Whacked $1.9M for downloads

July 7, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
Unbelievable as it sounds, a federal jury in Minnesota ordered a woman to pay $1.92 million for violating copyrights on 24 songs she illegally shared. Thatâ??s $80,000 per song.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset today asked a judge to knock the penalty down to a total of $18,000 or to offer her a new trial.

She could have avoided the ordeal by paying about $24 to do download the songs legally.

Still, whatâ??s a reasonable fine?
ADVERTISEMENT
  • BerwickGuyJuly 7, 2009 10:04 AM
    Here's another case where not only are some judges out of control, but juries as well. Where in the world did common sense go?

    It would not be surprising to learn that this woman will end up paying more in legal fees than she does in fines. So, once again, it's all about the litigation and how much the attorneys can make. That takes priority. Justice be damned.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • JoshJuly 7, 2009 12:09 PM
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but nobody has been pursued or fined for downloading music, have they? This lady wasn't fined for downloading those songs; she was fined for making those copyrighted works available for illegal use/acquisition (file sharing). I can't think of a single instance where the RIAA has gone after a downloader. Can you?
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • ConfusedJuly 7, 2009 12:14 PM
    Like many stories in the electronic media, this article leaves out important details on WHY there is a $1.92M judgement. As a reader we are left thinking the jury was out of control. Though this may be the case, I would guess there may be other issues involved that lead to this hefty fine. Did the plaintiff atty ask for such a large fine? What reasons did the plaintiff atty list for requesting such a large fine? The article states the defendant asked for the fine to be lowered to $18,000. I think most people would think that amount is excessive for downloading 24 songs. I would suggest there is more to the story but the author elected not to share.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • BigSlam SamJuly 7, 2009 1:10 PM
    If you click the link, you see more of the details on this case. Most others settled for $3500. She's been fighting it (backed by someone perhaps?)

    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 working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • parkerJuly 8, 2009 5:46 PM
    be advised
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment
  • Pay AttentionJuly 13, 2009 12:30 PM
    A fine is a statutory penalty for wrongdoing imposed by a judge. This wasn't a fine - it was a judgment issued by a jury after hearing all of the evidence. It was intended to compensate the owners of the property for harm they suffered as a result of this woman ignoring the law and effectively stealing their property.
    Reply to CommentFlag Comment

Post a comment to this blog

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

ADVANCED SEARCH
Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

  1. First, the Athenaeum is going to have to get past the hurdle with the Lockerbie residents and the agreement that the parcel would be residential. Second, and in my opinion, this prime piece of property should include parking, PLUS, a black box theater(s), some market rate and affordable artist housing and a plan to renovate and reconfigure the second story theater. I would negotiate to add the DeHaan property surface parking lot into the development mix, place a one story surface parking garage on the DeHaan lot on the street level (for the Dehaan tenants use during the daytime) and add a second story to the garage that would become an addition to the current second story theater and then change the direction of the theater by moving the stage across the alley and on top of the DeHaan lot parking. You can add all the stage elements that are currently missing from the Athenaeum stage to make it more attractive for use by Ballet, Opera and traveling productions. Plus, the theater changes would probably help solve some of the soundproofing issues. Alas,it does not seem to be a part of the strategic plan to conduct a study to determine best use of the property. Seems like the current plan is a quick and easy move that ignores the property best use/potential and any strategic property planning for the effect on future generations.

  2. I recall that MSA's pilings are still in the ground and hard to remove. It’s not likely any proposal will include significant underground construction/parking because of this. Start adding 2 floors of retail, 8 floors of parking and 5-10 floors of possible hotel, and/or 10-20 floors of residential, and you are at 30 floors already with possible expansion of all the uses. But then again I could be wrong.

  3. Accoriding to their website there is no deadline to the Do Not Call list. What is this article referring to??

  4. On what planet are they entitled to this largesse from the stockholders? These people make multi-million dollar salaries: Pay for your own personal travel.

  5. It matters because they're already paid enormously fat salaries: Pay for your own personal travel. Being "taxed on it" isn't a valid excuse--so what? They're still being gifted a raft of luxury perks from somebody else's money on top of an enormous, lavish salary.

ADVERTISEMENT