Huge fine in US file-sharing case

Huge fine in US file-sharing case

news.bbc.co.uk

A woman has been ordered to pay $1.9 million (£1.2m) in the only file-sharing case to go to trial in the US.

A jury in Minnesota ruled Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, had violated music copyright and must pay damages to the record industry.

The mother of four from Minnesota was accused of illegally sharing 24 songs from artists including Sheryl Crow and Green Day.

(visit the link for the full news article)

$1.9million for 24 tracks? did the judge just pull a figure totally out of his @#%$? how in the hell do they come up with these ridiculous figures? or has the judge taken a backhander from the media industry and doctored the verdict as seems to be the case in the Pirate bay case where the judge seemed to be connected to the media industry?

news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

I have the impression that it`s mostly the big labels crying about losing money. The little independent labels are doing fine and don`t care about filesharing. And this is because they don`t put so much money in PR and advertising so they are able to sell the music cheaper. I think this is a big factor.

Yes well I don't browse that forum, I browse this one, so lets keep it here because there's obviously something strange going on in this case.

It's clear that everything this woman owns on Earth don't amount to a quarter of what they're asking her for. She's probably not worth much at all; this is an outrage.

"Online piracy has been blamed for a decline in music sales in recent years. "

No, the complete and utter # the entire entertainment industry churns out in the desperate hopes of a "hit" is the reason for the decline in sales for everything. I'm not forking out £20 for something that is fundamentally complete crap. Movies, music, games; its all the same. Just bland, corporate trash that they would never have gotten a penny off me for.

What is going to happen with this lady if she (obviously) cannot pay the fine?

The lawyer for the riaa was actually embarrassed at the size of the fine, and said that they are more than willing to settle outside of court for a far lower amount.

I think what happened from hearing about the lady is that she pissed the judge off.

The concept of copyright as it stands now is ludicrous and should not be followed, i mean 70-120 years get real.

Until they fix the law and make it more reasonable it really should be ignored as just being stupid.

reply to post by Desolate Cancer


I think they just need to accept that fact that in a totally free environment, like the internet, no information that can be digitized is safe.

I'm sorry, that's just a side effect of having freedom. Let the "private sector" sort it out.



The only way they're ever going to be able to stop file sharing is if they regulate the internet.

How bout instead of opening that can of worms, big record labels just cut their losses and move the %#$@ on to doing something that is profitable in the 21st century.

The judge in the PirateBay trial didn't seem to be in collusion with music police, he WAS in collusion with them. He was a member of several copyright committees but failed to mention so when the trial began and the circuit judges were asked if they had any conflict of interest; an utter disgrace to the judicial system in Sweden and shows how the US iron fist stomps on international laws in other countries.

Regarding this fine, it seems the judge is indeed a paid member and has been asked to make an example of her. She has four kids; perhaps he expects her to sell a few to Madonna.

It is amusing how they do invent figures, as it's just a wet finger in the air exercise to guestimate costs. What about 99p on iTunes, that must impact on their traditional $20 for-a-piece-of-plastic sales.

When will they die a horrible death due to their blatant stupidity and ignorance

The appropriate thing to do would've been to send a bill for $24 what the music was worth + small fee for printing and mailing. 80k per song is just plain silly.

reply to post by PsykoOps


They presume that every single p2p download/upload is a lost sale...what utter and complete fabricated nonsense.

I'm surprised they don't inject cameras into your eyeball and say that every single person who looks at a youtube music vid, should pay them $20...oh wait they (WMG) tried that on with Google and lost

Yeah I know. The fact is that the world has changed and these dinosaur companies are desperately trying to hold on to the past. Technology develops but these companies do whatever it takes to stay the same.
Nothing shows better how outtated their business model is than 'piracy'.

reply to post by PsykoOps


Just wait until Barry's internet tsar gets his filthy mits on copyright infringers/terrorists. It will just be another hidden tax by suing people for alleged infringement.

Wasn't it awhile back when they actually tried to claim that 'piratism supports terrorism'. Yeah, bring on the waterboarding.

It's outrageous.

1.9 million?

WHAT THE FRASCHIZZLE?

That's outrageous.

Something needs to be done.

This is too much.

The woman is a single mother. She downloaded TWENTYFOUR songs.

Looks like these music companies are trying to make money off of her that they lost to the rest of the illegal-music-downloaders worldwide.

It's crazy.

She's going to go into debt for the rest of her life. She can't pay for her four children's school and college.

This is, again, outrageous.