Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
Did A Google Earth Mistake Cause A Couple's Brutal Murder?
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.
How Kidnapping Suspect Passes Time Behind Bars
Chili's Waitress Fired Over Facebook Post Insulting 'Stupid Cops'
12 Common Workout Myths Debunked
Forbidden America: Cold War-Era Map Shows No-Go Zones For Soviet Tourists
Billboard Music Awards: Worst Dressed (or Most Daring?) From Past Red Carpets
Courtney Stodden Has A Sex Tape
Man Takes Dump In Background Of Instructional Workout Video
Tenants: Stench of Death Makes St. Louis Complex 'Unlivable'
These American Companies Refused To Sign The Bangladesh Safety Accord
HSBC Plans 14,000 More Job Cuts
Hands-on with the Samsung Galaxy S 4 running stock Android 4.2
Teen Who Died During Her First Solo Drive May Have Been Texting
Taylor Swift Q and A: What Does She Splurge on in Las Vegas?
Ricardo Cerezo, Facing Eviction, Finds $4.85 Million Lottery Ticket
PHOTO: Looking Good! Chaz Bono Loses 65 Pounds
Bill Gates regains title of world's richest person as Microsoft stock hits five-year high
PREGNANT!
Waitress Surprised With HUGE Tip On Tiny Bill
Former OJ Attorney Gives Shocking Testimony
Will Smith, Jaden Smith Get Photobombed
McDonald's Store Owners Fear Fast Food Chain Becoming Too Slow
Jackpot Soars Again
Student Shot Dead During Botched Home Invasion
New Leads In Case Of Missing British Girl
Guess Which State Boasts The Most Million-Dollar Homes?
And Your New 'American Idol' Is ...
Victim's Sister To Arias: 'Our Minds Are Permanently Stained'
Hero Hitchhiker Arrested For Allegedly Beating Man To Death
Reid Goes 'Nuclear'
The Afterlife Of Andy Kaufman
Ruby Testifies About Naughty Nun At Berlusconi Party
Treasury Officials Told Of IRS Probe In June 2012
Comments
193
Subscribe to commentsTomJun 22nd 2009 8:16AM
bill:
Where have you been the last 40 years or so???
Ever since the tape deck was invented the Riaa has been fighting against copying.
At every chance they get, The RIAAy have fought the fair use act. (allows you to make a backup copy for personal use only). They argued that if your record, tape, Cd breaks or malfunctions that you should not be able to have made a backup copy to continue enjoying what you paid for. they argued in court and before legistalures that you should have to buy a whole new record, tape or cd.
So they have been consitent in their evil ways and greed,,
Only surpassed by the motion picture industry that bought off enough congressmen to get the digital copyright law passed that forbids copying a dvd you have already purchased for personal use only. How did they do this... by going after the companies that make the software to copy DVD's.
They are currently trying to close the loophole, that allows a dvd copying program to link you to the de-encryption software patch you need to copy the copyguarded movies. (now a software company cannot sell an all in one, de-encrytpt, copy, rip) package. They must by law ,remove the deencryption part.
Do you know why blu ray was favored... better copy protection. so much so that they can shut your machine down (BD live) if you try to modfiy the machine software or play "black market " dvd's.
FcknJuStiNJun 19th 2009 4:09PM
No Sir you are the idiot. The problem is not with "kids" downloading songs that the recorded industry spend "millions of dollars" producing. Its rather that copyright law does not apply to the digital age and needs to be changed quite dramatically. i do think the recording industry should get money but why should i have to pay $80,000 for a song since every song you ever knew is readily available for streaming on YouTube and other places on the internet for free. A fair punishment would be paying double the value of what the songs are worth and paying a $50-500 fine. isn't 1.9 million too strict of a punishment and thus against the Constitution?
derkwoykovskyJun 22nd 2009 1:26PM
It is unconstitutional to impose an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment. Any fine higher than $1,000 is not proportionate to this crime. The songs probably cost a mere 99 cents each; therefore, the fine imposed should be the total price of the songs downloaded, and anything up to $1,000.
lavenderinscenceJun 22nd 2009 1:53PM
and not only that, what kind of single mother has that kind of money to pay fines with? most people don't even see that much money in a lifetime! what about the other things she needs to pay for? like COLLEGE for her kids? i know ppl who DL religiously ... I mean thousands of files, and she got that punishment for 24??!! F*cking REDICULOUS.
KatJun 22nd 2009 2:17PM
Best idea I've heard yet. Too bad it doesn't work for the RIAA. Lawyers!
AnonMar 7th 2010 5:28PM
Oh hi there, RIAA propaganda sockpuppet account.
gradaeliJun 20th 2009 11:16AM
This is completely ridiculous, though we can't exactly say that judge hasn't done his job right, he just hasn't done it good, satisfying way. As far as i know, one of judge's main attributions is to preserve the community's well being using ideas and principles such as equity. To condemn a single mother with children to take care of, to pay such a mind-bogging ammount of money for a "crime" that happens everyday, hell, every hour worldwide SPECIALLY on the US, is to go against common values morals and ethics, which is what judges are supposed to preserve and protect.
The RIAA acted on bad faith, and so did this judge for abstaining himself from the hard, concrete fact of this particular case.
ljaskldjaskljdJun 20th 2009 8:06PM
Who uses p2p networking? lawl
A.J.Jun 21st 2009 2:18PM
@Jim Davis, LPs and CDs are out the door already anyway, regardless of pirating. They're too expensive to produce and distribute versus all digital distribution. Maybe it's YOU that should pay more attention, expert. Oh, and just to keep things at your level -- "Idiot!"
nonochacha1Jun 21st 2009 2:58PM
I agree that this fine is ridiculous. BUT the defendant could have settled for two to three thousand dollars. But she and her lawyer decided to go to court. Also, she had downloaded and was sharing close to three thousand songs. The number was reduced to simplify matters. Also, from what I've read the recording companies will be willing to settle for very little.
ShaunJun 21st 2009 6:21PM
no. its not theft. theft implies that one party actually experiences the loss of something. the riaa loses nothing by having someone download music. its not like mrs basset took the only copies of those songs, depriving everyone else of a chance to listen.
xmasgirlJun 22nd 2009 12:00PM
i guess after awhile, we will have to stop breeding puppies because of the infrigment that we cannot have the same kind!
Tony WestJun 22nd 2009 6:37AM
Have you listened to the crap the music industry puts out. Have you noticed the horrible quality of downloaded music. Even if this is the best quality of download it's still only worth about fifty cents. Even actual cds have become cheap and sound horrible. The record industry is making the public scapegoats for their ailing business instead of seeing it's very much the fault of the economy. This is simply outrageous and it's time for people to stand up and oust these judges and lawmakers who as far as I'm concerned are no better than panhandlers. Get a real job and stop sucking like leaches off the public.
allisonJun 22nd 2009 6:50AM
I think she should give them $24 and that the web site offering free downloads should be sued, not her.
RonlJun 22nd 2009 7:00AM
This is nuts folks. Since Al Gore claims to be the inventor of the
internet, maybe he should also be tried for aiding and abetting.
Virtually all music is available via streaming adio/ video and there
is no law preventing the recording of this media. It should not be
allowed on the internet if it is not put there for people to use.
We've got bigger problems in this country to worry about than
downloading music.
SusanJun 22nd 2009 7:18AM
Get your facts straight. Gore did not say he invented the internet. He said he helped make the internet possible. This is just GOP spin propaganda.
Dorothy AdamsJun 22nd 2009 7:04AM
What a relief Finally some real harsh punishment for stealing from other people! I can't wait for the goverment to be sued for stealing from me (via taxes) every single day to finance stupid $#!t, just like this! ~ This fine is just plain STUPID! America and it's justice system needs a OVERHAUL! Where's Jim Carey in green when ya' need him?
mrsinister2uJun 22nd 2009 7:23AM
We wasted taxplayer money over 24 songs? Their never going to see the 1.9 million. I'm not for the record companies as their been ripping off the artists for years. I say just settle for 500.00 you might get that and from there get a law written in writing for everyone to see that you will be fine a total of ex dollars for illegally downloading a song. Not 2million because a judge is overstepping his grounds like he never did anything illegal since becoming a judges.
stilleaglesfanJun 22nd 2009 7:29AM
if she was rich, she would have gotten off.. all these scumbag lawyers and judges can go to hell as far as i am concerned
duckyJun 22nd 2009 7:52AM
The filesharing places like Kazza, Bearshare and Limewire should be sued also. You can blame the pussy's Metallica for all this. I say boycott Metallica.