Jammie Thomas' Copyright Penalty Lowered

[Jon Childs]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-10439636-261.html?tag=newsLeadStoriesArea' target='_blank'>http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-1...LeadStoriesArea</a><br /><br /></div><p><em>"Last June, a federal jury in Minnesota found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable for willful copyright infringement and ordered her to pay nearly $2 million. Michael Davis, chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, chopped the amount to $54,000, or $2,250 per song. </em><p><em>"The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music," wrote Davis."</em></p></p><p><img src="http://images.thoughtsmedia.com/resizer/thumbs/size/600/wpt/auto/1265077343.usr486.jpg" style="border: 0;" /></p><p>Two million for sharing a couple dozen songs, without any intent to make any money does seem a bit harsh. I think everyone agrees that artists deserve to be able to profit from their work, but it seems we have reached a point where people can be financially ruined by doing something that is quite common. Especially since just the cost of a trial could be ruinous for most people.&nbsp; With the RIAA suing <a href="http://www.betanews.com/article/RIAA-Sues-Deceased-Grandmother/1107532260" target="_blank">deceased grandmothers</a>, <a href="http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/7495.cfm" target="_blank">people&nbsp;without computers</a>, and <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/09/09/music.swap.settlement/" target="_blank">12 year olds</a>, maybe it is time to revisit copyright law in the US.</p>

[Hooch Tan]

While I agree that the nearly $2 million judgment may have seemed excessive, I believe that main reason for the high amount was NOT because she was sharing files, but because of her attitude and actions during the court case.

Throughout the trial, she has refused, in any way, shape or form, to accept any responsibility for file sharing, despite the evidence presented. She's (or her attorney) have blamed viruses, spoofing, her ex-boyfriend and her children. The original hard drive at the time of the alleged infringement was lost. She originally insisted that the original hard drive was replaced a year before the incident until forensic evidence showed otherwise.

If the judgment were solely for making available songs on the Internet, I would agree that $1.92 million is way too much. The existing $54,000 may even be high. However, I understand the amount if part of it was to send a message that you don't try to weasel in court.

[Jon Childs]

While I agree that the nearly $2 million judgment may have seemed excessive, I believe that main reason for the high amount was NOT because she was sharing files, but because of her attitude and actions during the court case.

2 million is a life ruining amount. Pretty much every dollar she makes for the rest of her life would go to the RIAA. It just seems way out of proportion for the "crime" no matter how she acted in the courtroom.

[Hooch Tan]

2 million is a life ruining amount. Pretty much every dollar she makes for the rest of her life would go to the RIAA. It just seems way out of proportion for the "crime" no matter how she acted in the courtroom.

First, I've read that the laws used against here were largely intended to prevent profiteers/companies, not file sharers, from taking benefiting from their actions. That's why the amounts go as high as they do.

I do have to wonder what the amount would have been without the punitive measures taken into account though. As far as I'm aware, punitive charges have little to do with the potential damages, but to act as a deterrent from others for doing the same. Say the amount was a lot less, $5,000 (which was the original settlement request), does that mean that its okay to infringe on copyright as long as you pay the court a fine? Does it mean that it is okay to (allegedly!) lie in court, tamper with evidence and ignore due process?

The $54,000 does sound much more reasonable but again, I wonder what they would consider the actual charge for damages. I agree that copyright infringement should not be an act that would ruin your life, and I'd even venture to say that the fee she should pay should be far less than $54,000. But I do think that attempting to defraud the legal system should come with a very heavy penalty.

Just as an aside, without having read the actual transcripts, I won't say that she has lied and tried to mislead the court as a fact, but in my mind, it has reached the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.

[Felix Torres]

The judge's intent was to reduce the amount to something she could actually pay. Her stated intent is to give the judge a big wet (metaphorical) raspberry and pay nothing. Not now, not ever.
That is approaching contempt of court, which crosses over from fines into prison time. Then again, the lady is used to living at taxpayer expense so even jail isn't likely to faze her.

[Jon Childs]

But I do think that attempting to defraud the legal system should come with a very heavy penalty.

Just as an aside, without having read the actual transcripts, I won't say that she has lied and tried to mislead the court as a fact, but in my mind, it has reached the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level.


Here I agree with you completely, but we already have laws against perjury and the like. If she had come in, admitted everything, explained that she did it to save kids from cancer, and begged forgiveness she still could have been fined up to $150,000 per song. She even could have been sent to prison for 3 years per song.


Her stated intent is to give the judge a big wet (metaphorical) raspberry and pay nothing. Not now, not ever.
That is approaching contempt of court, which crosses over from fines into prison time. Then again, the lady is used to living at taxpayer expense so even jail isn't likely to faze her.

Then she should be cited for contempt of court, not forced to give a private company a lifetimes worth of earnings.

I don't want to get going on a copyright rant (any more than I already have) so I will just summarize by saying that I think the penalties for copyright infringement are quite ridiculous.