The Obama Administration Says a $222,000 Fine for File-Swapping 24 Songs Is ‘Appropriate…’

This is no accident: after all, the Obama Administration is littered with ex-Recording Industry Association of America lawyers.  But the question is whether the US Government is ‘doing it wrong’ by raiding pirate compounds in New Zealand, bullying programmers into suicide, and doling out heavy-handed advice like this.

us_v_jammiethomas

In an opinion just delivered to the Supreme Court, the Administration has urged the Justices to uphold a $222,000 judgment against Jammie Thomas for uploading 24 songs.  That is, by simply rejecting to hear the case entirely.  The case dates back to 2007, around the time when Kazaa was the file-sharing app du jour.

Thomas’ lawyers want the Supreme Court to judge on whether the fine is unfairly excessive and therefore unconstitutional.  But this is not an issue of constitutionality, according to the Administration, but rather an issue of the sanctity of copyright and the incentives it creates. “In particular, the exclusive rights conferred by a copyright are intended to motivate the creative activity of authors… by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired,” the document asserts.

Indeed, copyright needs to stand for something.  But… $222,000 for 24 songs, which would have given major record labels about $16.80 ($24 x iTunes’ $0.70 royalty) if Thomas had paid?  Absolutely “appropriate” according to the recommendation, especially since a jury actually fined Thomas $1.5 million at one point (this is a case that has gone through three full trials.)

mousekill

There’s also the issue of whether Thomas, a single mom with limited computer literacy, should be sent to the gallows of near-certain personal bankruptcy.  Thomas is no Bambi, but then again, there are far worse copyright criminals on the high seas.  “Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s copyright infringement was willful in the extreme,” the major labels, as represented by the RIAA, blasted in a statement.  “Three separate juries have concluded that her blatant and unapologetic violation of Respondents’ rights warranted a substantial award under the Copyright Act’s statutory damages provision.”

A copy of the full recommendation is here.

Written while listening to Kris Menace on Pandora.

89 Responses

  1. just-a-citizen
    just-a-citizen

    Yeah, this is fair and just – from the same administration that demanded 20 years in jail for Adam Swartz for downloading government paid for research which led to him committing suicide. I’m not sure why young people love Democrats. They’re no friend to progress or young people. They loading up young people with trillions of debt and putting people in jail or fining them hundreds of thousands of dollars for internet activity.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “They’re no friend to progress or young people”
      That’s just nonsense.
      Yes, fines like that are way over the top, but anti-piracy initiatives as such are definitely progress, and we’re all going to benefit a lot from them.
      That is especially true for young people. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but there’s an economic crisis out there and a lot of the victims are young people who lose their jobs.
      Why don’t you ask them if we should go on losing billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands jobs every year because of piracy?

      Reply
      • FarePlay
        FarePlay

        As someone who has spent the past two years immersed in the artists’ digital rights issue, it is clear that these types of fines on individual, small-scale downloaders is counterproductive and only serves to fuel the freehadists “Big Brother”, screw them rationale.
        And kids being kids, eat that up at the expense of understanding the real problem, artists are getting screwed.
        All artists, from Lady GaGa to the bands trying to keep their rusted vans running so they can play the next gig for fifty bucks are being ripped off by others profiting from their work.
        Let it go guys, it’s not helping solve the problem.
        Will Buckley, founder, FarePlay

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Mm, I’m not sure what you mean…
          Like I said, fines like that are way over the top. There’s no need to turn this into a witch hunt. The legislative equivalent of the hardware in Paul’s jpg should be aimed at the commercial Piracy Industry.
          And I’m pretty sure you also agree that most of the new, moderate anti-piracy initiatives that appear around the world these days are good.
          So I fail to see any major disagreement here… 🙂

          Reply
          • FarePlay
            FarePlay

            No disagreement here. In fact, I was simply amplifying your point and adding that these unrealistic fines do nothing to further the cause of changing people’s consciousness about piracy.

        • Visitor
          Visitor

          This lawsuit has been going on longer than your immersion in the “artists’ digital rights issue.”
          Maybe a final decision will be made on this ridiculous case sometime before 2020

          Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      but the fine is not for “DOWNLOADS” why does everyone always get this wrong? It’s for Copyright Infringement, which is the unlawful duplication and distribution of the works. Very different.

      To the best of my knowledge no one has been sued for “DOWNLOADING” as there would be no real damages. It is the copyright infringement that brings with it these types of statatory damages as an incentive to NOT illegally copy and distribute copyrighted works.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “but the fine is not for “DOWNLOADS” why does everyone always get this wrong?”
        Paul explains the Kazaa variety in a post below.
        As for downloads vs. uploads: Yes, illegal uploads are more serious than illegal downloads, but both are obviously infringing so right holders are entitled to either actual damages — plus profits of the infringer, if any — or statuary damages in both cases…

        Reply
  2. rikki
    rikki

    I posted my comment on FB….this is racist jammie thomas’s home town is 96% white
    Where is this much effort put into suing black people?
    Blacks have gotten a pass on stealing music for 17 years enough is enough.

    Reply
  3. Casey
    Casey

    If the Supreme Court is supposed to be impartial, why is the Obama Administration “urging” them to do anything? Sounds like the Obama Administration is overstepping their bounds and trying manipulate the court to do their interests. Considering this is Obama we are talking about, I guess that shouldn’t be surprising.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “why is the Obama Administration “urging” them to do anything?”
      So Obama should sit on his hands while piracy destroys one industry after another?
      Do you understand why Americans would find that extremely irresponsible in the current economy where hundreds of thousands lose their jobs every year because of piracy?

      Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Here are the facts:
          According to Unesco, 10 billion Euros and 185,000 jobs were lost in 2008 because of piracy in the EU.
          Source:
          http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=40884&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
          According to Institute for Policy Innovation, $58 billion and 373,000 jobs were lost in 2007 because of piracy in the US.
          Source:
          Siwek, Stephen E.,The True Cost of Piracy to the U.S. Economy, report for the Institute for Policy Innovation, Oct. 2007.

          Reply
          • Guest
            Guest

            This report deals mainly with piracy of textile and various other goods produced with fake labels and has nothing to do with music and film /beyond Bootleg DVD copies sold on the street in third world countries. So again, show some proper research about the issues being discussed here.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            The difference between you and me is that I provide documented facts, while you provide… um yes, what is it you provide?

          • Guest
            Guest

            And on top of the sneaky inclusion of non core creative industry,(sales of radios TVs etc.) They merely take the decline of music and film sales over a period from 2008 and forward and attribute the entire loss to piracy. No reference to a sharp fall in the economies of the countries in question, no reference to the sharp increase in sales of other entertainment products such as games the list goes on.
            Of course if you want to believe that your lack of record sales is due to some invisible 12 year old good luck to you.
            The impact of piracy on entertainment is ONE factor amongst a host of others. Keep whining. Personally I will just keep working.

          • foobar
            foobar

            I just wanted to get the skinnest column for a reply in this thread. Hope this will wrap after every word!.

          • Guest
            Guest

            The report you are referring to is written by a private consulting company TERA with guess what??? A bunch of media companies on its client list. Clearly a totally objective report.

          • Guest
            Guest

            The Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) is a think tank based in Lewisville, Texas and founded in 1987 by Congressman Dick Armey
            The conservative Capital Research Center ranked IPI as amongst the most conservative groups in the US, scoring it as an “eight” on a scale of one to eight. [2]
            IPI has received funding from corporations like Exxon Mobil and organizations like the Kochs’ Claude R. Lambe Foundation, Scaife Foundations, the Bradley Foundation, and others. (see “funding” section below).

            How can you call yourself an artist and associate yourself with this kind of henious crap! Unbiased my ass!

    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Way to go Casey, your ignorance of how the three branches of government work in the USA has started another troll war.

      Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          The lawsuit involves Federal law. The administration may comment if they choose.
          Do you believe no other administration has stuck it’s nose in the Supreme Court’s decisions?
          If yes then you need to read some more history

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Does it matter? I’m interested in facts and opinions, not in faces and names.
            And who knows — one of the torrentfreaks might make sense one fine day…

          • 10th visitor
            10th visitor

            Facts and opinions matter more if the source can be identified. Even if it is a pseudonym.
            How is anyone supposed to take Visitor’s opinion and presentation of “facts” seriously when there are so many “Visitors” that you can’t separate one from the other?
            Finally, there are as many pro-copyright trolls as anti-copyright trolls. And the political trolls should stay over at yahoo!

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Facts and opinions matter more if the source can be identified.”
            Let’s see, how do I identify 10th visitor, or the pirate who changes his name 4 times a day? 🙂
            That’s why I personally provide documentation and verifiable sources for important facts, such as the cost of piracy.
            “there are as many pro-copyright trolls as anti-copyright trolls.”
            ‘Trolls’ belong to fairy tales. We’re people here, and all our opinions are legitimate.

    • Visitor
      Visitor

      Simple. The Obama administration is pretty much a wholly owned subsidiary of the RIAA and MPAA. Why do you think rich people in Hollywood are so “liberal”?
      I tell what is shocking, it would be shocking if they DIDN’T support these damages. This is just business as usual.

      Reply
  4. Visitor
    Visitor

    “There’s also the issue of whether Thomas, a single mom with limited computer literacy, should be sent to the gallows of near-certain personal bankruptcy.”
    Completely agree — a clear majority in the population want to punish pirates, but fines should be moderate. $100-200 per infringement won’t ruin anybody.
    But perhaps you should mention all the chances Thomas got before everything went haywire?
    And don’t forget that she and criminals like her send thousands of musicians and other right holders to the very same gallows of personal bankruptcy.
    Maybe we all should stop sending each other to the gallows…

    Reply
    • paul
      paul

      That’s a good point: Thomas did have an opportunity to pay a far lower and relatively reasonable fine back in ’07 (I’d have to check, but I think it was a few thousand). Then dust her hands off, admit she did it, and walk away.
      That said, here we are. The $222,000 fine proves… what again? It deters… what again?
      /paul

      Reply
      • James
        James

        > The $222,000 fine proves… what again? It deters… what again?
        How was the original amount set? Was it not decided by a jury of her peers? Maybe upholding the verdict is to deter both piracy and frivolous appeals?

        (I’m not sure how your U.S. system works, so these are genuine questions, not rhetorical ones.)

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          This case is the first of its kind so several juries and judges have suggested a lot of numbers over the years.
          The next will be final, and I hope will be a lot less than the $222,000.
          But it could go either way.
          Let’s not forget that Thomas chose to take her case all the way through an extremely expensive court system instead of settling for a few thousand dollars like the rest of the other 35,000 pirates that were sued at the same time. So she could end up paying as much as $150,000 per song. Plus fees…
          At any rate, the exact outcome will be extremely important for future cases.

          Reply
  5. Chris
    Chris

    Maybe when one of the parasites is made to pay such an extraordinary amount others may think twice about stealing music from artists and labels. If she stole a car she’d get hard time why are we meant to treat her (and her ilk) any differently just because its a digital music file?
    She didn’t have permission to take the songs so she deserves everything she gets

    Reply
    • AAIR
      AAIR

      Downloading music is not stealing. Get it through your thick skull.
      Stealing is taking something from someone – i.e. if a thug on the street takes your car that stealing; if on the other hand he copies all your cd’s from the car you’ve left on the street, that’s not stealing – you still have your CDs.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        oh i see. so if i get a plumber to do some work then don’t pay him, that’s not stealing, he still has his knowledge.
        nice!

        Reply
      • Chris
        Chris

        Why don’t you get it through your THICK skull. If you take something which you don’t have rights to it’s stealing, if you copy something you don’t have permission to it’s stealing, if you deprive someone of an income they would have received otherwise it’s stealing.
        I love you freetards – quite happy to steal and share OTHER PEOPLE’s work but I bet you’ve never laboured night and day to produce anything and if you had and some little scrote had given it away for free without your permission you’d be as mad as hell.
        Do what you want with your own content but how dare you say that someone’s elses work deserves no financial reward.

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          “if you copy something you don’t have permission to it’s stealing”
          Does that mean I can’t copy my own money?
          Boohoo!
          🙂

          Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Maybe when one of the parasites is made to pay such an extraordinary amount others may think twice about stealing music from artists and labels.”
      There’s no doubt it will work that way. And I don’t know why the Supreme Court would review her case when it declined Tenenbaum.
      But I’m a musician and a right holder, and I honestly wouldn’t feel good about taking that kind of money from anybody.
      Music is not a gun (unless you’re Lemmy, or something :)). It’s an object of beauty, fun, love.
      That doesn’t mean people are allowed to steal it. And the only way to prevent theft is through legislation. But let’s be reasonable, huh?
      Most people today think it’s OK to punish illegal downloaders moderately — $100-200 per infringment, for instance. But they think it’s indecent to ruin people. And I agree.
      Yes, pirates are ruining artists, but that doesn’t mean we should behave the same way.

      Reply
  6. Error
    Error

    The article says: “But… $222,000 for 24 songs, which would have given major record labels about $16.80 ($24 x iTunes’ $0.70 royalty) if Thomas had paid?”

    You’re reading it backwards. She wasn’t being sued for downloading 24 songs, it was for uploading 24 songs, which then were downloaded however many times (I’m sure they argue hundreds or thousands) by others.

    Reply
    • Paul
      Paul

      … but the way Kazaa works is that you download the songs first, then automatically share them (oftentimes, users did not know this, especially back then). The download is the first step, and how you hear and enjoy the music (and in iTunes, the last step of the transaction.)
      /paul

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        “the way Kazaa works is that you download the songs first, then automatically share them (oftentimes, users did not know this, especially back then)”
        …which perhaps is the reason she was offered to pay $5,000 instead of the $222,000.
        $200 per infringement happens to be the minimum fine for ‘innocent’ infringers who’s pirating in good faith — whereas $750 is the minimum and $150,000 is the maximum for deliberate pirating.

        Reply
  7. jon b.
    jon b.

    The Obama Administration (and anyone else who wants to) is allowed to file a brief with the Supreme Court with their opinion. Everyone one this thread has the same right. My issue here is that all of my friends who wanted to work in the music industry (except one) can’t find jobs cause there are none. I don’t understand why people can’t pay $1.00 to own a song or $9.00 to own an albums’ worth of songs. That is still cheaper than an album was in the ’90s. Not much else has gone down in price proportionately.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “My issue here is that all of my friends who wanted to work in the music industry (except one) can’t find jobs cause there are none.”
      And that is the issue!
      A product that can be stolen without consequences will be stolen instead of sold.
      An industry that manufactures products that are stolen instead of sold will die.

      Reply
  8. Adam
    Adam

    “In particular, the exclusive rights conferred by a copyright are intended to motivate the creative activity of authors… by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired,” the document asserts.
    Anyone who knows anything at all in today’s music business knows that we no longer need copyright to help “motivate the creativity of authors” when it comes to music. The allure of fame, money, cheap recording equipment, practically zero up-front-cost distribution, and wide availability to purchase the final product have created WAY too much music in the system. We don’t need the protection of copyright to keep this going. In fact, it is arguable that we should in fact be DISCOURAGING new music in some ways. Everything about making music except the writing and playing of it are EASY in today’s market. You can create a CD, master it, and release it for less than $1,000. Its pretty clear that the motivation of copyright has NOTHING to do with the getting more musicians into the game – they want in anyway! Time to change copyright drastically to fit the times. Where is the compulsory licensing for selling music/trading music not just covering songs???

    Reply
  9. Guest
    Guest

    The music industry had ample opportunity to avoid this entire problem back in the early 2000`s . They stuck their heads collectively in the sand and now are trying to cover up this appalling lack of consumer insight and business savvy by sueing people. It is a disgrace. Do any of you really belive that RIAA is working to protect yoru rights as composers and artists? Of course not. They are lobbying for all kinds of other reasons none of which will do you as an artist any good at all.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      You can blame democracy for the 222,000 fine if you so desire, but you certainly can’t blame the RIAA.
      Award sizes are not determined by right holders but by democratically elected politicians. That goes for Copyright Law, too.
      And it goes without saying that a manufacturer has to sue anybody who steals his products. You — and I, for that matter — may not like that fact, but that’s just how the real world works.
      As for the pirate in this case:
      She was offered a settlement of $5,000, but chose to lie, blame her children for her crimes and challenge the court instead.
      I think $100-200 per song would be reasonable, but that’s too late. She could still hope for a Supreme Court review, and to pay the minimum of $750 per infringement Congress has decided but I doubt that’s realistic, given her previous behaviour.

      Reply
      • Guest
        Guest

        Yes you are right, and nobody has spent a single dime lobbying for this outrage either. No one influences judges and or public opinion in general.

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          “No one influences judges and or public opinion in general.”
          On the contrary, everybody has the right to do so in a democracy. You included.
          Now, I certainly don’t agree with the richest and most powerful lobby today — Google.
          And why would I? I’m an artist, and they fight everything I love: Music, art, democracy, creativity, literature.
          But I would never try to deny them their right to influence judges, politicians and public opinion as long as they do so in a legitimate way.

          Reply
          • Guest
            Guest

            If you think Google is the most powerful lobby these days you are seriously deluded. And your faith in democracy is touching.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “your faith in democracy is touching”
            Thanks, happy to hear that. It’s not really perfect, but you know what they say about the alternatives…

          • Artist
            Artist

            If you where a proper artist you would not give a rats ass about filesharing or prosecution of individuals.
            In fact you would be opposing it loudly and just doing your thing.
            Sometimes it seems like non selling artists just make noise about piracy because it makes them feel like someone might want to pirate their art.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “If you where a proper artist you would not give a rats ass about filesharing or prosecution of individuals.”
            Oh, I see…

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            🙂
            Here’s how one of those darn non-selling ‘artists’ describe our brave pirates:
            “lazy and mean”
            Björn Ulvaeus, ABBA

  10. wallow-T
    wallow-T

    Every revolution needs martyrs.
    Any time I think I might slack off on the boycott and buy a major- label release, I just remember that a part of the money I spend will go to continue the persecution of Ms. Thomas. Then I don’t spend it.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “Every revolution needs martyrs.”
      Well, I prefer democracy so I’m really not big on martyrs, but I would try to find another candidate if I were you. 🙂

      Reply
  11. jw
    jw

    The problem with the DMCA, which defines these fines, is that they were conceived in 1997/1998. To provide some context, the first mp3 player went on sale in April, 1998. It was the SaeHan/Eiger MPMan, & it was equipped with 32mb of storage space, which would hold maybe 10 songs encoded at 128kbps. And 10 songs would take hours & hours to download.
    The fine is relative to behavior, which was limited by storage and bandwidth capacities at the time. The main flaw of the DMCA is that compensation for technological progress was not written into the legislation. It’s very much derivative of what the internet was at the time.
    The fine is a penalty for the action, not a derivative value of a song. And the action today is not the same as it was in 1998. (Though, to be honest, I think that the figures were outrageous even for 1998.)
    Unquestionably, this woman should not be fined $220,000.

    Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      There have been some very interesting comments made by some lawyers and professors on the matter of the fines under DMCA. Many of them believe that the fines were never intended to be used against individual citizens for simply uploading/downloading a file. They were meant more to stop corporations from infringing. To stop businesses from taking a CD and reselling copies on the street. Not so much to sue individuals who have no way of even paying the fines over their lifetime or defending themselves in court. That is not to say individuals were to be free to copy all they wanted, but what we have now was not the intention.

      Reply
      • Visitor
        Visitor

        or Wednesday, February 13, 2013
        “They [high fines] were meant more to stop corporations from infringing.”
        They still are — that’s why Ms. Thomas won’t have to pay the max damages of $150,000 per song.

        Reply
    • Visitor
      Visitor

      “The problem with the DMCA, which defines these fines, is that they were conceived in 1997/1998”
      That’s not correct.
      Penalties for copyright infringement have always been tough because of the serious nature of the crime, and statutory damages haven’t changed much over the years.
      In 1909, the max amount was $5,000 per infringement, which would be $115,000 today.
      Not far from the current max of $150,000 per infringement.

      Reply
      • jw
        jw

        Technically, yes, it does define these fines. You can read it here. I’m not necessarily disputing the range, only what’s defined as a crime that deserves the minimum penalty, or more than the minumum penalty. And maybe that doesn’t necessarily need to be written into the legislation… maybe $750 is a fine base & it ought to be up to the court to apply the progress of technology across the range of penalties. But if that’s true, it’s clearly not happening in this case.
        She’s being penalized more than 12x the minimum, that’s just not justified. It shouldn’t make sense to anyone. If the maximum is 200x the minimum penalty (clearly how the range is defined), it’s easy to conceive of a crime that would warrent that. And it’s easy to conceive of a crime that would warrant 12x the minimum penalty. But it’s not using Kazaa to download 24 songs.

        Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          “Technically, yes, it does define these fines.”
          No, the DMCA has nothing to do with this. The size of these fines were defined more than a hundred years before, and the relationship between actual and statutory damages is even older.
          “She’s being penalized more than 12x the minimum, that’s just not justified.”
          Whether it is justified or not is up to the court. I just personally don’t think it’s fair.
          But again, she was offered a fair settlement of $5,000 — and she chose to reject it.
          She lied, she blamed her children, she started a war and she lost it.

          Reply
          • jw
            jw

            My bad. I thought the penalties were ammended via the DMCA, apparently they were not.
            Fairness is what I meant by justification, not necessarily legal justification. Poor wording on my part.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Here is the history of statutory damages:
            http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2151&context=facpubs
            As you’ll see, there have been no significant changes in the maximum sizes for more than a hundred years:
            “Perhaps the most important remedial reform introduced in the
            1909 Act was the new law’s authorization for one civil lawsuit to be
            brought in which actual damages and the defendant’s profits (or the
            “in lieu” damages to be discussed shortly) could be awarded, as well
            as forfeiture of infringing copies and an injunction against future
            infringements.
            A second important reform was the elimination of the per sheet
            penalty, whose previously penal functions were now served by a
            criminal provision for willful infringements for profit,3 0 and whose
            compensatory and deterrent functions were taken on by the availability
            of monetary relief for actual damages (for example, lost
            license fees) and defendant’s profits attributable to infringement.31
            A third important reform was the creation of a new generalized
            regime of statutory damages, available “in lieu” of actual damages
            and profits, which could overcome the severe difficulties of proof of
            damages and profits about which participants in the legislative
            history had so vigorously complained.”
            Section 101(b) directed the courts to make such awards in an
            amount that was “just,” but it also set a range within which statutory
            damage awards should be made: no less than $250 and up
            to $5,000 per infringement.3 3″

  12. Too lazy
    Too lazy

    I don’t feel like finding and reading the whole case.
    Are those damages including attorney’s fees?
    Anyone?
    I’ll check Copyhype.

    Reply
        • Visitor
          Visitor

          Copyright law in the USA allows for fines up to $150,000 per infringement (which can be defined as downloading or streaming any music without written authorization from the copyright holder) regardless of actual damages.

          Reply
          • Visitor
            Visitor

            This is good for artists because it allows them to sue people for billions of dollars. In fact average iPod full of illegal music is worth roughly $8 billion dollars.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Artists can already sue. That has never been the problem. Litigation is both time consuming and expensive. Both of which many independent artists are unable to spare. This lawsuit does not change that.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “it allows them [artists] to sue people for billions of dollars.”
            It certainly does. But you’ll be happy to hear that we don’t want to do that.
            Most of us feel that moderate fines — say, $100-200 per infringement — are fair when we’re talking about individual criminals like Ms. Thomas, as opposed to organized thieves.
            You see, artists are not like pirates. We’re not greedy.
            We’re just like everybody else: We have to prevent criminals from stealing our property, but why would we want to ruin them…

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Copyright Law in the USA also allows plaintiff to ask for attorneys fees. and since this case has dragged on for about 6 years now I imagine that the attorney’s fees are at least double the statutory damage award.
            Anyone got the scoop on who is paying the attorneys and how much?

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            Who cares. As long is it is enough that this pirate lives in a gutter the rest of her pathehtic life.

          • Visitor
            Visitor

            “Who cares.”
            If you read this thread, you’ll find we all care.
            It’s really sad that she decided to lie and blame her children instead of accepting the $5,000 settlement she was offered.

      • Hey
        Hey

        He means after this decision.
        The answer is maybe sorta. The supreme court could say that the lower courts decision is final and that would be the end of the story OR the suporeme court could say “unfair penalties should be decided this way” then remand back to lower court to determine a new penalty following the supreme courts guidelines.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *