Third jury fines Minnesota woman $1.5M for pirating 24 songs

Jury rejected arguments that that earlier awards in case brought by RIAA were excessive

A federal jury this week ordered Minnesota native Jammie Thomas-Rasset to pay $1.5 million to six music companies for pirating 24 of their copyrighted songs. The decision came in the third trial on the same issue.

The decision, handed down in a Minnesota federal court on Wednesday, cut more than $400,000 from the $1.92 million that Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay the companies by a separate jury in June 2009. The first jury to hear the case in 2007 had ordered Thomas-Rasset to pay $222,000 to the firms.

Yesterday's verdict, which works out to a fine of $62,500 per song, was not entirely unexpected. Both previous juries had found Thomas-Rasset liable for illegally copying and distributing the 24 songs. The latest trial was held to hear Thomas-Rasset's argument that the latest award was excessive.

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), representing the music companies involved, filed the original complaint in 2006 claiming that Thomas-Rasset had illegally downloaded more than 1,700 songs and had made them available to more than 2 million users on the Kazaa file-sharing network. The complaint included a representative sample of 24 of those songs.

Thomas-Rasset's lawyers had asked the court to consider the constitutionality of the initial damage amounts assessed against Thomas-Rasset. The copyright laws that are being used by the RIAA in its lawsuit against Thomas-Rasset provide for statutory damages ranging from $750 to $150,000 for a single violation.

The defense team argued that the laws were designed to punish commercial copyright infringers, not individuals. However, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis who is hearing the case refused to consider those arguments as well as a defense motion to reduce the damages to the statutory minimum, or $18,000.

In a ruling in January, David reduced the award to $54,000 or $2,250 per violation, which he said was the maximum that was reasonably allowable in this case. Following that ruling, the RIAA stepped in and offered to settle the case for $25,000, which it said at the time would be used to help struggling musicians.

Thomas-Rasset declined to accept the offer and instead challenged the award again. If the case goes no further, it's likely she will have to pay $54,000 to the companies as ordered by Davis in January.

It's more likely, though, that Thomas-Rasset will once again appeal the verdict, arguing that it is unconstitutional, said Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who has represented individuals in past lawsuits filed by the RIAA.

In an e-mail statement, an RIAA spokeswoman praised the latest verdict. "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," she said.

Keep up with the latest tech news, reviews and previews by subscribing to the Good Gear Guide newsletter.

Jaikumar Vijayan

Computerworld (US)
Topics: Gov't Legislation/Regulation, e-commerce, regulation, Recording Industry Association of America, internet, government

Comments

jb

1

It's a shame that publications run stories from other countries giving the impression that this somehow relates to issues in Australia. We do not have punitive dames for breach of copyright (except in really extreme circumstances)... damages must be proven. Hard to prove. That's why you dont see stupid legal action happening in Australia.... thank god.

Comments are now closed.

Latest News Articles

Most Popular Articles

Follow Us

GGG Evaluation Team

Kathy Cassidy

STYLISTIC Q702

First impression on unpacking the Q702 test unit was the solid feel and clean, minimalist styling.

Anthony Grifoni

STYLISTIC Q572

For work use, Microsoft Word and Excel programs pre-installed on the device are adequate for preparing short documents.

Steph Mundell

LIFEBOOK UH574

The Fujitsu LifeBook UH574 allowed for great mobility without being obnoxiously heavy or clunky. Its twelve hours of battery life did not disappoint.

Andrew Mitsi

STYLISTIC Q702

The screen was particularly good. It is bright and visible from most angles, however heat is an issue, particularly around the Windows button on the front, and on the back where the battery housing is located.

Simon Harriott

STYLISTIC Q702

My first impression after unboxing the Q702 is that it is a nice looking unit. Styling is somewhat minimalist but very effective. The tablet part, once detached, has a nice weight, and no buttons or switches are located in awkward or intrusive positions.

Resources

Best Deals on GoodGearGuide

Compare & Save

Deals powered by WhistleOut
WhistleOut

Latest Jobs

Don’t have an account? Sign up here

Don't have an account? Sign up now

Forgot password?