Minnesota Mom Hit With $1.5 Million Fine for Downloading 24 Songs

[Kosar_For_President]

One down 3 billion to go. I think the real issue here is how upset Richard Marx was.

 

 

What's the value of a song? Jammie Thomas-Rasset has spent the last few years in court debating that question. The Minnesota mother of four is being penalized for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa in 2006, but how much she owes the record labels has been in question. The jury in her third trial has just ruled that Thomas-Rasset should pay Capitol Records $1.5 million, CNET reports, which breaks down to $62,500 per song. It's a heavy penalty considering the 24 tunes would only cost approximately $24 on iTunes, which was Thomas-Rasset' argument, too.

 

Thanks to Thomas-Rasset's colorful case, she has become the public face of the record industry's battle with illegal downloaders. In her first trial, in 2007, the jury demanded she pay $222,000 for violating the copyright on more than 1,700 songs by Green Day, Aerosmith and Richard Marx, to name a few. (Marx said he was "ashamed" to be associated with the "farcical" prosecution of an illegal downloader.) Thomas-Rasset maintained she wasn't the computer user who did the file sharing, and her legal team cited an error in jury instruction to secure a second trial in 2009 that ended with a much harsher result: an astronomical fine of $1.92 million. However, earlier this year a U.S. District Court judge found the $1.92 million penalty against Thomas-Rasset to be "monstrous and shocking" and "gross injustice" before lowering it to $54,000, or $2,250 a song. Thomas-Rasset and her legal team decided to appeal that decision, too.

 

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the organization that represents the four major record labels, was pleased by the most recent decision, even if it has no intention to collect the $1.5 million from Thomas-Rasset. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions," the RIAA said in a statement. Earlier this year, the RIAA offered Thomas-Rasset the opportunity to end the legal battle for $25,000 and an admission of guilt; Thomas-Rasset declined.

 

Burying a Midwestern mom in insurmountable debt isn't the best publicity move, so rather than argue the labels are entitled to the cash, the RIAA has sought to make this trial into a cautionary tale for anyone considering illegally downloading music -- a reminder that there are penalties. But as the constantly declining weekly Nielsen SoundScan sales figures demonstrate, nothing seems to have deterred music fans from stealing rather than purchasing songs and albums. And in a digital world now dominated by Bit Torrent and Rapidshare, a trial over a music-sharing dinosaur like Kazaa seems nothing but antiquated. (Last month, after a decade of illegal file sharing, peer-to-peer service LimeWire was shut down by the government, much to the surprise of the millions who thought LimeWire had faded years ago into the Internet ether.)

 

Still, Thomas-Rasset and her legal team are already making plans to appeal, setting the stage for a fourth trial. "The fight continues," promised Thomas-Rasset's lawyer Kiwi Camara. Even if Thomas-Rasset were to win the next trial, the RIAA would likely appeal that decision to ensure that copyright infringement without penalization won't happen. This story has the potential to drag on well into the next decade -- when for $1.5 million, all of Thomas-Rasset's four kids could finish law school and take up the fight on her behalf.

[Mr. T]

Stay away from the Geek squad! these guys are narks

[DieHardBrownsFan]

Stay away from the Geek squad! these guys are narks

 

 

I heard the same thing.

[calfoxwc]

I personally knew some Geek Squad sleazeballs. I worked there.

 

A few of them would do anything for money.

 

Once, a 92 yr old lady was having two laptops and a wireless modem installed because

 

two of her neices were going to live with her, while they went to college...

 

The two Geek Squad jackasses charged her 589 bucks... and didn't do any work, because

 

one of the laptops was in the box. The box was open, it had been taken out etc, ...

 

but one of the neices happened to leave it setting in the box.

 

The three of them came in very angry. Five of us didn't talk to him for months, after telling him off.

 

He just flipped us the bird and made the "money" violin hand guesture. The manager made it right for them...

 

refunded their money and sent someone new.... no. The jerks were not fired, despite our advice.

 

They made the store a lot of money, it's all THAT manager cared about.

 

The Geek Squads suck. Do not trust them. They probably get bonuses for informing on customers.

 

BTW, limewire and kazaa, give you spyware, last I heard. Not good.

[Kosar_For_President]

I personally knew some Geek Squad sleazeballs. I worked there.

 

A few of them would do anything for money.

 

Once, a 92 yr old lady was having two laptops and a wireless modem installed because

 

two of her neices were going to live with her, while they went to college...

 

The two Geek Squad jackasses charged her 589 bucks... and didn't do any work, because

 

one of the laptops was in the box. The box was open, it had been taken out etc, ...

 

but one of the neices happened to leave it setting in the box.

 

The three of them came in very angry. Five of us didn't talk to him for months, after telling him off.

 

He just flipped us the bird and made the "money" violin hand guesture. The manager made it right for them...

 

refunded their money and sent someone new.... no. The jerks were not fired, despite our advice.

 

They made the store a lot of money, it's all THAT manager cared about.

 

The Geek Squads suck. Do not trust them. They probably get bonuses for informing on customers.

 

BTW, limewire and kazaa, give you spyware, last I heard. Not good.

 

The Pirate Bay, Transmission and Little Snitch, done.

 

[Pumpkin Eater]

she should have just bought all the songs on cd format. then she would have owned the right to have them.

[Westside Steve]

Well yes the penalties do seem outrageous.

And the crime doesn't shock us.

But it is stealing as much as if you stole a TV or a car.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'm with Steve here. This is theft, pure and simple. No different than walking into a record store and walking out with five albums in your jacket. Or in this case, hundreds of them.

 

You want your Radiohead, your Taylor Swift, your Steve Simmons? Then pay up, freeloaders.

[DieHardBrownsFan]

I agree it is stealing. It takes a lot of money to produce, and shouldn't be downloaded unless paid for, end of story.

[VaporTrail]

As a poor college student/musician it's different. Is it morally questionable? Yes. But making a digital copy of something isn't stealing in the same sense of the word as stealing someone's car. The difference is, if I pirate something, then it's probably something I wasn't going to spend money on anyways. If it's something that I end up really liking, then I'll go out and buy the thing to support the artist/developer/whomever.

 

It's an issue with video games, but the MPAA and RIAA are xxxxing jokes as far as I'm concerned. Developers of things that can be distributed digitally (video games, movies, music, software, etc) need to be aware that piracy is (and always will be) a part of the digital age. You need to find new ways to keep customers happy... See radiohead telling people to pay whatever they want for their album a couple of years ago. They made millions. Look at Valve's Steam digital distribution system. They make millions and this system is future of the gaming industry, they're the only company that has made me want to go out and purchase video games because they always have them on awesome freakin sales.

 

I hope that I'll stop pirating stuff once I have a decent source of income, but as long as there are poor college and high school students, piracy will be an issue.

[Kosar_For_President]

Where can I download a torrent of this story, lol?

[heckofajobbrownie]

But making a digital copy of something isn't stealing in the same sense of the word as stealing someone's car. The difference is, if I pirate something, then it's probably something I wasn't going to spend money on anyways. If it's something that I end up really liking, then I'll go out and buy the thing to support the artist/developer/whomever.

 

I don't think this is true. It may be true for you, but I don't see people downloading stuff they don't like. They download stuff they do like.

 

And it's not stealing in the same sense as stealing a car, but only because a car is worth more than a song. It's a lot like stealing a record or a movie, though. (Because you're stealing a record or a movie.)

[VaporTrail]

I don't think this is true. It may be true for you, but I don't see people downloading stuff they don't like. They download stuff they do like.

 

Well here's the thing. Video game rentals are more or less a thing of the past (gamefly sucks because everyone wants the newest games and you have to wait for others to get them before you can, and it can take months), and less companies are making demos because it takes a bunch more money than it used to to make a 15 minute playable version of your game. With those options out the window, what else is left? Take a chance downloading a game you might or might not like? Hell yeah, I'd do it. If I like the game enough, I buy it.

 

And it's not stealing in the same sense as stealing a car, but only because a car is worth more than a song. It's a lot like stealing a record or a movie, though. (Because you're stealing a record or a movie.)

 

No, it isn't.

 

 

Does the maker lose out on any money? Maybe. But more than likely, the person who's pirating a video game isn't doing it because it's easy. Pirating a video game or movie is a pain in the ass, you could get in a bunch of trouble for it, and it can take days to find out that you don't actually have a working copy. They do it because they probably don't have the money to pay for it or want to try it out before they actually do shell out the cash. If I had a source of income, piracy wouldn't even be an option for me, it's too much of a pain in the ass. However, I know that 95% of college and high school students are in the same exact boat that I am, and $60 dollars for a video game (I'm looking at you, Activision and EA) is robbery. All the video games I've bought since getting Steam in my sophomore year have been when they were on sale for 20 or less because they actually go out of there way to make buying games easy for my demographic.

[Westside Steve]

That's what an artist does for a living VT.

Sells copies of his or her art.

You counterfeit movie tickets?

Concert tickets?

Parking passes?

Discount coupons?

Motel room keys?

How about joy riding?

Hey you weren't gonna keep the car.

You plagiarize your term papers?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yes, piracy makes a copy. But the effect on the seller is the same in the sense that there's one additional person who would like to buy and use your intellectual property, but won't because they've stolen it/downloaded it for free.

 

If you want to say it's better because you're not removing anything physically, I'd say that's true, but that you're also splitting hairs. In both scenarios, the creator is not being paid for what he's/she's created. That's a type of theft.

 

It's also more insidious in the case of movies and music because, unlike in the old days of albums or taping a song you liked on the radio (you won't remember this, Vapor, but others will), you get a perfectly good copy, rather than a shitty duplicate. There's even less incentive to do what you say you do, which is to go back and buy the originals you like.

 

In other words, there's a reason artists and record companies and Hollywood studios spend millions trying to combat this stuff. And it's not because it's good for business, as you seem to be claiming. It's because it's the organized theft of intellectual property, and it costs the creators millions in lost revenue.

 

This is how many people make a living.

[VaporTrail]

That's what an artist does for a living VT.

Sells copies of his or her art.

You counterfeit movie tickets?

Concert tickets?

Parking passes?

Discount coupons?

Motel room keys?

How about joy riding?

Hey you weren't gonna keep the car.

You plagiarize your term papers?

 

WSS

 

All of those things imply I'd be making money off of them. The people that put out bootleg games (in the gaming community anyways) don't do it for the money. They do it for the challenge of hacking a game and making it playable to other people. That's why you can torrent basically anything for free. 99% of the people that put stuff out on the net don't make a cent for doing it.

 

It'd probably make the artist's life easier if no one pirated their shit, but I do see musician as a possible career choice (Plan X, lol). And I'm willing to accept that if I write good music, people are going to download it illegally. Will it take profits away from me? Maybe. But personally, I'd rather get my name out there then help to line the pockets of those in the RIAA. xxxxers. And let's say I make it big, and make 6 figures as a musician. Why the xxxx would I care if some mom in Minnesota illegally downloads my music. Any artist that complains about piracy in this day and age is a selfish asshole. Piracy is here, and it's not going away.

 

Yes, piracy makes a copy. But the effect on the seller is the same in the sense that there's one additional person who would like to buy and use your intellectual property, but won't because they've stolen it/downloaded it for free.

 

If you want to say it's better because you're not removing anything physically, I'd say that's true, but that you're also splitting hairs. In both scenarios, the creator is not being paid for what he's/she's created. That's a type of theft.

 

Right, I agree with that, just not what you said earlier. Personally, I don't pirate music. Grooveshark is my drug of choice for tunes. You can pretty much listen to anything you want except for the Beatles. Streams for free and minimal ads. You get to pick your songs, too, unlike Pandora. I used to like last.fm, but then they took away most of the free tracks and replaced em with 30 second previews.

 

It's also more insidious in the case of movies and music because, unlike in the old days of albums or taping a song you liked on the radio (you won't remember this, Vapor, but others will), you get a perfectly good copy, rather than a shitty duplicate. There's even less incentive to do what you say you do, which is to go back and buy the originals you like.

 

Heyyyy, I'm not that new. I remember taping fake radio stations as a kid. lol, so lame. But yes, many people do have that attitude, but many others have the attitude that I'm expressing. If you like something enough that you feel the artist should be rewarded for it, then you'll go out and buy it on iTunes, or see them in concert, or add them on facebook, or tell your friends about how great this song is. You'll get rid of your copy of the video game from the pirate bay, and buy it off of steam, so that you can play it online with others, and download the newest content. There are still many ways that companies can deny pirates, and a big one is denying them the ability to play multiplayer, the incentive to buy this stuff is really there.

 

In other words, there's a reason artists and record companies and Hollywood studios spend millions trying to combat this stuff. And it's not because it's good for business, as you seem to be claiming. It's because it's the organized theft of intellectual property, and it costs the creators millions in lost revenue.

 

This is how many people make a living.

 

It's how the assholes that turned the music industry into what it is now make a living. The RIAA, MPAA and their tactics absolutely piss me off. Most of the profits from record sales don't go to the actual artists, and for that reason, I could give a xxxx whose jobs pirates are threatening, because it certainly doesn't hurt the artists as much as some of them claim. What, Lars Ulrich, people downloaded your album and so you only made 20 million instead of 40 million? xxxx you, Lars, you ass.

 

Digital distribution, and the piracy that comes with it is part of the evolution of the industry. Businesses evolve much in the same way that biological organisms do. What the RIAA is doing obviously isn't working, and all the jobs in the industry that are threatened by the money they claim is lost... So be it. Come up with a better way to distribute music that doesn't involve DRM or that stupid-ass DMCA. It's as if someone today were trying to convince me that coal-powered cars are the vehicles of the future, even though the evidence clearly points otherwise. Their business model is out of date.

[Alo]

College students are the biggest piraters, but they've also got a lot to lose. It's tough to get a job when you've been disciplined by your school or sued for stealing content.

[Westside Steve]

College students are the biggest piraters, but they've also got a lot to lose. It's tough to get a job when you've been disciplined by your school or sued for stealing content.

 

 

Well maybe since they're so smart, they might take that into consideration before they steal something they don't need.

Probably harder to get a job with a conviction for shoplifting prostitution or gross sexual imposition too.

 

 

I mean it isn't like stealing a loaf of bread for a starving baby is it?

 

I figure if you don't have enough repect for the artist or programmer who earns his living by selling copies of his work then you really ought to be able to live your life without it.

 

 

VT>> It's how the assholes that turned the music industry into what it is now make a living. <<

 

Who, Beethoven? Mozart? Liszt?

 

Just say "yeah I'm ripping off an artist; I like listening to his music and don't give a rats ass if he gets paid for it or not" rahter than this silly rationalizing about how poor you are.

 

Lets say you like a restaurant and you and all your dickhead buddies skip on the check on a regular basis.

Will you whine when the close up?

 

Hey here's one.

"Damn I'm not good looking or cool enough but I really wanna screw this chick."

I'll slip her a roofie.

No harm no foul?

WSS

[VaporTrail]

Well maybe since they're so smart, they might take that into consideration before they steal something they don't need.

Probably harder to get a job with a conviction for shoplifting prostitution or gross sexual imposition too.

 

Except it's more like. Hmm... I want to check this out, probably not going to get caught. If I do, I'm an idiot and deserve to be punished for it.

 

I mean it isn't like stealing a loaf of bread for a starving baby is it?

 

Nope.

 

I figure if you don't have enough repect for the artist or programmer who earns his living by selling copies of his work then you really ought to be able to live your life without it.

 

And I figure if I want to try something before buying it, I'll do that. If I like it, I'll reward the artist.

 

Who, Beethoven? Mozart? Liszt?

 

Just say "yeah I'm ripping off an artist; I like listening to his music and don't give a rats ass if he gets paid for it or not" rahter than this silly rationalizing about how poor you are.

 

Not at all. My beef doesn't rest with the artists (except for the ones that bitch about piracy). My beef lies with the REST of the entire industry. CD's are gonna be a thing of the past in the next decade or so. And the model by which you sell an entire album is pretty much out the window. No one wants to shell out $20 for a CD with three good songs, anymore. iTunes and such has allowed for this to happen, you can buy individual songs, now. Something you couldn't really do before a few years back unless you paid for an entire CD with only a single on it (which is a huge waste of time/money/resources/carbon footprint/etc).

 

I'm not worried about threatening the artists and their motivation to make music because I'm not threatening the artists! The people whose jobs ARE threatened are those in the RIAA, the people who work in Sony BMG's CD assembly lines, and the peons that work for big producers. I honestly could not care less that those jobs are the ones that are threatened by piracy. They're hanging on to an ancient business model that's incompatible with how people tend to act. They need to embrace that piracy is going to happen and pick a new model that takes piracy into account. Pirates aren't some fringe group of nerds in their parents' basements. It's nearly everyone.

 

If I respect an artist, I'll show them that by going to their concerts, buying their merch, or telling my friends about them. This is the primary source of income for artists. Piracy really doesn't affect the artist's bottom line. Producers and publishers? Yes. But you're now at the point where if you want to produce music, then you go out, and you learn the tricks and you produce your own music. If you produce and publish your own music, then I will be damn sure to support you. As for the publishers? xxxx em. The cost of getting a song out there is basically next to nothing since it can all be done digitally.

 

Lets say you like a restaurant and you and all your dickhead buddies skip on the check on a regular basis.

Will you whine when the close up?

 

Artists shouldn't be in it for the money. If they expect all the money from their album sales, xxxx em, they're idiots. If they want money from touring and merch, then that means they're touring because they love what they're doing, and I am all for supporting that. You can download a concert, but it's still impossible to pirate the energy that you actually feel at a show.

 

Hey here's one.

"Damn I'm not good looking or cool enough but I really wanna screw this chick."

I'll slip her a roofie.

No harm no foul?

 

Piracy. Because it's date rape.

[Westside Steve]

And I figure if I want to try something before buying it, I'll do that. If I like it, I'll reward the artist.

 

Yeah I believe that.

 

Here's what I do believe.

You have plenty of stolen music on your iPod or elsewhere that you've enjoyed over and over and never sent the artist a dime.

Nor have you taken great care to delete each song after it's "review" period

 

Hey we oughta play your piracy V theft with Date Rape V Rape!!!

Well you didn't really take anything right?

Oh and she'd have screwed somebody else right?

 

It's not like you took her wallet.....

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

What this means is, if you have a stereo at a party... and everybody listens to songs, instead

 

of buying the cd and checking it out for themselves...

 

the owner of the stereo "took money out of the artists' wallet" and therefore

 

is guilty of piracy?

 

If someone gives their cd to a friend, that's piracy? Or sells the cd to someone at a garage sale?

 

And, the fine is completely without merit. Maybe they would like to fine a jaywalker 20 million bucks to

 

"send a message" ???

 

I can see sending her to court to pay court costs, require her to buy the CD's, maybe a 500 buck fine.

 

but come on.

[VaporTrail]

And I figure if I want to try something before buying it, I'll do that. If I like it, I'll reward the artist.

 

Yeah I believe that.

 

Here's what I do believe.

You have plenty of stolen music on your iPod or elsewhere that you've enjoyed over and over and never sent the artist a dime.

Nor have you taken great care to delete each song after it's "review" period

 

Hey we oughta play your piracy V theft with Date Rape V Rape!!!

Well you didn't really take anything right?

Oh and she'd have screwed somebody else right?

 

It's not like you took her wallet.....

 

WSS

 

Actually, I don't have an ipod. I haven't pirated music since high school. Ruckus was around for a bit freshman and sophomore year. When that went away, I turned to imeem, a free, legal streaming service (which was awesome). When imeem got bought out by xxxxing myspace, i went to last.fm. Last.fm got shitty, and I found out about grooveshark. I really only need music on demand when I'm throwing a party and when I'm doing homework, and that streaming service provides it. I have no need for music files on my computer.

 

If someone gives their cd to a friend, that's piracy? Or sells the cd to someone at a garage sale?

 

Yep. It's a pain in the ass nowadays to even make a copy of a song to CD. You want a mix of your favorite artists? Well, if their label puts DRM on the songs, too bad, you can't have that mix. It has seriously come down to you needing a license to play music you've paid for. Want to upload it to your ipod? If it has DRM, you might not be able to play it if your license is expired. The whole deal is a complete joke.

[dogma]

Marx said he was "ashamed" to be associated with the "farcical" prosecution of an illegal downloader.

That's about the best thing I've heard from him.

 

Music and technology have created a weird problem. If I pay for the privilege of attending a concert, no problem.

If I give the guy on the corner a nickle, or not, no problem.

 

What's the function of recorded music? To provide entertainment every time you listen, and doesn't the original cost covers that agreement?

Back in the day if you wanted a copy of an album it was no problem if you wanted to go through the trouble of recording it on to a cassette.

But now you can easily download songs and arrange them, or even sample parts of them to use for your own entertainment or to create new mixes.

 

Copy write laws can't keep up with technology. This ruling is completely stupid and I'd have a hard time believing any artist thinks this is what they want to happen. But then again, a lot of them control their own labels.

But there's a certain amount of benefit received when more people hear your music and it increases the ticket prices and attendance at your concerts. Usually musicians make the most money from their concert appearances, don't they?

 

The guys who really got ripped were the old blues guys who gave their songs away for practically nothing. They had to work their butts off doing concerts, while other people who sang their songs were getting royalties.

[Westside Steve]

Usually musicians make the most money from their concert appearances, don't they?

 

Depends.

Usually a major label gets a big chunk up front.

Remember though that the artist won't likely be a star without the company.

There are huncreds of good acts for every one that breaks nationally.

But you tour to make money AND promote the potential hit.

 

The guys who really got ripped were the old blues guys who gave their songs away for practically nothing.

 

That's why the legality has evolved.

 

 

 

They had to work their butts off doing concerts, while other people who sang their songs were getting royalties.

 

And that's the big reason for copyright laws.

WSS

 

 

[VaporTrail]

But the system has been abused by the powers that be.

 

You don't NEED those publishers anymore to become a hit.

 

Take no-talent assclown Mike Posner, for example. This guy has no real musical talent. He's short, scrawny, and white, and really had no name. His promoter decided that he would do free concerts at bars and clubs in the Midwest, starting at UD. Two years ago, he'd come down, put on awesome shows, because what he lacked in talent, he made up for in energy, and the crowds loved him. He did this shit for two years, just touring campuses and playing his crappy music. Now the guy is on Billboard's Hot 100.

 

You don't need ridiculous amounts of money and to be signed to a big label to become a star, anymore. This guy exemplifies what the future of the music industry is (though hopefully not the future of the music itself, but I won't hold my breath).

 

The big corporations can be completely bypassed, now. There's no need for them to exist and jam the xxxxing DMCA down our throats anymore.

[Westside Steve]

Dude ... the buttplug is on J records.

It's a subsidiary of Sony.

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Yeah. If you think we've entered a new era where the people who make lots of money off of artists are going to be bypassed, well, you're not talking about the entertainment industry I know. The new methods simply become co-opted. The corporations eventually adapt.

 

The guy you're talking about sounds like a nice story, but hardly indicative of some paradigm shit. As Steve points out, there are very few corporations in this business - Sony, Disney, Time Warner, etc - and chances are you work for one of them.

[VaporTrail]

Right. He's on it now. He was on an independent label for most of that ride to the top, though. If you want videos on MTV7, then yes, you're going to probably need to be on a big record label.

[heckofajobbrownie]

MTV plays videos?

[VaporTrail]

I'm not sure. That's why I went with MTV7