Who says they aren't suing music fans anymore? Just moments after saddling longtime defendant Joel Tenenbaum with a $675,000 fine for file-swapping 30 MP3s, offender Jammie Thomas-Rasset has now been handed a $222,000 fine for illegally uploading 24 songs. That's $9,250 per song, an amount deemed Constitutionally sound by the US Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit.
For Thomas-Rasset, this is the latest in a court battle that has been raging since 2007, with awards swerving violently between $54,000 and $1.92 million. And, three separate jury decisions in between.
On a broader level, the Appeals decision pointed to massive damages created by individual infringement, while also highlighting devastation within the traditional recording industry itself. These are talking points the RIAA has been hammering on for years, and unsurprisingly, the multi-year war against Jammie Thomas also involves heavy support from the MPAA (ie, Hollywood).
It's a group collectively celebrating both the decision and the logic of the opinion. That includes reference to the sanctity of copyright, however ineffective its enforcement may be on a practical level.
Given the history here, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys are likely to pursue further challenges, including a Supreme Court attempt. One issue involves the inability of the RIAA to detect and prosecute on downloads; rather, Thomas and other file-swappers are hauled into court for merely making songs available for upload in shared folders. Which means Thomas was not actively hawking or drawing attention to this content.
Earlier, Tenenbaum was denied such a hearing by the Supreme Court, and in the latest round, the Court of Appeals pointed to unambiguous instructions from Congress.
It should also be noted that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has taken Thomas' side in an 'amicus' filing, all part of a battle that goes far beyond 24 ditties.
QSDC Tuesday, September 11, 2012
It should not be forgotten that the RIAA offered to settle with Jammie Thomas for a (relative) pittance that would be donated to charity. She refused.
The industry doesn't need her money. They just want the legal precedent. They would really like the case to go away, but she keeps pushing it.
Is she being backrolled by someone with deep pockets?
The TruthTeller Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Exactly! And thank you for your precise comment!
The real qustion is who bankrolled her?
Big Surprise... backed by big technology exploiter of creative artists.... but I won't give it away!
Ardiva Tuesday, September 11, 2012
So..how is the perpetrator going to pay such a huge fine?
Visitor Tuesday, September 11, 2012
They will put her and her child on the streets with the other rats.
Visitor Wednesday, September 12, 2012
So who should be the most embarrassed by this outcome?
RIAA et al - for once again using the law to pursue damages against a small time user and not the ones with deep pockets?
EFF and their Corporate backers - for pushing this case based on flimsy legal precedent and making the defendant a political puppet martyr?
Politicians - for being corporate lackeys and lickspittles and allowing such egregiuos statutory damges to become law without addressing the real problems with DMCA?
Internet Businesses - for exploiting weak laws and continuing to make mountains of cash as the conduit for infringing activity?
@joshkopecek Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Unbelievable. This is just insane!
@kelso_bot Wednesday, September 12, 2012
You've GOT to be kidding me. Still?
@Trilltrax Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Copyright Infringement is REAL and is serious! Take it lightly if you want to.
@royaltyexchange Wednesday, September 12, 2012
We believe in the protection of copyrights and royalties, but this is a little much.
@mvpchei Wednesday, September 12, 2012
@evan_guerin Thursday, September 13, 2012
I understand their desire to set a precedent, but who even uploads music for sharing anymore?
semi Friday, September 14, 2012
Remember, there is a huge difference between "downloads" and "uploads." Your story confuses the two.