Supreme Court rejects appeal over $222,000 music downloading fine
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court has turned away an appeal from a Minnesota woman who has been ordered to pay record companies $222,000 for the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted music.
The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand the judgment against Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd, Minn. She claimed in court papers that the ordered payment was excessive.
The music industry filed thousands of lawsuits against people it accused of downloading music without permission and without paying for it. Almost all the cases settled for $3,500.
Lawyer Kiwi Camara said Thomas-Rasset is one of only two defendants whose case went to trial. The other is former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who also lost and was ordered to pay $675,000.
The case is Thomas-Rasset v. Capitol Records, 12-715.
The justices did not comment Monday in letting stand the judgment against Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd, Minn. She claimed in court papers that the ordered payment was excessive.
The music industry filed thousands of lawsuits against people it accused of downloading music without permission and without paying for it. Almost all the cases settled for $3,500.
Lawyer Kiwi Camara said Thomas-Rasset is one of only two defendants whose case went to trial. The other is former Boston University student Joel Tenenbaum, who also lost and was ordered to pay $675,000.
The case is Thomas-Rasset v. Capitol Records, 12-715.
i dont see the difference from copying a casette or cd and downloading off the net...its "sharing"....why have blank cds or casettes if you cant copy them?.....
This might work. Slowly divest your self of all your material possessions while stalling paying them anything. Transfer your things to trusted relatives, friends, or some other holder. After you have nothing tell them to try and collect now. If you can not discharge this insane fee in a bankruptcy then just tell them to shove off. It will be a pain to do it this way but you won't be working for the rest of your life to pay it off.
If she files for bankruptcy can that eliminate the fine or is it like the student loans that can't be eliminated through bankruptcy?
Question: Â If I bought a record in 1973, then the same album again as an 8 Track 1976 then again in cassette form in 1990 and said screw it I'm not going to buy the CD but download instead is that wrong?
@CommonCriminal I could not tell you, but I've bought the following song four times, and it was worth every penny.
Enjoy! Â Â http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIVe-rZBcm4
@PlumBUSTED!  This song brings back memories. The first time I heard it was in Vietnam. Wow.
I wonder how many times I bought Pink Floyd (Dark Side of the Moon and The Wall), Fleetwood Mac (Rumours), Bruce Springsteen (Born in the USA), Dire Straits (Brothers in Arms), The Stones (Several Albums), U2 (Joshua Tree), and others. Each time new technology came out I upgraded. The artists got their money out of me - and I have a lifetime of memories. Pretty fair deal in my opinion. Think I will play Marley's Redemption Song right now. Followed by CCR's Fortunate Son. Sure wish I could light up a legal doobie right now but not with my CDL!
It's not as thought the people convicted and charged with the hundreds of thousand of dollars of fines shared copies of their CDs with a few friends, they "shared" them with hundreds of thousands if not millions of people depriving artists of the royalties they are due through the companies that represent them.
@My_Thoughts So what happens when I buy a used album?  What about a used book?  Should I be fined for that too?
@somegoofyguy The  royalties on that used album or book have already been payed.  When you buy the used album or book you are transferring the ownership of that item, not duplicating it for others to use who will not have payed the royalty due the musician or author.
If the media companies went after anyone who loaned an album or book to a friend then they would have crossed the line. Â But in these case where individual songs were posted and downloaded thousands or tens of thousands of times the monies lost by the artists and the companies selling their song for them are large enough that the fines in the hundreds of thousands of dollars probably don't even cover their losses.
@My_Thoughts @somegoofyguy According to DMCA, you are only borrowing the items that you have paid for and are not legally able to copy or loan them. The media companies want it so that everyone pays, every time.Â
As for the fine, it is excessive and this lady will lose everything she has while the lawyers get paid and the RIA gets nothing.
I realize that the music industry is entitled to their profits but forcing an average citizen to pay a quarter million dollars is a bit ridiculous. Certainly offenders should pay something but should they pay the music industry for the rest of their life?
@robmo If that's what it takes to teach her a lesson, then yes. She had a chance to just "pay something", but she chose to reject the settlement offer. As the article said, most people who settle pay only $3500.
We live in a corporatocracy......the RIAA/MPAA are bullies being allowed to bully the private consumer. This isn't about right/wrong for downloading things, but about what those things are really worth. You can't tell me a single song is worth thousands and thousands of dollars, and it's so blatantly obvious the government is turning a blind eye to the extortion of the people by these agencies. If someone illegally downloaded paid software/music/movies for free, make them pay for the software and a fair punishment for the crime, in criminal court. But this ruining people for life for downloading a few songs they never would have paid for anyways is bogus.
@dg54321 What if you bought a song, then put it online for free, then 50,000 people download it for free? What is the price of the single song now?
@Stock Woodie @dg54321 Then the 50,000 people should be held responsible for it as well. Me, I go back and forth about how much they should be punished. The ones that have these judgements usually were sharing 10,000+ songs. If you're sharing that much, then it's a bit excessive and you run the risk of getting caught.Â
@dg54321Â No real crime involved with downloading any media. It boils down to, do you own a product when you buy it or are you just renting it? Someone bought the media at some point. And once it theirs they are supposed to have the right to do whatever they want with it. Are we know going to be sued if we sell our used car? Copyrgihts and patents are an enemy to both a free and open society and free market capitalism. This is another issue that both parties should be able to get behind if they believe in freedom.
@Blindman Your analogy is lame.  You can't replicate the car and sell 10 or 10,000 or 10,000,000 copies of the car/s world wide.
@Blindman The musician who wrote and recorded the song are denied the royalties they are legitimately due every time a song is posted and illegally downloaded, so you are wrong that there is no financial harm.  Anyone who "shares" a song scams the artist out of their just due.  That is simply theft.
@My_Thoughts @Blindman Yep but the difference is no one is profiting off of downloading media other than the server companies. There is no financial harm to the media companies. Nothing wrong with downloading movies to see if you like them and then go purchase the originals if they want. As an example I would have stopped buying cd's and dvd's years ago except for the ability to view them before I get mad from wasting money on a lot of this trash. If I like the movie I go out and buy the dvd or blu ray. So the companies are actually making more money off of a lot of people that otherwise would not have bought any of their garbage.
Dumb. Just reverse it, or secretly settle with the music labels. The music industry was doing the "wrong" thing by going after people. They really needed to "change their way" of doing business, but were too slow to respond to the digital era. The same will happen with movies if they are not careful. What's next?
@Stock Woodie How is the music industry doing the wrong thing? Isn't theft wrong?
I can answer that for you - yes, it is. While I agree that the fine is excessive, and should have been overturned, stealing, whether a cookie or a song, is wrong.