Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs
Jammie Thomas-Rasset didn't know how good she had it. Back in 2007, the Minnesota mother made national headlines as the first person sued by the RIAA for copyright infringement to actually take the case to trial (instead of settling out of court), after she was charged with downloading copyrighted songs through the P2P network, Kazaa. At the trial's conclusion, Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of illegally downloading 24 songs and was fined $10,000 for each one, amounting to a total of $240,000 in damages. But the case was deemed a mistrial by the judge and Thomas-Rasset waited two years for a retrial. Yesterday, the single mother of four was found guilty again, but this time ordered to pay a mind-boggling $80,000 per song -- $1.9 million in all.
Throughout the trials, Thomas-Rassett has always pledged her innocence, but juries have been incredulous. In fact, as part of her testimony in this trial, Thomas-Rassett suggested -- for the first time -- that her children or ex-husband might have been the downloading culprits. If the jurors didn't buy into the defendant's attempt at implicating her children, we couldn't imagine it helped to bolster her image in their eyes.
While, initially, a retrial seemed like a good thing, it obviously hasn't worked out. The total damages Thomas-Rassett must pay have now jumped from a total of $220,000 to a whopping $1.9 million (again, for downloading just 24 songs). In response to the astronomical judgement, she told the Times, "There's no way they're ever going to get that. I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now." Cara Duckworth, spokeswoman for the RIAA, did tell the Times that her organization was still willing to settle with Thomas-Rassett. "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," she said. What comes next remains to be seen, but we're guessing a payment plan is in order. [From: CNN and the Times]
Anti-Corporate Protests and Boycotts
Motrin Ad Pulled Due to Online Protests
In November of last year, mothers took to the Twitter-streets in protest of a Motrin video advertisement that, they claimed, belittled young mothers. In no time, Johnson and Johnson took down the ad, posting a letter of apology.
Apple Pulls "You Can't Be Too Thin" Ads
In 2007, after airing an ill-advised ad campaign for their new line of iMacs that featured the tag line "You Can't Be Too Thin," Apple received innumerable complaints, including one from the Alliance for Eating Disorders Awareness. The ads were promptly pulled.
Boycotting Sellers Dent eBay's Business
In February of last year, eBay sellers banded in a boycott after the Web site laid claim to higher commissions on sold goods and eliminated sellers' ability to give negative feedback to buyers. In just one week, eBay's listings dropped by 13 percent.
Students Stage Virtual Protest on Facebook
Disturbed by HSBC's suspension of their free overdraft protection, collegiate customers of the bank launched a Facebook protest in 2007. Backed by the National Union of Students, the online protest won out as HSBC decided to maintain the policy.
Facebook Lactivists Take Protests to the Street Over Breastfeeding Pictures
Last month, self-described "lactivists" set up shop outside Facebook's headquarters to protest the site's removal of all images containing breastfeeding mothers.
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 10)
harveylubin said 10:49AM on 6-19-2009
That's just insane! The people at RIAA should be taken out and shot… or given 20 lashes with a wet noodle.
But seriously, this is so bizarrely extreme that it's beyond being funny.
Reply
David said 11:08AM on 6-19-2009
harvery, the judgement is harsh, however, she knew what she was doing was NOT LEGAL< so, now, it is time to pay up. Next time, obey the law!!!!!!
John Salley said 10:37AM on 6-22-2009
An gay marriage is LEGAL??@?!!!?!?!?!?!?!
mark said 12:20PM on 6-22-2009
While the award is way over the top, it is still stealing. As an artist I think we need to protect artist's Intellectual property and ideas.
UmmYeahOk said 12:21PM on 6-22-2009
Betcha anything that these 24 songs were all AT LEAST 20 years old or older. Songs that are so old that the industry hardly makes any money off them, and when they did, $20 for a CD or cassette tape with only one valued song! Thats right, before the age of mp3s, music was a real rip off! Now they want you to buy songs that can only be used on one computer, you cant burn it onto a CD to play elsewhere in the home or in the car. She may had downloaded songs just for that reason. I had a cousin that paid itunes for a song, she couldnt even use in a project of hers because of the protection they attached to it!
Plus, I think that if you LEGALLY own the CD, cassette, 8-track, record, whatever, you should have the legal right to download it in any format you want. I used to rip my own CDs, till I realized many of them were scratched, and ripping tapes is much more difficult. To download a clean copy without any damage to the song should be allowed. Their just afraid to because whats stopping her from buying a hard copy during those 2-3 years.
The music industry is losing money for the same reason the movie industry is... ...everythings either crap, or a remake. It has nothing to do with downloads
Niki said 12:23PM on 6-22-2009
Betcha anything that these 24 songs were all AT LEAST 20 years old or older. Songs that are so old that the industry hardly makes any money off them, and when they did, $20 for a CD or cassette tape with only one valued song! Thats right, before the age of mp3s, music was a real rip off! Now they want you to buy songs that can only be used on one computer, you cant burn it onto a CD to play elsewhere in the home or in the car. She may had downloaded songs just for that reason. I had a cousin that paid itunes for a song, she couldnt even use in a project of hers because of the protection they attached to it!
Plus, I think that if you LEGALLY own the CD, cassette, 8-track, record, whatever, you should have the legal right to download it in any format you want. I used to rip my own CDs, till I realized many of them were scratched, and ripping tapes is much more difficult. To download a clean copy without any damage to the song should be allowed. Their just afraid to because whats stopping her from buying a hard copy during those 2-3 years.
The music industry is losing money for the same reason the movie industry is... ...everythings either crap, or a remake. It has nothing to do with downloads
LEPPARD74656 said 2:09PM on 6-22-2009
I agree, this is just big companies out trying to screw the little guys. What difference does it make if I download a shared file from the web, or just record the song from the radio? Either way I'm not paying for the song, but according to them one way is stealing the other is legal. And don't give me the, "oh we have to protect the poor artist's who lose money every time a song is shared for free." They make more money in a week than most of us will see in a lifetime.
Lindsey said 6:04PM on 6-24-2009
Mark: While I do understand that as an artist you want to protect your intellectual property and ideas, I think you have got it all wrong. Honestly, downloading music has nothing to do with that, I don't understand how it is stealing your ideas. Stealing the song yes, but its not like they are marketing it as thier own song or even thier own lyrics. In fact, I would look at people downloading my music as a form of flattery, they obviously like you. I love it when an artist literally tells thier fans to illegally download music or gives the music away, because to them its not the money but its what they have to say and how thier music has an impact to those who are listening, and to me thats what makes a truly great artist. Aside from music, artists make millions of money through other venues (merchandise, concerts, appearances, commercials, etc.) anyway, its hard for me to feel sorry for them.
Now I know that making money is ultimately a goal of an artist, and I do agree that if downloading music is illegal it should be fined, but this is rediculous. If you don't agree you are clearly insane. She should be fined only for the amount of each song, which is about $0.99-$1.29 these days and that is it. All this wasted time in court to ultimately decided on a $1.9 million dollar fine for 24 songs, to a mother of 4, it blows my mind.
umana2482 said 9:02PM on 7-09-2009
Hey buddy, everyone knows they should not be downloading song illegally. No one can say " I did not know". She did it now she needs to pay the price. The one that needs to be shot here is you, moron.
Tammiem5 said 11:24AM on 6-19-2009
THIS IS RIDICULOUS...THE WAY CELLPHONE COMPANIES AND OTHERS GET OVER ON CONSUMERS EVERYDAY.SHE SHOULD TAKE THIS ALL THE WAY...BEING A SINGLE MOM MYSELF I KNOW FEEDING THE KIDS COME B4 SOME BU**LSH*T AS THIS.THE KIDS MAY HAVE DONE IT I TALK W/MY SON ALL THE TIME ABOUT DOWNLOADING CERTAIN THINGS.HOW DID THIS EVEN GET TO COURT????THE CO.SHOULD BE ASHAMED
Reply
mark said 12:20PM on 6-22-2009
So you don't police your child's computer use? IT IS STILL STEALING!
Olivia Escoto said 12:14PM on 6-19-2009
That's ridiculous! What a waist of time and money for this frivolous law suit. I can't believe what happened. I'm on Jammie Thomas- Rasset's side. You should be able to down load music to listen to at your own home for your own personal use. That's why the technology is out there in the first place. We have come a long way from the old radio listening. What's the difference from recording a song from the radio on your tape recorder?
Reply
gd said 12:21PM on 6-22-2009
You got 0 quality recording from the radio, the way she is doing it she gets commercial quality, she and all who download without permission are thieves, I hope some one comes to your house and steals your food and beer.
grimesheidi said 12:24PM on 6-19-2009
Minnesota is not safe to live in, Next they will excute you for jay-walking, Judge must be getting a commission.
Reply
Harold Steffee said 1:25PM on 6-19-2009
This is a prime example of the courts going wild, why not just throw her in a dungeon and chain her to the wall and feed her onces a week while blasting the music that she downloaded.
Reply
babytiger095 said 1:17PM on 6-19-2009
That is truly insane.. what the hell!! SCARY!!
Reply
soofcourse123 said 1:36PM on 6-19-2009
Hmmm . I guess the judges forgot that EVERY single US military base in Iraq ALLOWS the sales of bootleg DVD's in the local national's shops. and this has been going on since 2004. SO are OUR brave heroes gonna fall victims this when they step foot back in the US. Bc i know custom turns away when they see them. As a matter of i personally know customs doesnt care bc im in Iraq right now and they are on the same base as me.
Reply
tinalap said 10:23AM on 6-22-2009
The "government" doesn't do anything. Copyright infringement is a civil crime. A copyright holder has to bring the case against individuals, the government does not do it at all. That's why you're not going to see customs agents arresting people or confiscating bootleg DVDs in an airport. As long as you only have a few (and aren't planning on selling them) it really isn't their jurisdiction.
The RIAA has made a big deal of going after downloaders with serious negative PR backlash as a result. Sure, they've gotten the big download sites taken down, and legit sites put in their place, but at the expense of the nation's respect for them.
I can't say I've never downloaded music (I've never done it for music that the RIAA controls, though), but as a general rule, I do not do it. Copyrights exist for a reason. We have to protect the intellectual property of artists all over the world (whether they are musicians or others) because it is true that it is how they make their living. The laws aren't unreasonable, it's how the consumers are expected to lay down money that is the problem (too costly, DRM, ridiculous "scare tactic" fines, etc.). Change happens, but it happens slowly. This woman was just a poor sucker in a war that was way bigger than her. She should file a complaint that the judgement was way too harsh. You can't charge someone over a million dollars for downloading a couple dozen songs for personal use. The fines should be awarded as a matter of how much it would have cost to legally download each of those files, plus a flat fine ($25,000 or something) for all of them together, not a ridiculously large fine for each file.
Patto said 1:16PM on 6-22-2009
Nothing to do with the story just wanted to say: May you come home safe and sound and thanks for all you do to keep us safe!
BillV1987 said 2:46PM on 6-19-2009
I really doubt that they want the two million; this is probably just a scare tactic to call attention to the topic of piracy, and to probably try to pull some PR campaign out of their collective behinds. How, I don't know, but I'm sure they have something clever planned. I really don't buy the whole waking up one morning and exclaiming, "I'm gonna be evil for the sake of being evil today!" idea, mainly because being evil isn't really a good way to make a living. The point being, if she were forced to pay the money, I'm pretty sure that would give the serfs plenty of reason rally in a mob and burn the whole damn thing to the ground (and probably with presidential backing, because who doesn't like being re-elected?). And even though I failed all my business courses in college, the last time I checked fire + office = suck.
If they really wanted the money, why not go after someone who actually has two million dollars? And on top of that, the RIAA said they were still open to settling with the woman. The must have some sort of common sense, plus a plan (though it might be a stupid plan, because this does seem like the beginnings of political suicide).
Reply