Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Legendary File-Sharer Loses Another Legal Battle, Fined $1.5 Million
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has endured a long legal battle with the recording industry ever since she was accused of illegally downloading files in 2006. Her case took another turn for the worse yesterday, after a Minneapolis jury decided -- in her third trial -- that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records. The Minnesota woman was ordered to pay the exorbitant sum as legal compensation for 24 songs she downloaded and shared four years ago, at $62,500 per song. "We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct," the RIAA said in a statement. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions." Thomas-Rasset, however, is expected to appeal yesterday's ruling before Michael Davis, the chief judge for the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. "We intend to raise our constitutional challenge again before Judge Davis," Thomas-Rasset's attorney, Kiwi Camara, told CNET in a statement. "The fight continues."
Absurd as the decision may sound, Thomas-Rasset probably has a pretty good chance of getting her fine reduced. Davis, after all, is the same judge who compassionately reduced her previous copyright infringement verdict from $1.92 million to $54,000. One thing that the woman probably won't do, however, is settle out of court. Following Davis's ruling earlier this year, the RIAA offered to settle for just $25,000, on the condition that Davis's decision -- in which he called the original fine "monstrous and shocking" -- be stricken from the record. Thomas-Rasset and her lawyers quickly rejected the offer, reiterating their determination to whittle the fine down to $0. It seems, then, that the "fight" really will wear on.
Tornadoes Strike Oklahoma
Live from Microsoft's New Generation Xbox event!
PHOTOS: Tornadoes Wreak Havoc On Central U.S.
Xbox Reveal liveblog on Joystiq
Dozens Killed in Oklahoma Tornado; Death Toll to Rise
PHOTOS:Eva Longoria's Almost Wardrobe Malfunction At Cannes
Justin Bieber Booed, Gets Standing Ovation at Billboard Music Awards
2013 Billboard Music Awards Best and Worst Dressed
Justin Bieber BOOED While Accepting Award
Watch: Kansas Meteorologist Seeks Shelter From Tornado
Xbox One architecture panel liveblog!
15 Incredible Cat Photobombs
Two Pilots Fired After Brazilian Pop Star Takes Captain's Seat Mid-Flight
Oldest Water on Earth Found Deep Underground
Student Expelled, Charged With Felonies For Same-Sex Relationship
Selena Gomez Leaving Justin Bieber's House: Booty Call Rumors Swirl
LOOK: Dolphins Make Rare Underwater Find
Stefon Marries Anderson Cooper In Final Show
OUCH: Singer Jumps, Lands On Fan's Neck
PHOTOS: Stars Shine On The 2013 Billboard Music Awards Red Carpet
Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson Reportedly Split
PHOTOS: Miley Cyrus Decides To Wear Pants To The 2013 Billboard Music Awards
Obama Approval Rating Not Hurt By Scandals
Powerball Jackpot Winning Ticket Purchased In Florida
Comments
4
Subscribe to commentsLevel 5Nov 4th 2010 10:40AM
I hope this stays in legal hell for years. So for sharing effectively two $17 CD's worth of music, she's put into a situation where she would either:
A - Declare bankruptcy and just have it reduced or even thrown out, but still ruining her adult life as far as ever buying a house or car or anything credit-related for many years.
B - Be forced to essentially work for free for the rest of her life, assuming she makes about the US median per capita income of about $40k per year.
There's no need for this. Fine her like $5k at max and let her get on with her life. She's be through this for 3 years, and the artists she's "hurt" are all millionaires. This shit's been said millions of times, I can't believe they won't just drop this against this poor girl.
CatNov 4th 2010 11:41AM
@Level 5 I completely agree with you on this. She has suffered so much as a result of the legal battle and there are so many out there doing this that aren't being punished. Are they simply doing this to HER to make her an example for all the other people that share music? And, how the boundaries have changed since 2006...many different laws have been passed, some more lenient, and yet she still is bound up in court battling a small mistake. It's pitiful.
Eroded FallacyNov 4th 2010 11:12AM
One thing Millionaires love is money and they will sue whoever to ensure that they keep that cash flow coming in. At times like this I really hate the currency system! Abolish that and it may bring us all a little closer to equality and bullshit like this wouldn't happen.
They say that educated people are smart. But if that was the case why would they fine that woman over a million dollars? She most likely doesn't have that kind of money just laying around. If she was wealthy she would have most likely bought those songs instead of grabbing them off a P2P site or client.
sk8r4life1080Nov 15th 2010 9:04PM
Regardless of the circumstances, she broke the law, and deserves to suffer some consequence. Obviously demanding two million dollars is unreasonable, however, the $25,000 charge seems just. Regardless of the ecnomic status of the artists she infringed upon, she violated copyright law. Many of my friends are aspiring app programmers, and when they find that thousands of people are illegally downloading their apps instead of paying 99 cents for them, it really hits them hard. Not everyone who holds copyright owns a mansion, she needs to be made an example for others.