Music Pirate Mom deserves new trial

[lboogie77]

80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02

[southpaw]

Quote:The Associated Press gives us this paragraph explaining why we should care:This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.In a statement, RIAA's Cara Duckworth said:"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do. We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day one, we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so."The AP has this summary of the charges against Thomas-Rasset:The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24 infringements.Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace page.Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol address -- the online equivalent of a street address -- and to her modem.The same story reports that Thomas-Rasset threw her family under the bus as part of her defense:In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that any of them had shared the files.Thomas-Rasset was evidently surprised by the size of the award. This from Ars Technica:As the dollar amount was read in court, Thomas-Rasset gasped and her eyes widened.One of her lawyers, Kiwi Carmara, had this interpretation of the jury's actions, again from Ars Technica:Camara suspects that the jury thought Thomas-Rasset was a liar and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.Pretty much says it all.Maceman, i just dont understand some of your comments... and some are just pretty far reaching... Quote:In my opinion(and just an opinion) the Law of Moses is sound in this and all cases:Ex 22:9 "For all manner of trespass, [whether it be] for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, [or] for any manner of lost thing, which [another] challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [and] whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour."Quote:These days, people want so much money and want to humiliate people to no end. It is unnecessary. These things don't go unnoticed, and I am sure even paying double would be a suitable lesson to those who have any conscience. To those without a conscience, no amount of money would matter.....For the record, im not anti-religious... I believe in God. We like to debate around here.. Don't mean to be rude-or non-welcoming-if thats how you took any of my comments... We all have our opinions. See you around the boards.~Jamie

[southpaw]

"Knocking on the doors of the music owners and saying sorry is unlikely "Actually thats basically all she has to do... Instead she's choosing not to... There is a small chance that she has some reasonable cause or belief that is making her continue to fight the RIAA.... I think she is an idiot though. Again, my opinion.80k/song is ridiculous! It is more representative of a stance on the issue i presume, i doubt anyone involved actually intends on seeing 2million dollars for sharing 24 songs.. Unless she doesn't admit that she did something illegal. I could be wrong, this is just how i see it.

[fusilierb]

Jul 10, 2009, 8:26pm, lboogie77 wrote:80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02My point is that if she broke into a record store and actually stole 24 physical CD's (that just so happened to have one song a piece on them) the fines and penalties wouldn't be anywhere close to this comical. Even she took an axe to the check out counter. And threatened the President while she did it. WTF?B

[aimusic]

I know that the world is free and it's a free forum and all that, so let's not get into a religious debate (no1 reason for war guys, so let's keep the peace)

[maceman]

I think everyone is quite peaceful here, so no worries....Taxi is a good place, and no need for any religious debate in my books. I am just showing some facts from another angle. All are welcome.@Jamie..... That last article tells more to the story. Thanx for posting. Seems to me that this woman is probably insulted that she has got caught and isn't owing up to her crime. In that case(and if that is the case), then I would agree that her decision to walk away from $3500 settlement is idiotic.In fact, I would go further and say that if this is the case, then perhaps the original outrageous $$$ amount is needed to shake her up. Wish we could interview her- that would be most helpful @Bryan- granted. However, the difference here is that not only has she broke into a record store so-to-speak, but after she was arrested and fined, she refused the fine. The record store owner requires retribution, and moreso the owners of the goods she has stolen...Again, I am not sure of the thinking behind why she is walking, but even a criminal who robs and is caught has opportunity to make recourse and if they walk, they go to jail.@southpaw again- My quote from exodus wasn't really far reaching was it? I mean, okay, our legal system is no longer based on the law of moses, but the example of demanding retribution (double in this case) I think is valid. Just because the Law is older doesn't mean it didn't or wouldn't work in times past.In fact, if she indeed is thomas rassat, and it can be proven that she posted 1700 songs, that too is stealing to me. Offering up the goods is just as bad and downloading the goods. 1700 X 2= HEY WHAT DO YOU KNOW Pretty close!!! Cheers all,Maceman

[chriscarter]

Jul 10, 2009, 9:33pm, fusilierb wrote:Jul 10, 2009, 8:26pm, lboogie77 wrote:80k a song? That is insane. They wouldn't get that kind $$$ from any normal revenue streams for music use. My .02My point is that if she broke into a record store and actually stole 24 physical CD's (that just so happened to have one song a piece on them) the fines and penalties wouldn't be anywhere close to this comical. Even she took an axe to the check out counter. And threatened the President while she did it. WTF?BThe fine wasn't for downloading the songs. The fine was for filesharing them thousands of times. So it's not akin to shoplifting 24 CDs. It's akin to shoplifting thousands and thousands of copies of the same 24 titles and then giving them all away to other people. This is why it's so hard to battle the piracy - because people (even music people in this case) have a hard time understanding what the actual damages are.

[aimusic]

I totally agree with Chris....

[fusilierb]

I seem to have started something I now wish I didn't. If anyone is interested in all the gory details of this crime and the five year legal saga around it, a detailed play-by-play can be found here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._ThomasFIVE YEARS of lawyers fees, court time and juror's time have all been thrown at this particular lady. I'd love to see the total of all those numbers. The end result, a mother of four is going back to court again to fight a judgement of 80 grand per song for 24 songs she had sitting on Kazaaz'et network way back in 2005 that were then downloaded a little over 1000 times by others. The entire thing seems like an expensive joke to me.I'm out of this one from here on out. Time to get back to writing music.B

[sgs4u]

I have to laugh when I see people getting all indignant about file sharing being illegal. The time to have done something about it was 20 years ago, or maybe 15. That lawsuit is a joke. Have you heard the one about the kid who was busted by the RIAA for downloading and sharing Avril Lavigne tunes? Avril Lavigne's MANAGER paid the legal fees for the defense. Why would he do that? Because file sharing is impossible to stop. And because it works against the artist, record company and entire music business to try and bust people for sharing files. The RIAA is a very old organization of people with their heads still very firmly lodged where the sun don't shine. They are the useless unnecessary appendix of the music biz, and they're going to atrophy and cease to exist soon. They need a new mandate. We need a world celebrating the sharing of music, NOT trying to hoard it or suck all the money they possibly can.