Jammie Thomas' Copyright Penalty Lowered
<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. 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 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>
|
Threaded Mode