Woman Ordered to Pay $1.92 Millon to multi-billion dollar U.S. corporation for Illegal Downloading

A 32-year-old woman from Brainerd, Minn., owes $1.92 million in damages to recording companies for downloading their music, a federal jury in Minneapolis decided Thursday.

The damages are eight times more than Thomas-Rasset, a mother of four, was ordered to pay the first time she faced six record companies in court on claims that she downloaded more than 1,700 songs.

The industry group sued Thomas-Rasset, then a single mother of two, in 2006.

www.startribune.com...

What a brilliant way to make money and increase stock prices.

Sue single mothers for millions of dollars that they don't have.

Something seems odd about this case. I'm not really sure what it is.

Maybe the single mother received a backroom payoff to play the victim as a warning that any citizen can be targeted, for million dollar collections, by multi-billion dollar wall street firms and their million dollar legal teams.


[edit on 19-6-2009 by In nothing we trust]

That amounts to $80,000 a song for the 24 songs Jammie Thomas-Rasset was accused of downloading.

Ok this is ludicrous.

Downloading 24 songs is PETTY THEFT. She should be forced to pay $24, the amount it would cost to buy the songs online. How is it legal for the recording industry to pull this kind of crap? They go around intentionally destroying individual's lives, and then wonder why they get such a bad rap?

Boycott the RIAA! Radiohead set an example and released their last album, In Rainbows online for free, and they don't seem to have any trouble making money. Thankfully, that trend seems to be catching on, NIN just released his latest album for free as well. Soon musicians will realize that the recording industry is a giant scam, and we can just bypass it as a society.

I hope these bastards feel good about what they're doing, because Karma catches up with everybody.

I'd represent my self if they ever came after me. Which they don't have a reason too because I don't download music. That is besides the point though.

I'd pay a hundred bucks for a consultation at a lawyers office and keep filing motions to delay the court date while I study up and gain my argument.

Seeing how I'm broke and don't have anything for them to take and I were to lose I wouldn't pay them. In most states there is a certain amount of time you have to pay them in. I'd just keep representing myself and having them keep dragging me to court wasting their money.

It's ridiculous. The people that get caught up in these kind of court battles don't hire the right lawyers you have to get an entertainment lawyer. I could present an argument that would have a hard time trying to refute.

I don't know so much about backroom deals per se, but what I do know is that with the right lawyer and or knowledge of the legal system these people wouldn't stand a chance.

The trick is to make it more costly for them to take you to court than they are seeking in damages.

I would go out and find every band that is against the RIAA and present them as witnesses so the trial would last a year or more. Even if the judge kept striking me down I would just keep on going and drawing it out.

But then again I don't have anything to worry about there really isn't any music worth downloading, imo. Not music that I can't get for very cheap or free that isn't RIAA approved at least.

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife

I don't know so much about backroom deals per se, but what I do know is that with the right lawyer and or knowledge of the legal system these people wouldn't stand a chance.

Thats what I mean. This case sounds fishy.

Thats why I'm wondering if the single mother is actually a shill for the record industry.

I am just curious, how will the 1.92 million be collected if the woman doesn't have it? Will they take money out of her paycheck? Liquidate her assets?

Originally posted by kj6754
I am just curious, how will the 1.92 million be collected if the woman doesn't have it? Will they take money out of her paycheck? Liquidate her assets?

They'll probably secure a court ordered judgement against her and force her to make monthly payments to them for the rest of her natural born life.


[edit on 19-6-2009 by In nothing we trust]

I don't feel bad for her. The music industry has lost massive amounts of money because of illegal downloads. They have already stated that if caught they would prosecute to the fullest extent. She should have heeded their warning. Now she is paying the consequences.

This will be a very unpopular ruling, but illegal is illegal. I personally think it is kind of steep, but she chose to take that road.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Honestly, I wouldn't put it past them. If you talked to me a few years ago I would say no, but after everything that I have witnessed It wouldn't surprise me.

I maybe she had a public defender and he/she just wasn't any good. That would be the most likely scenario, but the one you're presenting isn't that far out of the question, Obama appointed an RIAA attorney to some high court I can't remember which one. And Chicago politics has come to the White House and the RIAA doesn't have a good track record with winning these cases.

So maybe so just to set a precedent, It also doesn't help matters when you consider Rahmbo's brother is a very successful agent in the entertainment industry, so it wouldn't surprise me.

I think everyone, or 97% of the younger generation has downloaded one song illegally before. So basically everyone is on the line for at least 80k in damages, pretty stupid and impractical.

reply to post by jd140


The amount of money they claim to be losing to downloads is grossly over exaggerated. Most people that download things wouldn't have even bought the product to begin with and it would have taken out of the artists pay for buyback of the albums that didn't sell.

The RIAA isn't losing anything, the cost losses just get taken out of the artists cut. Not to mention, the RIAA is criminal organization, soundscan scams, artist selling well over 500 thousand copies and the RIAA only paying them for 200 thousand sold.

It's the same as Obama's "jobs created or saved" claim, there is noway to prove it. Then there is also fair use laws, which have gone way out the window, it's only copyright infringement if the person is selling mixtapes and or downloads of the pirated songs.

Not to mention the RIAA is trying to hold on to an outdated business model. With the advent of the internet they are going the way of the dodo slowly but consistently.

I am curious, what is the difference between hitting the record button on my radio or VCR or going to the library and checking out a movie or CD?

I am not condoning downloads, just curious.

I went to the U.S. copyright law website and was reading on the copyright law that they can go as high as $150.000 per infringement.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


Either way, it is illegal.

When I said music industry I was including the artists.

reply to post by jd140


You got one thing right, it's the industry that is after the money. How much of the 80k per song does the artist actually see? I bet none.
I would love nothing more than to advocate illegal actions against these idiots but since this is a civilised board, I shall leave it to everyones own judgement what to do

reply to post by PsykoOps


The artists are the ones signing the contracts. The companies actually spend alot of money signing, recording, distributing, promoting, scheduling and travel expensises for the artists.

Artists don't get much for album sales. They get the bulk from merchandise, appearences and touring.

ok i have a dumb question is it illegal to watch the music video"song" on youtube?I am not talking downloading just watching it or is it the same thing?


philip

Originally posted by othello
ok i have a dumb question is it illegal to watch the music video"song" on youtube?I am not talking downloading just watching it or is it the same thing?


philip

This is kind of along the same thing I am asking, whats the difference between someone hitting the record button the radio or VCR?

reply to post by jd140


That it is.

It still doesn't make what the RIAA is doing right either. These are under handed tactics. This woman just had a bad lawyer that got her screwed to the wall is all.

In all the cases the RIAA has brought to court they have only won a few. Most of the time the RIAA drops the case. Because they used illegal methods to gain the downloaders info.

If the RIAA is losing money then they deserve to lose the money. It's the old adage, what goes around comes around. They made tens of millions off of people like James Brown and Chuck Berry, by paying them pennies.

This woman just had a crappy lawyer, and or the conspiracy angle to it.

reply to post by In nothing we trust


Your signature says it all. The music industry is part of Corporate America and Corporate America runs America, not the people.

Beyounce is worth 315 Million
Britney Spears is worth 150 Million
Jessica Simpson is worth 70-80 Million
Lil Wayne is worth 70 Million
Madonna is worth 850 Million

Get the picture

There is no such thing as "justice" that's just a misnomer.

The asylum is being run the inmates.

None of these people are worth that much money.

They make more in one year than my husband's heart surgeon how ludicris is that.

Crazy, insane and unjust.



[edit on 19-6-2009 by ofhumandescent]

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by jd140

 

That it is.

It still doesn't make what the RIAA is doing right either. These are under handed tactics. This woman just had a bad lawyer that got her screwed to the wall is all.

In all the cases the RIAA has brought to court they have only won a few. Most of the time the RIAA drops the case. Because they used illegal methods to gain the downloaders info.

If the RIAA is losing money then they deserve to lose the money. It's the old adage, what goes around comes around. They made tens of millions off of people like James Brown and Chuck Berry, by paying them pennies.

This woman just had a crappy lawyer, and or the conspiracy angle to it.

I agree to a point.

If they are losing money due legally then they desrve to lose it. Just because some artists got screwed along time ago doesn't mean it is right to steal from them.

I wouldn't blame it all on the RIAA though, if they have a crooked agent they could get screwed just as good. When Black Sabbath first came onto the scene they were bringing in millions, but only saw a fraction of that due to their manager. Same thing happened to Ray Charles.

reply to post by I think Im normal


Yes, it's still illegal according to law. But they aren't going to come after you because it isn't worth the money.

Same thing with the DVR, but the court ruled that it isn't illegal, so it doesn't apply to recording shows to VCR or DVR.

And the thing about youtube is that Youtube has to ask the copyright holder if it is okay redistribute the songs, so Youtube has to retain a license for that song.

Same thing at Bars and Clubs, next time you go to a bar or club or anywhere that plays music look around the front door area, you should see one of three stickers, ASCAP, BMI, SESAC. They have to pay them for them for them to get a license to rebroadcast the music.