|
| Thread: OMG You Guys Won't Believe This: Mother Owes For Illegal Downloads |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 · NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted June 19, 2009 04:32 PM |
|
Edited by Consis at 16:33, 19 Jun 2009.
|
OMG You Guys Won't Believe This: Mother Owes For Illegal Downloads
MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted June 19, 2009 05:30 PM |
|
|
My mum downloads from PirateBay all the time 
She will blame my 5-yr old sister if we get caught, as they cant "punish" her and they cant prove it was me or my mum downloading.
In the past week we have seen lots of pirated movies such as Valkyrie, The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons and X-Men Orgins: Wolverine.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted June 19, 2009 06:09 PM |
|
|
Interesting... btw what's the number of the swedish authorities and what's your family name?
This is just basic info for a new survey I'm doing on HCers .
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
Elvin
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Endless Revival
|
|
posted June 19, 2009 06:41 PM |
|
|
This is terrible to even consider. Almost every single pc has something pirated, let's not hide behind our little finger. But what the heck is wrong with them, so many injustices in the world - murderers, rapists, thieves, arsonists - and they instead ruin innocent people's lives for a few freaking songs? If they want results they should be catching those that spread them around for free, not the ones who get them.
____________
H5 is still alive and kicking, join us in the Duel Map discord server!
Map also hosted on Moddb
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted June 19, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
Omg, that's horrible.
how can i use this to my advantage?
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 19, 2009 07:19 PM |
|
|
Currently. "Only in America, England and France".
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 04:50 AM |
|
|
Hmm in the era of audio/cassette tapes, I don't think that it was considered stealing/piracy to copy them.
Actually "stealing" is a COMPLETELY ridiculous word for this. Completely. You know, it's not like you're going to steal it from them and make them left with 1 product less. You just copy it. And I await the day we can copy objects with nanotechnology
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Rarensu
Known Hero
Formerly known as RTI
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 05:21 AM |
|
|
A new age of intellectual property has dawned. Our generation has no respect for copyright law. We believe that is is our right to experience any and all intellectual property for free. The old days of buying CDs are gone, gone, gone, and they will not return in the foreseeable future. There is no longer any money in charging for intellectual property.
Old-school businessmen claim that the sale of intellectual property is key to the survival of intellectuals. If we don't pay them, they'll stop producing news and entertainment. However, this is an outright malcomprehension.
Google was the first of a new great archetype of companies who treat the Internet the same way that media corporations treat TV. Give away your service for free, and make money on the advertising. Since then, a great number of other media corporations have followed Google's example. In the future, all internet companies will follow this model.
Record companies have two choices:
1) get with the program
2) die
If record companies die, musicians will not die with them. There will always be people who are driven to produce music, even if there's no money in it. A new form of business will eventually find a way to exploit this movement of entertainment services.
____________
Sincerely,
A Proponent of Spelling, Grammar, Punctuation, and Courtesy.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 05:32 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 05:34, 20 Jun 2009.
|
Back in the past musicians complained that they couldn't get their music to the world or that the world can't hear their music. Now the entire world can hear them in 5 minutes after uploading and now they're complaining too many people listen for free. Well how about they make their goddamn mind already?
Intellectual property is somewhat BS though. Not in the sense that someone can steal your idea and make some other product with it -- no, that's perfectly fine to have full "intellectual property". But this (the music/software thing) is ridiculous because no one is making money off it or making products with it, which i agree, would be a concern.
Tell you what though: capitalism should really change with the times. It's one of those things still keeping us back. And I mean in this case both socially and economically wise, not some completely-non-related-thing wise like most people use excuses to.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 05:52 AM |
|
|
She was involved in criminal activity and she got caught. And like all criminals, she was punished just like criminals should be. A bit excessive yes, but she definitely should have been punished.
And IMO she should have been punished in criminal court and sent to jail rather than fined in civil court. It's one thing to have some recordings for personal use and quite another to distribute them. File sharing services should all be shut down, and the people running them should be thrown in prison for at least 20 years.
And anyone on here who thinks it's ok to steal is dishonest and not to be trusted.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 06:35 AM |
|
|
Thats BS.
It's sharing not stealing.
It's just another way that the Rich get Richer & the poor get poorer.
Many people do it, she just got caught.
Not even like a hugh deal.
It's greedy & idiotic.
Famous people are just money hungry greedy buttholes basically.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 08:45 AM |
|
|
Stealing is stealing, regardless of how you break it down. The ammount is way too excessive, however. In the realm of "What the heck are they thinking!". Justify it as you may, downloading songs off of these places is wrong. There are places you can get a song for .99c legally.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Azagal
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Smooth Snake
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 08:57 AM |
|
Edited by Azagal at 09:54, 20 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
She was involved in criminal activity and she got caught. And like all criminals, she was punished just like criminals should be. A bit excessive yes, but she definitely should have been punished.
Quote:
violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
A....bit...excessive? Are you fu*king kidding me? They are destroying her life. No normal person has that type of cash of course she'll crash and burn and lose everything she has. Imagine her having children and what not. You destroy a family over what? Over 24 illegaly downloaded songs? That's a bit excessive for you? Woaw.... I thought I was righteouss oO.
Quote:
And anyone on here who thinks it's ok to steal is dishonest and not to be trusted.
Everyone who doesn't buy CDs, downloads songs and watches movies online is dishonest and not to be trusted?
You smoke weed don't you? Or atleast you did. Would you think it's a particulary intelligent, educated or civilized statement of me if I were to say: Anyone on here who thinks it's ok to take drugs is a bad role model for our children and can not be trusted?
Jesus, yeah it's wrong to download songs for free but it sure as hell doesn't mean that every downloader "can not be trusted". And why punish the women? Punish people like Pirate Bay, the ones that make it available should be a priority. They just go after normal people to scare everyone out of doing. It's just stupid.
____________
"All I can see is what's in front of me. And all I can do is keep moving forward" - The Heir Wielder of Names, Seeker of Thrones, King of Swords, Breaker of Infinities, Wheel Smashing Lord
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 09:42 AM |
|
Edited by angelito at 09:43, 20 Jun 2009.
|
Quote:
Thats BS.
It's sharing not stealing.
It's just another way that the Rich get Richer & the poor get poorer.
Many people do it, she just got caught.
Not even like a hugh deal.
It's greedy & idiotic.
Famous people are just money hungry greedy buttholes basically.
I don't think you look at this from the right point Acu.
I will exaggerate a bit now:
- You say it is fine when people share their music
- This music is only available because the artist has to get paid, all the work done while producing this song(s) have to be paid. Commercials, etc...nothing is for free.
- Now only ONE man on this planet buys this cd. He pays 10$ for it. He loads it up on a fileshare server. 50,000,000 people download it from there...for free. So the whole music company and the artist himself earned 10$ all together for their work.
This doesn't seem to be a successfull business, does it?
Or just compare it to Heroes 3.
Only Aculias had bought it in 1999, and paid 25$ for it. Now you put it on a fileshare server, and all nowadays known H3 players would have downloaded it from there without paying anything.
You know how expensive it is to produce a computer game? How the heck should they get enough money to create the next game then? They earned 25$ with that 1 computer game, and probably paid 1 million during production.
Is it ok to copy a 10$ bill, and give everyone you know one of those?
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 09:50 AM |
|
|
Destroying one person's life over it, however? It is not like she was the only person who did this. $80,000 a song..that is just waaaayyy too excessive. Not even in the realm of justice or even sanity. Why not jail time? A year a song? Too excessive..absolutely. It's stealing though..right? There is a line between what is right and what is wrong, and 80k not only crosses the line, it demolishes it. Just like jailtime would be way too excessive in this case.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 09:56 AM |
|
|
I just dont see the big deal. When Napster came out with it.
It was called Sharing.
People shared dl songs to other people.
I even shared DL songs as well back before it was illegal.
A little after as well.
It's been awhile, I dont do it anymore.
It was the Artists who whined & cried about it because they wanted to make more millions then what they already had.
Therefore it is not stealing.
It started off with people sharing their library of music to other people.
It's BS.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 09:59 AM |
|
|
Excessive decisions of a court is nothing new in America. Or can you name other countries where someone is sent into jail for 578 years?
Or remember the old lady with the hot coffee of McDonalds...she recieved more than 2 million dollars smart-money...a bit excessive for a hot coffee on a leg while drving a car...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 10:00 AM |
|
|
You know what Azagal & the others.
It was never stealing in the first place. It was sharing. The musical Artist all cried because they was not making their millions from Cd's & whatnot.
Therefore because of legal Actions that should of never taken place, Napster was basically shut down & now it is stealing instead of sharing.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 10:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Excessive decisions of a court is nothing new in America. Or can you name other countries where someone is sent into jail for 578 years?
Or remember the old lady with the hot coffee of McDonalds...she recieved more than 2 million dollars smart-money...a bit excessive for a hot coffee on a leg while drving a car...
How about N Korea
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
stankelbenet
Adventuring Hero
bringer of nostalgia & darknes
|
|
posted June 20, 2009 01:34 PM |
|
|
arguments
I discussed the DL-issue with one of my friends. We were of opposite ideologies. I don't DL and have never done it. Stealing is stealing no matter how it's done. We both had some good arguments:
For copying:
- You can't copyright a number. Every file is written in a binary code and just think about if we in math were not allowed to write 1101 without having a permission
- It's just the rich guys who want to get richer.
- Around half of the population in all industrial countries are downloading illegally. Arresting these would damage the economy worse than the copying they are doing now.
Against copying:
- stealing through the internet is still stealing
- if everybody copied and let others download it the companies wouldn't earn anything and no entertainment would ever be made.
- Stealing from the companies is not stealing from the rich. If the companies can't make profit they have to fire people so poverty spreads. If they make profit they will employ people so poverty declines.
- Entertainment is not necessary for life.
- we all know there is a reason that communism died.
- since we (that means my friend and I) live in Denmark with economic stability and enough money to get whatever we want, we have no need for downloading illegally. If we do, aren't we then just the evil greedy capitallist, we hate so much? I don't know what economic conditions you guys are living in
|
| |
|
|
