Judge Orders Woman to Pay $80,000 per Pirated Song

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://mashable.com/2009/06/19/infinity-dollars/' target='_blank'>http://mashable.com/2009/06/19/infinity-dollars/</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"In one of the most ridiculous verdicts I've seen, the jury decided that Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the first woman who was charged with copyright infringement and offered to settle but decided to fight the RIAA, is guilty and owes the recording industry 1.92 million dollars, or $80,000 per song."</em></p><p><a href="http://www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/29735/going-legit-with-music-my-story.html" target="_blank">You all know how I feel about music piracy</a>, but there's something completely ludicrous about the ruling here where the woman now owes 1.92 million dollars to the recording industry. She's not going to pay that amount - the article says the RIAA will settle out of court for much less - but I have to wonder if the numbers had been more reasonable in ther first place, the RIAA would have made their point better. This is essentially about grand-standing, hoping to scare people into not pirating music any longer. Did it work? I don't think so - I haven't seen any information about music piracy rates dropping.</p>

[doogald]

Just to be fair and clear - and I will point out that I think that the RIAA is being ridiculous about these stupid lawsuits - it should be pointed out that the $80,000 per song figure was imposed by the jury; it was not a figure demanded by the RIAA. If found guilty, the jury could have imposed a penalty of a minimum of $750 per song to as much as $150,000 per song. It seems clear (and if you read details of the testimony in the case, you may agree) that the jury considered that she was not being completely truthful and imposed a high penalty because of that perception.

The RIAA typically asks for $3000 to $12,000 (not per song) when they ask you to settle out of court; if you go to court, they generally demand $750 per song (these details from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIAA#Efforts_against_infringement_of_members.27_copyrights)). In her first trial, which was thrown out, the RIAA was awarded $220,000, or $9250 per song.

(Details from Ars Technica's excellent coverage (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars).)

[Felix Torres]

...plus, at every step of the way, the lady was defiant, argumentative, and insistent that she had done nothing wrong.
Its not that she denied doing it, she pretty much admitted it, which is why the jury hit her with "willful violation" and the big fine. (Which is still half of what she could've received.)
She just shrugged the whole thing as insignificant.

One report had her own lawyer speculating that she rubbed the jury the wrong way. Having seen some of her quotes, I can believe it; her basic attitude has been one of entitlement and challenge, and she repeatedly dared the RIAA to make an example of her. Two years ago, that attitude might've worked but in the current economic conditions, flaunting the rules didn't go over very well.

She showed no remorse and received no pity.

Now, the truth is, she's received some really bad advice from the likes of the EFF and other anti-IP groups who have been solidly behind her (waaayyy behind) expecting her to blaze a trail against the RIAA claims to set a precedent. Well, they suceeded; they now have a precedent.
Of course, they're not going to help her pay off the fine or even the court costs that are going to be a part of even the most lenient settlement.

Final score:

LAW 1 --- Advocates 0 :rolleyes:

[Jason Dunn]

Great info, thanks guys! That does paint it in a different light. Thank goodness for community. :)

[Felix Torres]

Depends on the community. :)
Over at CNET the anti-IP crowd are up in arms over the "unfair" treatment she's gotten and are looking all over for ways she might evade the consequences of her actions.
The current consensus is that she should declare bankruptcy to drag RIAA into a third trial. :rolleyes:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10269251-93.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

With "friends" like those...