Newsflash Signup

Buy now at Zavvi.com
Activision

US: File-sharing mum fined $2m

Bookmark with Social network
US: File-sharing mum fined $2m

Jammie Thomas-Rasset found guilty of wilfully violating copyright on 24 songs

A 32-year-old single mum has been ordered by a Minneapolis court to pay $1.92m to the Recording Industry Association of America after being found guilty of breaching the copyright of just 24 songs.

The Guardian reports that Jammie was one of 30,000 people initially found guilty and ordered to pay damages of $222,000 to the RIAA way back in 2007. However, the process was plagued by controversy after reports that both a 12-year-old girl and a deceased woman have received letters asking for damages.

Following the RIAA’s change of methodology in seeking out culprits, several new cases, including that of Jammie Thomas-Rasset, have now returned to court, this time with the jury seeing fit to drastically increase the fine.

Outside of the court Jammie told reporters that the verdict was “kind of ridiculous” and vowed that “there’s no way they’re ever going to get [that money]”.

Image source: The Guardian

Advertisement

Ridiculous

posted by dave s Jun 19, 2009 at 5:05 pm
1
dave s

What a ridiculous outcome, $2 million fine for about £15 worth of songs? What planet are tehse people living on?

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

eh

posted by Zildjian Jun 19, 2009 at 5:07 pm
2

How are they ever gonna see that money? It's not like she's got a cool $2m in her bank account...

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

LOLZ

posted by Bingo Fruitloop Jun 19, 2009 at 5:43 pm
3
Bingo Fruitloop

$80,000 per song?

Maybe the judge just read the price on iTunes wrong.

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

an archaic business model

posted by Burner Jun 19, 2009 at 6:02 pm
4
Burner

The music industry is still trying to protect its dying business model. It's laughable that this industry , despite seeing the writing on the wall for well over a decade, is clinging on to outmoded business practices.

To be fair users must be aware that file-sharing and downloading for free that which you are obliged to pay for is wrong. BUT the music behemoths need to stop fleecing the general public and dictating when where and how there product may be listened to.

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

agreed.

posted by Ross Jun 21, 2009 at 7:59 pm
5
Ross

i agree this verdict is rediculos. at most she should have been forced to pay for each song at the price the industry sell it to retail. as in itunes distribute the song, only part of that cost go to the lables.

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

she deserves it

posted by theone Jun 21, 2009 at 11:10 pm
6
theone

I know it is a rather large amount and they'll probably not get the full amount...but what you lot are saying that it is ok to steal from a shop...but if you get caught just pay the price of the item and be let off? No! Punishment is needed...

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

she deserves it.

posted by Ross Hindhaugh Jun 22, 2009 at 12:20 am
7
Ross Hindhaugh

no one should steal. thats not what any of us are saying but $80,000 per file. you gotta admit thats extreme. she should have been fined the amount that the songs were worth and damages.

are you telling me you have never downloaded a file that wasnt legit. i think its safe to say even the judge in that case will have some form of copryright breech sitting in his home. be it a movie, 1 mp3 file, or somthing else.

now yeah if her entire catalog was ripped off. sue her... but 24 songs. jesus. for example. i saw wolvereen twice at the cinema, once on launch day with my mates. then a second time with my wife. my mate then lent me the leaked copy without all the cg and stuff. (i have my ticket stubs still) have i broke the law after pumping money for the movie 2wice? i think the entire law needs reviewing. and maybe the industry need to relise that as much as we love cinema. not everyone is gonna go and its time that the music, movie, and games industrys move with the times. piracy happens it always has. and will despite that crazy ruling.

tell me has the judge though where that money will come from. installments of $2 per month untill she dies?

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

Public sympathy

posted by Hugh Jun 22, 2009 at 12:20 pm
8
Hugh

Ludicrous damages like this are counter-productive - regardless of the legal position, the total amount is likely to make more people think that music companies are greedy and grasping. Dammit, I feel that - and I'm a sane, sensible middle-aged person working an an intellectual property business and have never illegally downloaded anything in my life. There are many ways of computing a sensible settlement but this is not one of them.

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

fine

posted by DM Jun 22, 2009 at 8:25 pm
9
DM

I'm not saying I agree with the amount, but it didn't strike me as $80,000 per track in itself, but more that she made each track available to other people.

And while the punishment ought to fit the crime, there is an easy way to avoid being punished - don't commit the crime.

  • + 0 
  • - 0 
  • 0

Leave a Comment

Activision
MCV

ABOUT US

MCV is the leading trade news and community site for all professionals working within the UK and international video games market. It reaches everyone from store manager to CEO, covering the entire industry. MCV is published by Intent Media, which specialises in entertainment, leisure and technology markets

Intent media, Company number 03641099