Court orders $1.9m damages to be paid by mum of 4 who shared 24 tracks

[Happy Face 29]

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.

 

Outside the courtroom Thomas-Rasset said the fine was "kind of ridiculous".

 

It was the second time record companies had taken Thomas-Rasset to court. The first trial ended without a verdict.

 

A spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America said the companies are willing to settle out of court for a much smaller amount.

 

"Since day one we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," said Cara Duckworth from the RIAA.

 

Previous cases

 

Most people targeted by the music industry had settled for around £1,500 each.

 

It is not clear if Thomas-Rasset plans to appeal against the fine.

 

This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it to trial.

 

Record companies accused Thomas-Rasset of uploading 1,700 songs to the Kazaa file-sharing site before it became a legal service.

 

In court she described herself as a "huge music fan".

 

Defence lawyers argued companies could not prove that she was sharing the songs, suggesting her children or ex-husband may have done it.

 

Companies including Sony, BMI, Universal and Warner Music say they are now concentrating on working with internet service providers to crack down on the worst offenders of file-sharing.

 

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

 

Thomas-Rasset said she has no means of paying the fine: "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."

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/technolo...000/8108589.stm

 

30,000 people settled for $1500?

 

That's $45,000,000 they've raked in.

 

No wonder they're not fussed on finding any imaginative solutions.

[Kid Dynamite 7327]

It doesnt say that 30,000 people paid that, just that this was the only one that went to trial

[Happy Face 29]

It doesnt say that 30,000 people paid that, just that this was the only one that went to trial

 

Okay Captain Pedantry, between $22.5m and $45m....

 

Most people targeted by the music industry had settled for around £1,500 each. This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits.

[Kid Dynamite 7327]

Not being pedantic. I bet it costs more than £1500 for them to pay for legal services etc. to get that money back so they are probably still losing money in the long run.

 

Theres not a hope in hell shel end up paying that much money.

[Anth 113]

Just read in the Times that this is the second time She's been caught. She nearly ended up having to fork out $200,000 in 2007 but the judge threw the case out. I think that would have been my time to pack it in like, bit thick that she carried on..

[Isegrim 10023]

Just read in the Times that this is the second time She's been caught. She nearly ended up having to fork out $200,000 in 2007 but the judge threw the case out. I think that would have been my time to pack it in like, bit thick that she carried on..

Though, if he threw the case out, she probably just thought she'd get away with it again...

[sniffer 0]

She'd also been offered the opportunity to settle for only a few thousand. Dumb cunt.

 

With a name like jammie what would you expect?

[Zathras 296]

It is not the second time she has been caught; it is the second trial for the same wrongdoing because the first was thrown out due to improper jury instructions.

 

Those damages are staggering.

[Fop 1]

Eventually they'll realise that going to war with your customers is not the wisest of things to do.

[Rob W 0]

It is not the second time she has been caught; it is the second trial for the same wrongdoing because the first was thrown out due to improper jury instructions.

 

Those damages are staggering.

 

 

No different to the way that US juries act in other cases -it's MEANT to hurt - no "fined £10 and don't do it again you naughty person......"

Edited June 21, 2009 by Rob W

[Park Life 71]

The whole of the recording industry needs nuking and no mistake.

[rikko 20]

To put this in comparison, the families of the folk who died in the air france crash are getting $24,000 each. So one downloaded song is worth 3.5 dead relatives!

[Park Life 71]

To put this in comparison, the families of the folk who died in the air france crash are getting $24,000 each. So one downloaded song is worth 3.5 dead relatives!

 

God that ain't much at all.

[sniffer 0]

Yeah, but she hopefully downloaded some decent tracks and they were primarily frogs on board.

[Zathras 296]

It is not the second time she has been caught; it is the second trial for the same wrongdoing because the first was thrown out due to improper jury instructions.

 

Those damages are staggering.

 

 

No different to the way that US juries act in other cases -it's MEANT to hurt - no "fined £10 and don't do it again you naughty person......"

 

Yes, punitive damages are "a sort of a civil fine" and "intended not only to punish the wrongdoer but also to deter like conduct from the wrongdoer as well as others." However, these damages go far beyond what is reasonably required for such an instance, and are also far beyond the pale for what average juries will grant in damages (even punitive damages tend to be fairly limited to less than $6,000-10,000 in all but the most egregious of cases (often by statute.) I'd be shocked if Judge Davis doesn't employ a remittitur. Punitive damages are supposed to be based on the "defendant's income and/or net worth" which for a single mother in northern Minnesota is nowhere near enough to cover such damages. They could take her house, car, and every single worldly possession and they still wouldn't be able to satisfy the original $220,000 damage claim. (They can't take her house or car I don't think, especially if she declares bankruptcy--even though these damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.)

[Rob W 0]

It is not the second time she has been caught; it is the second trial for the same wrongdoing because the first was thrown out due to improper jury instructions.

 

Those damages are staggering.

 

 

No different to the way that US juries act in other cases -it's MEANT to hurt - no "fined £10 and don't do it again you naughty person......"

 

Yes, punitive damages are "a sort of a civil fine" and "intended not only to punish the wrongdoer but also to deter like conduct from the wrongdoer as well as others." However, these damages go far beyond what is reasonably required for such an instance, and are also far beyond the pale for what average juries will grant in damages (even punitive damages tend to be fairly limited to less than $6,000-10,000 in all but the most egregious of cases (often by statute.) I'd be shocked if Judge Davis doesn't employ a remittitur. Punitive damages are supposed to be based on the "defendant's income and/or net worth" which for a single mother in northern Minnesota is nowhere near enough to cover such damages. They could take her house, car, and every single worldly possession and they still wouldn't be able to satisfy the original $220,000 damage claim. (They can't take her house or car I don't think, especially if she declares bankruptcy--even though these damages are not dischargeable in bankruptcy.)

 

 

it's what happens in a country run by vested interests and lawyers...............