The jury in the latest trial of illegal file sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset has awarded the plantiffs, Capitol records et al., an award of 1.5 million dollars.
This is the third time that jurors have issued large awards in this same case. The first judgment was for $222,000, the second for 1.92 million, and now 1.5 million dollars. Each time the RIAA (representing the major record labels) has offered her the opportunity to settle for pennies on the dollar and an admission of guilt. Each time she has refused. Reportedly the first offer was for between
5 and 10 thousand and the latest offer is 25 thousand.
Over the course of the three trials Ms. Thomas-Rasset claimed she was not the person who illegally shared the music, then admitted later she destroyed evidence. She tried repeatedly to blame others for her theft but in the end the evidence was overwhelming that she was the culprit. After being found guilty, instead of taking responsibility for her actions, she has continually attempted to portray herself as a victim in these trials even going so far as opening a website to sell thongs, T-shirts, and sweatshirts, the profits of which would go to support her defense fund.
My first bit of advice would be to use these last few minutes of your fifteen minutes of fame to
spread the message that it is wrong to steal music from songwriters who never did you any
harm. All we ever did was try to add some joy and meaning to your life. We spent our lives
learning to write the music you stole. You took our jobs and destroyed our dreams. Now you are adding insult to injury by thumbing your nose at us in Court and in the press. The size of the fines against you awarded by multiple juries should be a clue for you that this behavior is not being viewed favorably by anyone but other scofflaws.
Since the Songwriters Guild of America has not been a party to this case I have not previously commented on the trial or the fines imposed. But due to the length of the trials and the apparent hopelessness of her case I feel compelled to offer Ms. Thomas-Rasset one other bit of advice.
Take the deal and admit your guilt.
I know you have a lot of anti-copyright lawyers and free-culture advocacy groups telling you that you can prevail in this case, but these folks have their own agenda. Don't be sacrificed in their cause. The truth is you committed a crime, the facts are against you. Cut your losses, if not for yourself, do it for the financial future of your kids.
It is the very height of hubris to believe that you are above the law and that the people who created and distributed the music you stole should have to reduce you to the court of last resort in order to get you to pay for a song.
When you lose your last appeal your 'Free Jammie' pirate friends will move on to other casue célèbres and you will be stuck holding the massive bill.
"Take the deal and admit your guilt?" Why are you here? What you really want is her to admit her guilt, if there is any. And you assume that her erasing files that maybe someone else put on her computer means she, herself put them there. You are as dumb as the jury members that made up her trial. You want someone to admit guilt so badly right? Maybe she is guilty and would admit to it if the fines were under $1000.
If you ain't first, you're last....she's not the first, and she wont be the last.
Jammie Thomas-Rassett can pay off her fine and spend some quality time in jail. Considering that she doesn't understand that what she did was illegal, imagine the wonderful lessons she is teaching her children regarding right from wrong.
Hopefully, there is someone who is adequate and capable of raising her children to be law-abiding citizens who contribute to the economy by paying for things that don’t belong to them as opposed to stealing.
My advice for Jammie Thomas-Rassett, as well as to those who choose to either condone or participate in the same criminal act known as piracy, please legally purchase and obtain the famously covered version of the song that ranks #175 on Rolling Stone's list of 500 Greatest Songs of All Time as it will reveal Jammie's fate as well as yours.
Perhaps you too hold the common belief and feel that musicians don't need record labels or agents anymore because all they do is rip off artists...so do you...if you steal music.
Piracy is illegal.
Theft is "a criminal act in which property belonging to another is taken without that person's consent which applies for all crimes in which a person intentionally and fraudulently takes personal property of another without permission or consent and with the intent to convert it to the taker's use (including potential sale)."
Stealing is "to take (the property of another) without right or permission."
Key phrase: taking something that belongs to someone else without the owner's permission.
How is it that an individual doesn't understand that downloading any material for free, without the creator's consent that copyrighted and owns the material, is a crime regardless of how an individual intends to use it?
As it has been quoted, "sharing is not caring." Perhaps those who believe in this nice little quote can gather some friends and steal some jeans from a nice department store and create a traveling pants sister club.
This false sense of entitlement within the presence of numerous legal ways to enjoy music and movies, without committing a crime, is astounding and it appears some IQ's are falling as fast as revenues.
Intellectual Property is no different than a physical product. The need to strengthen Intellectual Property Rights by empowering law enforcement to prevent and put a stop to IP theft is absolutely critical in order to strengthen the economy by ensuring that the more than 18 million jobs held by professionals in this industry remain active.
How is it that an assumed intelligent individual cannot understand that File Sharing, downloading music or movies for free is theft and stealing.
Obtaining property that does not belong to you without paying for it is no different than stealing an actual product from a store that you do not own.
Where does the confusion and misperception?
The only conclusion that makes sense is the fact that individuals who believe that piracy is not theft and stealing must not understand the definition of the three words:
Piracy, Theft and Stealing.
Let's start there with some basic definitions.
This isn't about the money for the industry....after all, they've spent more than enough going after Thomas-Rasset, and she's content to make them pay even more for singling her out. This is about the arrogance of the industry, and the wish to appear powerful in the eyes of the common person, and the ability to frighten normal people with the threat of multi-million dollar lawsuits on top of the ubiquitous multi-thousand dollar "pre-settlement" extortion schemes.
What they overlook, of course, is who in their right mind would actually pay MONEY to an organization this monstrous? I don't even want to listen to their music anymore, let alone sink so low as to actually PAY them and ENABLE them to victimize more single mothers guilty of nothing more than what 500 million internet users worldwide do on a regular basis.
You wrote: "to victimize more single mothers guilty of nothing more than what 500 million internet users worldwide do on a regular basis" The "on a regular basis activity" you site is illegal. She is not the first. Hundreds of thousands have settled. She may be the first one who is isn't the brightest though. She is not being singled out except by her own actions with her inability to realize that obtaining property that does not belong to her without paying for it is wrong and an individual faces criminal charges for doing so. It's time for the wake up call for everyone to understand that intellectual property has the same rights as those who hold the rights for physical property they create. Please stop going to concerts and listening to music altogether if you don't understand. The industry is victimizing no one. They are protecting the creator's rights as we write the music you now don't want to listen to. Regardless if musicians are tied to a label or not, musicians own the intellectual property. To obtain it without permission is theft. And, as a music creator, I am a "working person" too.
500 million, admittedly, is my own estimate, based on the "1 in 4" internet users worldwide that the industry keeps trotting out. There are roughly 2 billion internet users worldwide.
BTW: Online copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a crime. That's why Thomas-Rasset is being sued instead of arrested.
"If music is obtained illegally, without the creator's permission, it is called piracy and it is illegal."
So what? 500 million people is greater than the combined populations of the United States, Canada, and Mexico. If that many people worldwide want something, they're getting it, laws be damned.
"The industry is victimizing no one."
Other than Sarah Seabury Ward, Brittany Kruger, the family of Gertrude Walton, and countless others who've been groundlessly harassed with "pre-settlement" extortion schemes, you mean?
"Please stop going to concerts and listening to music altogether if you don't understand."
Have already done so for industry music. Downloading from Jamendo as I type this.
"And, as a music creator, I am a 'working person' too."
And if you think that $1.5 million (or even $25,000) for allegedly sharing 24 songs is reasonable, I'd say your "work" is something the world can do without.
It wouldn't matter if she were retarded. ALL people have rights. Also she said she was not guilty. It doesn't matter if she's a lying, because they've failed to fully prove it was her. But even that doesn't matter. What matters is that the RIAA are more of a thief than she is. Most of the public recognize they are trying to rob her and make an example through unfair use of power and loop holes in laws that should be mended. But then, there are those who just can't get it. They think she's not fessing up, and they totally ignore the fact that the RIAA are unreasonable here. And by the way, I too am a music creator and "working person" too. So first things first. If you are going to punish someone for file infringement. Do it the right way and in an amount that is fair. She's running because they are crooks that want her life savings.. if she even has that. If I could vote. I would vote for her to keep the $24 worth of infringing files and the RIAA get nothing rather than see her lose 222k to a million. But if they had been fair and ask only a $500 (20 times the value of the 24 songs), then I'd agree she should pay that. Parking tickets shouldn't be 222k either.
Why are Music stars still going platinum in the same amount of time or less?
If you or your friends have lost your jobs from writing songs, it is NOT because a person downloaded the song, it is because the songs were not that great.
Lady Gaga is a MULTI MILLIONAIRE and she burst on to the scene in the last few years while all the File sharing has been going on.
she may not have gotten as big as she is had it not been for people sharing her music.
and this woman in the article is not losing because people think she is wrong..... she is losing because she does not have the lawyer power that the labels have and the music industry..
The Music industry is and has always been full of a lot of dead weight getting rich off the backs of the stars, and the stars not making as much of the sold music as people think they do or did.
the Money is now made in endorsements, licensing and in touring and merchandise.
however like I said, CD sales are still making recording stars Platinum sellers.
Perhaps the music industry is losing money because the music these days is just not that good.
And she's lied repeatedly.
While I'm sure there is a lot more here than these short articles are telling, I have no sympathy for this woman.
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/vpsa/judicialaffairs/guiding/other.copyfile.htm
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
At best, the award will make her declare bankruptcy, and no one gets anything anyway. At worst, the rest of her employable, money-earn-able life is ruined.
Just because you're not making a profit doesn't mean you can buy a book, then scan and post it on the internet, or copy a movie and distribute copies for free.
The problem with $1.5 million dollars is that she will never be able to afford it. If (as an example) she had instead stolen these cds from a store in texas and was caught the fine would be the following:
Theft Amount: $50 or more but less than $500
Classification: Class B misdemeanor
Penalties: Not more than 180 days in a county jail and/or a fine of not more than $2,000"
The copyright holders can either take actual damages, or opt for statutory damages. Obviously, in this case, they opted for statutory damages - seeing as I doubt they could prove that significant actual damages occurred.
Under the Copyright Act, in the event of willful infringement each plaintiff is entitled to a sum of not less than $750 or more than $150,000 per act of infringement (that is, per sound recording distributed without license)
Your advice is that she 'cut her losses',you have no understanding of the severity that this amount of debt will cripple her life and her children or your veering on the side of the greedy corporations. Her punishment is cruel and unusual.
I think she might also be liable for court costs, but not sure.
File sharing is not "theft." No one came in to you store and walked out with something you can't sell. "Infringement" for personal downloading is not a a "crime" - that's why it's in civil court. It's because the RIAA / MPAA can buy Congress that these kinds of statutory damages can be applied in the first place, not because the file sharing is morally or ethically wrong.
As a songwriter of 30 years with 7 records out, I live with the reality of file sharing and applaud it. It's a new world for artists. The number of cd length titles released in the US has tripled in the last five years. Instant worldwide distribution is available to anyone, and THAT (combined with punishing your fans) is what's killing the old model.
Regardless of the law, technology has revolutionized how almost every kind of art is made and distributed. What used to require corporate level investment can be produced on minimum wage. Guys like you, Mr Carnes, don't get to decide who even gets a chance to be heard anymore. Now the challenge is getting above the noise of so many releases.
I hope Thomas- Rassett continues the fight, win or lose. Despite your propaganda, she didn't harm anyone, or "steal" anything. The days of collecting rent on work you did 30 years ago are on the way out.
Theft: “Unlawful acquisition of property with intent to convert to taker’s use and appropriation by taker.”
Personal property: “Personal property is divisible into (1) corporeal personal property, which includes movable and tangible things, such as animals, ships, furniture, merchandise, etc.; and (2) incorporeal personal property, which consists of such rights as personal annuities, stocks, shares, patents, and copyrights.”
Infringement: “A breaking into; a trespass or encroachment upon; a violation of a law, regulation, contract or right. Used especially of the invasions of the rights secured by patents, copyrights, and trademarks.”
So Copyright Infringement is legally defined as theft. The term infringement is merely the description of the type of theft.
I have never had control of whose music gets to be heard. As a songwriter you should understand that. But Ms. Thomas-Rasset clearly has no right to determine that the writers of the songs she stole don't deserve to get paid. As a songwriter I have clearly seen the harm she has done as so many of my friends and co-writers have lost their jobs due to piracy.
Advancements in technology have created an illegal virtual environment that is impacting many in the industry with a decline in profits and loss of jobs. Songwriters, Engineers, Producers, Publishers, and Composers all depend on the sale of records to make money.
Perhaps you also hold the common belief and feel that musicians don't need record labels anymore because all they do is rip off artists...so do you...if you steal music.
If you allow your fans to steal your music, then it is you who is really being ripped off.
Sorry if the post is not aligned correctly logistically...
Again, who gives an owls behind? She is in the news not for file sharing or theft, but because the RIAA are SCAMMERS/ROBBERS and are abusing their power to take more money then they should on an OLD law, created before the internet. The law should be changed, and if they keep it up, it eventually will be. I don't care how wrong piracy is. The issue here isn't really piracy. Otherwise we'd talk about every file sharer. The issue again is the RIAA robbing people, while masquerading as good doers. They need to write her out much smaller fine, and move on rather than bully people. These lawyers are highly paid to go there and it doesn't hurt them one bit to sit there. That's why they don't mind. The funniest thing will be when the law eventually changes and they can no longer try to ruin peoples lives by putting the blame of 10,000 people on one person just to make an example of them. If they charged everyone that infringed 24 songs 1.5 million, they'd be richer than big oil and any king that ever lived. THAT's how you know they are trying to take too much. THAT is what the story is all about. NOT about simple file sharing as that happens EVERY SINGLE DAY! Making an example of ONE person for BIG CASH is NOT the fair solution.
But for the Court to spend a wealth of time trying to prove what you could have simply admitted, it'd be unrealistic to expect any kind of favors.