dreamdancer 0 #1 June 19, 2009 copyright theft - or copyright tyranny QuoteThe first person to be successfully sued for illegal filesharing in the US has been ordered to pay a fine of nearly $2m (£1.22m) after a retrial. A court awarded the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) the increased amount of $1.92m after Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of wilfully violating the copyright of 24 songs. The 32-year-old single mother told reporters outside a Minneapolis court that the verdict was "kind of ridiculous" and "there's no way they're ever going to get that". Thomas-Rasset was originally found guilty of copyright infringement in 2007 and was ordered to pay a fine of $222,000. She was one of around 30,000 individuals to be fined by the RIAA, typically for amounts between $3,000 – $10,000, for illegal filesharing via peer-to-peer sites such as Kazaa, used by Thomas-Rasset. A new trial was ordered after the judge in her original case said he had "erred in giving the jury instruction". Unfortunately for Thomas-Rasset, a new jury decided her crime warranted a much larger punishment, to the tune of $80,000 per song. But it's not just Thomas-Rasset who will be upset over the latest verdict. Joel Tenebaum, a 25-year-old physics student from Boston, is facing a similar trial in the coming month in which the RIAA are seeking damages of $1m. The case stems from a letter Tenebaum received in 2003, when he was in his late teens, asking for damages of $5,250 for seven illegally downloaded songs, also via Kazaa. Tenebaum replied to the industry body to say he could not afford that amount, but offered to pay them $500. The RIAA declined and Tenebaum heard nothing about the matter for several years, during which time he graduated from high school and went to college in Boston. Meanwhile, the RIAA continued its widespread legal assault on a selection of individuals accused of illegal filesharing. Its scattergun methods resulted in official letters being sent to a 12-year-old girl and a deceased woman, and the method has since been dropped by the RIAA in favour of "working with ISPs" to combat illegal filesharing. This is too late for Joel, however, because in 2007 the case reared its head again, and this time the RIAA were seeking damages of $150,000 per song. http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/jun/19/filesharing-single-motherstay away from moving propellers - they bite blue skies from thai sky adventures good solid response-provoking keyboarding Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chasteh 0 #2 June 19, 2009 Time to move to another country! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheCapt 7 #3 June 19, 2009 I just clicked on the article you quoted and note that it failed to mention that a different lawyer tried the second case. That's kinda important to me because I tried her first case and withdrew after the judge granted our motion for a new trial, throwing out the first judgment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #4 June 19, 2009 Well, I reckon you did a helluva job in the first. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #5 June 19, 2009 Quote I just clicked on the article you quoted and note that it failed to mention that a different lawyer tried the second case. That's kinda important to me because I tried her first case and withdrew after the judge granted our motion for a new trial, throwing out the first judgment. Thanks for the first hand account! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
