judge should've adjusted that number to one that would equate to a more reasonable fine if found guilty, and not one that would cripple or ruin Thomas even at its lightest penalty. At $750 per song, just 10 songs would've put the sting in the decision for most anyone.

I'd go so far as to say that their greatest loss from file sharing is due entirely to people boycotting the major labels because they don't approve of the way they're handling the file sharing issue.

But they're not boycotting, they're file-sharing... and that's the problem. Boycotting leaves the industry with no income, and no legal recourse. You want to get the message across to them, you have to boycott. Go cold turkey.

But they're not boycotting, they're file-sharing... and that's the problem. Boycotting leaves the industry with no income, and no legal recourse. You want to get the message across to them, you have to boycott. Go cold turkey.

Yes there are people who are simply turning to file sharing because they do not want to give the RIAA member labels any money. However, there are also people who are spending money on independent labels and music not associated with the RIAA and not engaging in file sharing. It is this group that I consider to be boycotting the RIAA, and this group which I believe has had the largest impact on their sales which can be traced to file sharing.

id like to know if the riaa sent a cease and desist order before deciding to file the lawsuit.

i think it would have been more fitting to charge fair market value for the songs which is .99 -1.29 per song on itunes if i understand correctly

id like to know if the riaa sent a cease and desist order before deciding to file the lawsuit.

i think it would have been more fitting to charge fair market value for the songs which is .99 -1.29 per song on itunes if i understand correctly

I understand that they made her an offer to settle out of court for a couple of thousand $; something like that.

If they did do such a thing, the profits would be applied to her brand new debt.

Okay, fine, since I can't just say "I'd never do such a stupid thing": I'd appeal for a smaller amount, see what kind of feasible payments I can make on the debt, take a vacation to Canada, and never come back. Happy?

Probably right about the first part, it was kind of an inside joke, considering all the LMN movies that crop up about the silliest things (I don't really have much of a choice when it comes to those shows, but it keeps things running smoothly around here ;) ).

As I said, I was just curious how others would react to this kind of situation. I agree that possibly the easiest (if you want to call it that) method would be to appeal for a lower fine and pay it off as you could, though I'm sure it would take a heckuva long time to do so... probably on the order of 30-40 years, based on the $220,000 figure. Ouch! Hence the reason I don't "file-share" for any reason, just not worth it.

I understand that they made her an offer to settle out of court for a couple of thousand $; something like that.

sounds like she took a gamble and lost then. maybe well see an appeal

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

Thanks! Few people here are likely to be all that interested, as it's a book about using language learning games for teachers in Chinese language classrooms, but here's a link, on the off chance someone is looking for such a thing: http://chinasprout.com/shop/BLE035 (and there goes my anonymity, not that I really care.)

Unfortunately, I wasn't able to convince my publisher to make it available as an ebook. She cited the usual concerns about piracy (which, to be fair, are even more rife than average in the audience this is intended for.) If anyone wants a short sample, I can send one, though.
Yes, I'm surprised that the RIAA hasn't gone after the education market more heavily. They've got to be the biggest pirates out there.

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

Yes, but will she go back to court? ;)

Sorry, couldn't resist. (Thanks, I'm here all week! Try the veal!)

She said on her MySpace that she is appealing

She doesn't appeal to me! :)

sounds like she took a gamble and lost then. maybe well see an appeal

On what grounds? I thought that you could only appeal if you were able to present new evidence. Surely nobody thinks that she didn't "do the deed", do they?

On what grounds? I thought that you could only appeal if you were able to present new evidence. Surely nobody thinks that she didn't "do the deed", do they?

i dont know. im no lawyer, but im sure a good one can come up with something

I do think the amount was too much, BUT she lied and said that she didn't download them at all. I'd feel more sorry for her if she wouldn't have came up with a long story about how she didn't do it, had no idea, etc.

I mean, she even had her hard drive changed out after she was notified that she was being investigated. That's a big no-no.

She should have at least admitted she did it and then say that she didn't know it was so wrong or something. So this is all her fault. But I about fell over when I saw the amount that they fined her.

I also read that the amount doesn't count the attorney fees that she will have to pay too, so the final amount could be half a million. That's insane!

But again, don't steal stuff and you don't have to worry about getting caught...

As far as I know, she's not actually a criminal, as it was not a criminal case but a civil one. Having said that she was certainly guilty of copyright infringement.


But I understand that she claimed to have had no knowledge of it. That presumably means that she lied under oath, in a court of law. That is perjury, which is a criminal offence, even in a civil court case. In this country, a number of rather prominent people (most notably Lord Archer, the author) have received quite lengthy jail sentences for committing perjury in civil court cases.

Can't that happen in the US?

I see where you're coming from, but as far as I know she would only be considered a criminal in this case if she was charged and convicted of perjury. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's how it works.

How do we know she lied? She lost the trial... Sorry folks but perjury does not equate to being on the losing end of a civil trial.

No, perjury to be proven requires an actual charge of perjury to be persued, either in the course of the trial, or in a seperate trial.

Simply assuming she is a liar for losing the case, is a "verdict by public opinoin." It carries no logical weight or legal one.

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

I don't pretend to know the details of this case. I would be an arm chair amature at most and I don't want to waste my time rummaging through it just to have some sense of self satisfaction. The most I get from this case are news snippets, and internet ones at that. So I take all this with a grain of salt. I'm not saying I believe her and I don't say I don't believe her. I'm saying regardless of the outcome, being unconvincing to a jury in a civil trial does not equate to perjury unless the crime of perjury was subject in the hearing.

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

its not impossible for someones pc to be used by someone else w/o the owners knowledge, specially people with computers that are always on and similar internet connections. infact, its quite easy for someone with a little knowledge and the right tools

And because she has kids, it's very easy for one of them to do it without her knowing. Maybe she had once up to download something and the kids just continued to download using her name. And some P2P programs automatically share what's downloaded. So maybe she didn't do it. So she may not have lied. But she still is responsible.

This is why I think a lot of home computers are going to get locked-down by the homeowners, to make sure they are not liable for such an action by anyone in the household for which they are responsible. It's become (almost)the same as locking up the liquor cabinet to keep the booze out of the kids' hands.

What would be nice to see is the RIAA making sure all the award goes to the artists instead of pocketing it themselves. And their lawyers should be doing this pro bono. And yes, I think the award is extreme, but she is guilty. I also heard that she is appealing the ruling because of some federal ruling that came out a couple of days earlier that would impact her case (what is was I don't remember)

What would be nice to see is the RIAA making sure all the award goes to the artists instead of pocketing it themselves. And their lawyers should be doing this pro bono. And yes, I think the award is extreme, but she is guilty. I also heard that she is appealing the ruling because of some federal ruling that came out a couple of days earlier that would impact her case (what is was I don't remember)

That would be nice, but as the original complaint was about Thomas' making available "over 1,700" songs, obviously certain artists were cut out when they trimmed it down to 22 for the trial. I'd imagine the artists would open a brand new can of worms arguing over why their song was cut from the initial list, and therefore denying them due compensation. I'm sure the RIAA doesn't want to go there.