Woman fined $1.9M by RIAA for downloading 24 songs

[HPLovecraft]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/...ine/index.html

Mother of 4, works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota. Sued by the RIAA for $1.9 million dollars. yeah, she's paying that one.

This same judge threw out the case the first time, citing some language he couldn't understand. The jury determined to fine her a lesser amount then. The same judge gets the case again, and this time sees fit to give the OK to a $1.9 million dollar fine for 24 songs downloaded.

Doesn't this violate the US 8th amendment?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

[Jayems]

24 songs x ~$0.99 = $23.76.

Instead, those songs cost her nearly $80k per pop.

That's a tad ridiculous.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Jayems

24 songs x ~$0.99 = $23.76.

Instead, those songs cost her nearly $80k per pop.

That's a tad ridiculous.

From what I can find, there are no references to her distributing these songs in a file sharing program, either. So I'm not so sure if they could say a couple thousand people downloaded the songs from her. I don't know why the judge threw the case out originally when she was found guilty for a lesser amount... The RIAA not happy with the amount she was found to have to pay and tell the judge to do it again, or what?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/...ine/index.html

Mother of 4, works for an Indian tribe in Minnesota. Sued by the RIAA for $1.9 million dollars. yeah, she's paying that one.

This same judge threw out the case the first time, citing some language he couldn't understand. The jury determined to fine her a lesser amount then. The same judge gets the case again, and this time sees fit to give the OK to a $1.9 million dollar fine for 24 songs downloaded.

Doesn't this violate the US 8th amendment?



Pretty ridiculous if you ask me.

There is without a doubt not an ounce of an 8th Amendment issue here. She was facing fines of up to $150,000 per violation, the only reason a second trial even occurred was an incorrect jury instruction. The second trial was valid, at least at this point as appeals haven't been filed, and the decision of the jury is well within the allowable range. Nothing violative of the 8th Amendment there at all.

That said, I think it's ridiculous that the RIAA has pursued this suit. I'm not sure what they hope to gain, associating your artists with multi-million dollar suits against working class families is hardly good press. Apparently the labels have stopped suing individuals and have focused their efforts on ISP's, why this case didn't stay out of court is pretty odd. There's a decent chance that the defendant's attorney screwed this one by not accepting an earlier settlement offer. I'm still not a fan of the rigidity that the RIAA has shown in approaching this problem.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by valo403

There is without a doubt not an ounce of an 8th Amendment issue here. She was facing fines of up to $150,000 per violation, the only reason a second trial even occurred was an incorrect jury instruction. The second trial was valid, at least at this point as appeals haven't been filed, and the decision of the jury is well within the allowable range. Nothing violative of the 8th Amendment there at all.

That said, I think it's ridiculous that the RIAA has pursued this suit. I'm not sure what they hope to gain, associating your artists with multi-million dollar suits against working class families is hardly good press. Apparently the labels have stopped suing individuals and have focused their efforts on ISP's, why this case didn't stay out of court is pretty odd. There's a decent chance that the defendant's attorney screwed this one by not accepting an earlier settlement offer. I'm still not a fan of the rigidity that the RIAA has shown in approaching this problem.

When the songs costs .99 cents online to download, there's nothing stating she distributed them to anyone else, how is being fined $1.9M dollar for 24 digital songs NOT excessive? Honestly, I am curious.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

From what I can find, there are no references to her distributing these songs in a file sharing program, either. So I'm not so sure if they could say a couple thousand people downloaded the songs from her. I don't know why the judge threw the case out originally when she was found guilty for a lesser amount... The RIAA not happy with the amount she was found to have to pay and tell the judge to do it again, or what?

The evidence indicated she was distributing 1700 songs through Kazaa

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Jayems

24 songs x ~$0.99 = $23.76.

Instead, those songs cost her nearly $80k per pop.

That's a tad ridiculous.

The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000. In his closing statement, defense lawyer Joe Sibley made clear that even the minimum award would run $18,000 (24 songs x $750 = $18,000), an amount that he said was unfair and crippling to Thomas-Rasset. The jury decided that the per-song penalty would be $80,000, for a total damage award of $1.92 million, over $1.7 million more than the award in her first trial.

The recording industry lawyers, though clearly pleased, had no desire to showboat this one. The massive damage award, which increased from $9,250 per song in the first trial to $80,000, might sounds like a "win," but will probably stoke grassroots anger against the industry's campaign... if the music business tries to collect. There are hints that it might not.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...al-verdict.ars

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by valo403

The evidence indicated she was distributing 1700 songs through Kazaa

Do you have a link with more information? I'd like to read it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

When the songs costs .99 cents online to download, there's nothing stating she distributed them to anyone else, how is being fined $1.9M dollar for 24 digital songs NOT excessive? Honestly, I am curious.

Because illegally violating copyright laws isn't a matter of just paying for what you took. If you grabbed 20 Cd's from HMV, copied them, and sold them on the street would you expect that the worst consequences would be paying the sticker price of those CD's?

Here's the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by valo403

Because illegally violating copyright laws isn't a matter of just paying for what you took. If you grabbed 20 Cd's from HMV, copied them, and sold them on the street would you expect that the worst consequences would be paying the sticker price of those CD's?

Here's the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

Of course not, but I wouldn't expect someone to pay $1.9M for 20 CDs, either. When did I mention sticker price? Her first trial amount seemed more than fair, instead of trying to crush her.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by valo403

Because illegally violating copyright laws isn't a matter of just paying for what you took. If you grabbed 20 Cd's from HMV, copied them, and sold them on the street would you expect that the worst consequences would be paying the sticker price of those CD's?

Here's the link http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

Well, for one, the punishment for a mother or whomever would likely be community service and no criminal record. This is akin to sending the woman to 60 years in a North Korean hard labour camp.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Of course not, but I wouldn't expect someone to pay $1.9M for 20 CDs, either. When did I mention sticker price? Her first trial amount seemed more than fair, instead of trying to crush her.

But she chose to appeal and fight on.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Dion

But she chose to appeal and fight on.

Not sure if you've read the articles yet, because she didn't appeal. The same judge threw the first case out because he said he erroneously gave bad instructions to the jury, and they needed to do it again. This was after the original amount they chose she would have to pay.

She will likely appeal this ruling, though.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jayems

Well, for one, the punishment for a mother or whomever would likely be community service and no criminal record. This is akin to sending the woman to 60 years in a North Korean hard labour camp.

This isn't a criminal case.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Not sure if you've read the articles yet, because she didn't appeal. The same judge threw the first case out because he said he erroneously gave bad instructions to the jury, and they needed to do it again. This was after the original amount they chose she would have to pay.

She will likely appeal this ruling, though.

Ok - fair enough. I only read about the second case being thrown out.

Then again she could have told the RIAA she was willing to pay the original amount, saving the second trial.

In the end i doubt the RIAA collects anything from this woman. I think they wanted to send a strong message to people who use file sharing places.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Of course not, but I wouldn't expect someone to pay $1.9M for 20 CDs, either. When did I mention sticker price? Her first trial amount seemed more than fair, instead of trying to crush her.

Well that's up to the jury, they assigned the value.

Although I don't agree with the strategy employed by the RIAA, largely because their business model is so ridiculously antiquated, the numbers aren't really that out of whack. Even if you just consider the 24 songs involved the distribution can easily start compiling pretty massive numbers. Add in the punitive damages for the willfulness of the action and it's a justifiable number.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by valo403

This isn't a criminal case.

You referenced stealing CDs, which is a criminal case, by saying that there has to be consequences.

I'm saying the punishment she received is equivalent to being sentenced 60 years in a hard labour camp in NK for taking 20 CDs.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by valo403

Well that's up to the jury, they assigned the value.

Although I don't agree with the strategy employed by the RIAA, largely because their business model is so ridiculously antiquated, the numbers aren't really that out of whack. Even if you just consider the 24 songs involved the distribution can easily start compiling pretty massive numbers. Add in the punitive damages for the willfulness of the action and it's a justifiable number.

I thought in civil cases the judge is the one who dolls out punishment, while the jury decides guilty or not guilty?

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Jayems

You referenced stealing CDs, which is a criminal case, by saying that there has to be consequences.

I'm saying the punishment she received is equivalent to being sentenced 60 years in a hard labour camp in NK for taking 20 CDs.

I referenced stealing CD's in regards to how much you'd be expected to pay back to the place you stole them from if you took them and distributed massive amounts of copies.

The issue here is damages to the copyright holder, there's no element of criminal punishment.

[Jayems]

Originally Posted by valo403

I referenced stealing CD's in regards to how much you'd be expected to pay back to the place you stole them from if you took them and distributed massive amounts of copies.

The issue here is damages to the copyright holder, there's no element of criminal punishment.

Fair enough, but I'm not exactly sure where they think that money will come from.