AfterDawn: News

RIAA prepares for third trial in file sharing case

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is preparing for a third trial to once again determine damages, which have so far ranged from $54,000 to $1.92 million, to be paid by Jammie Thomas-Rasset who has been accused (and found guilty) of sharing 24 songs illegally on file sharing networks. Last year, the mother of four from Minnesota was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages for sharing the music.

Last week, Chief U.S. District Judge Michael Davis reduced the damages to $54,000, declaring that the $1.92 million figure was "monstrous and shocking." The RIAA was given until Wednesday to accept the decision or to reject it, which would result in a new trial. The trade group announced it will reject the decision and go to another trial, as Thomas-Rasset turned down an opportunity to settle the case.



Attorneys for Thomas-Rasset said she would not accept a settlement offer from the RIAA, which would have her paying $25,000 to a charity for struggling artists. "Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Attorney Joe Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.

"For her, it's all the same. She just doesn't have the money to pay any of those, and it would be financially ruinous," Sibley said. She will continue to fight the case on principal, believing that the statutes that allow for such hefty damages in these types of cases are wrong.

"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.

Written by: James Delahunty @ 27 Jan 2010 21:34

• Previous article

• Netflix gains 1.1 million customers in Q4

• Next article

• Samsung now mass producing 3D LED TVs

• 11 comments

• KillerBug

  ""It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth."
  
  Just shows how clueless the RIAA is...they seem to think this woman just happens to have $25,000 laying around...and that paying $25,000 all at one would not ruin her.

  27.1.2010 23:08 #1

• fgamer

  They're trying to make an example out of her..they don't really care for the money. (they care for the masses of money) It's them trying to send a message that will be ignored by most. I think the RIAA is a bunch of putrid f***s, and we need somebody coming to the defense of this woman. It's shocking that 24 songs shared online can result in such an enormous amount of money being granted to the RIAA. I don't back piracy but I think these types of fines are incredibly unjustified.
  
  Funny, because the RIAA thinks that suing people is gonna make them comply and purchase music..it's just not the case, it infuriates people if anything. I don't consider sharing music bad..because it's "sharing" (imo) but when people are selling it, then I come down on the side of the RIAA/MPAA in support >> that I consider bad, very bad. And the massive success of Avatar proves that people will pay, if it's good. Hopefully the MPAA will see that things aren't as bad for them as the paranoia causes! And the RIAA will follow suit as well.

  28.1.2010 01:08 #2

• jony218

  maybe the next jury will reduce it to 1 penny so they can stop bothering the court. Maybe let her do community service picking up trash on the weekends.

  28.1.2010 01:13 #3

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by jony218: maybe the next jury will reduce it to 1 penny so they can stop bothering the court. Maybe let her do community service picking up trash on the weekends.They should sentence her with the maximum penalty for stealing two cds...to show that piracy is AT MOST as bad as theft...not hundreds of times worse. Then again, it would be nice if they just let her off the hook...she has already been through far more punishment than she ever deserved just durring these trials.

  28.1.2010 05:36 #4

• rick930

  The stupidity of the RIAA clearly shows in that they are spending tons more money in attorney fees and court costs to sue this woman three times, rather than simply walking away in the first place. They got their "pound of flesh" with the initial verdict, so if it isn't really the money then they should be happy. But it isn't about the verdicts, or the money, its about the RIAA trying to prove to the little guy that they can bully you around all they want and there isn't anything they can do about it. Guess they missed the results of hundreds of other cases that they flat out lost by using illegal practices, lack of evidence, or simply facing up against people that pushed back.

  28.1.2010 07:25 #5

• gnovak1

  Why is the RIAA going through all this for money they aren't going to get anyway?
  
  Just leave this woman alone. There are millions of songs being shared online and you're saying just 24 songs is going to do millions of dollars in damages?
  
  And these artists don't look like they are living poor to me.

  28.1.2010 13:26 #6

• boxer2520

  This is nuts. Kudos to this woman for not giving in, what an injustice to be fined in this way. Do anyone actually think that 24 songs would have made $54,000 even if she didn't share them? As bit of a stretch. Someone needs to come to her rescue.

  28.1.2010 18:38 #7

• xtago

  Originally posted by gnovak1: Why is the RIAA going through all this for money they aren't going to get anyway?
  
  Just leave this woman alone. There are millions of songs being shared online and you're saying just 24 songs is going to do millions of dollars in damages?
  
  And these artists don't look like they are living poor to me.Because it's about showing people that they can sue you can get money out of you and that piracy is evil and all that and you should be paying the money to buy the songs etc.
  
  
  I'm a bit suprised about the RIAA sueing 3 times over though I didn't hear about the lower amount, be real damn funny if went over 1.9million like say 10 million she suddenly owes RIAA.
  
  She'd be bankrupt etc probably paying them 50 cents a day or week.

  28.1.2010 22:48 #8

• KillerBug

  All these RIAA/MPAA/ETC trials have turned many former supporters against the record companies...I have over a 1000 CDs, and more than 500 DVDs...but I have stopped buying CDs & DVD (and I am not about to start buying blurays). I did this because my once proud collection is now nothing more than a reminder of all the money I unknowingly contributed to these terrorist organizations (they use terror to control people, thus they are terrorists).
  
  I don't know how the government can justify it's wars abroad, when they will not even adress domestic terrorists who freely admit that they are terrorists.

  28.1.2010 23:29 #9

• ChappyTTV

  Quote:"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.I doubt it's a case of that she denies responsibility, but more that she's fighting the ludicrous amounts of money that these idiots think they've lost because of this. But I guess they're probably trying to recoup the money they're spending on these lawsuits.
  If they really had any sense of true justice in this, they'd access the person's client data and see how many copies they seeded fully. If they seeded to a 14 ratio, then charge them for 14 copies of what the damn thing is worth, not a couple million. The persons' legal fees will be enough punitive measures for most people, no need to get so greedy.

  29.1.2010 22:20 #10

• ZippyDSM

  Quote:Copyright and all things within is partially incompatible with today.
  
  With the focus on distribution and copying it basically means any poster of any picture,clip or copy of words/lyrics can be sued or have his comments removed from his site because thus system is policed by sometimes out of control business's who abuse a system no one really pays much attention to unless they have the time or money to fight corporate pettiness.
  
  The trouble is some of CP is set in stone and fair use is begin whittled away to ensure your only option is to buy or re buy. CP can last 100-200 years this may be to long to really benefit society, so what can be done..... well looking at fair use its vague for a reason and that is to allow the times to set its standards on a case by case basis.This of course allows for to much wiggle room and possible abuse from companies bigger than governments.So what do you do, you can amend fair use and expand it with what I call "non commercial freedom of digital expression and disobedience" IE using any copyright as long as its distribution dose not draw any money from the market environment IE no donations and no ad revenue based advertisement, direct unlicensed sale is already illicit.
  
  But we are not done here lets add another layer of protection for CP owners if you can show your CP'd items are being distributed by the millions similar to the numbers of he largest licensed digital store front then that site,public digital archive,file sever,ect goes beyond the scope of fair use.
  
  
  Now for one last set of guidelines, hardware and software circumventions must prove that they do more than allow unprotected item's to be used on or only unlock the device or piece of software in question. IE for it to be fair use has to offer more features or allow you full access to the product you have purchased.
  
  This emphasis's 2 things that circumvention has to do more for the item in question than remove protections and re emphasis's fair use on the web. Its that simple.....

  31.1.2010 11:55 #11