RSS
Downloading Songs Cost Minnesota Woman $220,000

Downloading Songs Cost Minnesota Woman $220,000

A court ruling today finalised the damages that a Minnesotan woman will have to pay for distributing a handful of songs using P2P file sharing platform Kazaa. You know a file sharing trial has gone on for a long time when the software used to perpetrate the sharing isn’t in operation any more.

The trial began in 2007, with Jamie Thomas-Rasset being accused of distributing over 1,700 music files using Kazaa, though the record companies (including SONY, Arista Records, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records and Warner Bros) only went after her for a specific few; 24 in total. In the initial hearing, Thomas was ordered to pay just over $9,000 per song, though this result was later appealed.

This led to a second trial, in which Thomas was again found guilty, with damages calculations becoming even more ridiculous. The jury that time awarded the record labels a judgement of $80,000 per song. When Thomas took this ruling to the federal court, they declared it “monstrous” and dropped the overall damages to $54,000. Further trials and appeals saw the number jump up and down, before this final ruling yesterday that set it at just under a quarter of a million dollars.

Kazaa

Been a long time since I’ve seen that logo

Of course front and centre was an RIAA spokesperson who said: “We are pleased with the appellate court’s decision and look forward to putting this case behind us.”

This case has been ongoing for nearly six years at this point, four years beyond the life of the RIAA’s strategy of suing individuals. Since 2008 it has been working with ISPs to take more indirect action against those that it considers copyright infringers. There’s also been more of a targeting of content holders. File locker websites like MegaUpload were hit with big money laundering and fraud suits, while Filesonic and Wupload were scared into ceasing operation.

The owner of streaming site SurfTheChannel ended up getting four years in jail, despite the fact that his website only linked to copyright protected content.

Hopefully we’ve now seen the back of the sort of lawsuits that wreck the lives of individuals like Miss Thomas. If the commenters on The Guardian’s site are anything to go by, most people feel the same.

@jonwhoopty



notbob
notbob

infringement includes any copying, including downloading and transferring to other media. however, getting caught doing them is next to impossible. there is a certain amount of confusion about transfers. making copies of your media falls under fair use, unless it is encrypted, like software or dvds, so record ripping is fine by law, but not to the recording industry

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

rocoyanna that is infringement because in the process of getting files from torrents you will be uploading the file to other users. The fact that you are distributing the works makes it a copyright infringement.

disgusted
disgusted

RIAA spokesperson who said: “We are pleased with the appellate court’s decision and look forward to putting this case behind us.”

 

Yes, Please, put it way up behind you.

rocoyanna
rocoyanna

question: have large collection of lp recordings. if i save my time and $ and instead of buying equipment to digitize the recordings simply download them thru torrent, is that infringement? i figure not: i already paid for the rights and can show the lps, right?

thanks.

Mountain_rage
Mountain_rage

It was not for downloading but uploading the songs. Copyright violation happens when you offer a work for which you have no copyrights. Not a lawyer, just how I understand it.







VyprVPN Personal VPN lets you browse securely