Thomas-Rasset loses second trial against RIAA
Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost her second trial against the RIAA after the jury committing 24 acts of copyright infringement for a second time. The jury ruled that Thomas-Rasset should pay $1.92 million in damages to the recording industry.
The new jury, however, were more severe in their judgement, awarding the record labels damages totalling $1.92 million or $80,000 per infringement. The damages award is a massive increase from the previous trial, which ordered her to pay $9,250 per song.
The reason for this is believed to be because Thomas-Rasset changed her story in this trial, presenting arguments that she hadn't used until this point in her four-year fight against the music industry.
She also admitted a major misstep - the hard drive that she handed over to the authorities was not the one in her computer at the time of the alleged infringement in February 2005. Her computer went into Best Buy for repairs in March 2005 after the hard drive mysteriously died - a replacement hard drive was installed by the Best Buy reps at this time and that was the drive she handed over for inspection.
Following the verdict, Thomas-Rasset didn't blame the jury "They did their job and I'm not going to hold it against them," she said before adding that the recording industry would never collect the money. "Good luck trying to get it from me... it's like squeezing blood from a turnip."
Cara Duckworth, a spokesperson for the RIAA, attended the trial and upon conclusion, told reporters: "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case...and we remain willing to do so."
Kiwi Camara, Thomas-Rasset's lawyer, said that there was a settlement on the table, but maintained that it's up to Thomas-Rasset to decide whether she wants to fight on. She suggested that she does want to continue fighting on, even though there's an offer on the table. "[This case was] one for the RIAA, not the end of the war," she said.
Discuss in the forums.
Previous Article
25 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyI'd link the article but I am probably not supposed to, but its the article called "Economists say P2P file-sharing fuels art". Well worth a read for those who are interested in reasoned pro-p2p arguments, regardless of personal feeling on the subject.
Yeah, America is going down even more. But the main problem here is the lack of the Music Industries realization that CDs aren't the only way.. Along with the RIAA totally going out of hand(she's penniless for god's sake, and it was bloody 24 songs, not $1.92 Million worth of the internet. $80,000 per song? Isn't that a bit arbitrary? Even the original $5 or $6k per song settlement was obscene.
To be honest this is more ridiculous than scary. If they went to that many lengths to sue someone for 24 songs and fine her 2mil than you know they have far too much time on their hands.
My feeling on this is such a sentence can only be a result of a judge who is heavily in the RIAA's pocket or at least otherwise biased. On a level of common decency and common sense it makes no sense.
www.riaaradar.com
If piracy is to be eliminated this all needs to change.
If that was to actually happen, no artist would take money from a poor lady just because she downloaded a song.
The RIAA won't get any of that money. They just try to make examples out of people to scare people to not download music. The jury is a bunch if idiots too. I know they can't judge themselves, but come on, the RIAA is clearly an evil corporation.
It's not so much that she downloaded, it's more that she uploaded.
Uploaders are easier to catch, and in most cases, are easier to prove guilty in court.
That's not to say they don't go after downloaders, but well, we've all seen how that ends for them.
How on Earth can that price be justified?
Dunno. They could always re-appeal, they've got one more trial.