Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer

The recording industry hopes $222,000 will be enough to dissuade music lovers from downloading songs from the Internet without paying for them. That's the amount a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay for sharing copyrighted music online.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies that sued the woman, said Thursday after the three-day civil trial in this city on the shore of Lake Superior.

In closing arguments he had told the jury, "I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great."

Jammie Thomas, 30, a single mother from Brainerd, was ordered to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.

It was the first time one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders had gone to trial. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars, but Thomas decided she would take them on and maintained she had done nothing wrong.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."

Toder said the plaintiff's attorney fees are automatically awarded in such judgments under copyright law, meaning Thomas could actually owe as much as a half-million dollars. However, he said he suspects the record companies "will probably be people we can deal with."

Gabriel said no decision had yet been made about what the record companies would do, if anything, to pursue collecting the money from Thomas.

The record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.

Since 2003, record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores.

During the trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Toder said in his closing argument that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages in a middle range; Gabriel said they did not explain the amount to attorneys afterward. Jurors left the courthouse without commenting.

Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.

Illegal downloads have "become business as usual. Nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."

Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place and later than she said in a deposition before trial.

The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party.

The record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005 warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004 as she said in the deposition.

"I don't think the jury believed my client regarding the events concerning the replacement of the hard drive," Toder said.

The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.

good..theft is theft.

but what prince is doing s*cks money's balls.

that's really too bad for her. luckily, legal downloads are fucking the record industry up.

sosgemini said:

and let the people say.....


A to the MEN.

BlaqueKnight said:

Sure won't.

BlaqueKnight said:

It'll change people who get notification from the RIAA for theft from thinking about going to trial instead of settling out of court.....

ButterscotchPimp said:

Tha'ts true.

But it won't stop downloading.

wow. thats great. Suing a single mom for $200,000. I dont see how anybody thats ever owned a boot of any artist can applaud this. Or did I miss, for example, the release date for THe Work volumes 1-12. Anybody who owns a boot and agrees with this is really on some bull shit.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Keep on cheering for the RIAA, companyman. They are at the very least as corrupt as any organized crime mob around. I bet you believe that this will somehow help you as a music consumer, don't you? IT WON'T. They have been stealing from the public since their inception. They are the police for the mob in the music business. Technology is kicking their ass and there is nothing they can do about it but go after a few people and try to get some profits via lawsuits. Its a new age and major labels will fall. The music will eventually be back in the hands of the musician and out of the accountants and lawyers that enable major labels to feed people bullshit 24/7. An artist's money is in touring, anyway.

i've never bought a boot and i even refuse to let friends borrow my cd's because i know they will burn them...i support artist rights to make a living off of their art.

the only exception to this rule with me is when i have an artists okay to enjoy unreleased material.

Where was the RIAA when Timbaland ripped off an independent artist's song?

this crap is scary... anyone could have used her computer... is the only evidence that the IP address was hers? damn...

coolcat said:

Helping Timbaland collect royalties off said song.
Timbaland + contract = major label = the system = the mob.
People think that after the MCA scandal a few years back that the music industry is somehow "clean' now but there is nothing further from the truth.
The public is stupid as hell. The labels know they will fall in line like lemmings in stressful situations, so all they do is apply pressure and watch people fall in line. Unless you are buying music directly from the artist(s) label and the artist is the ONLY distributor of their music then you are contributing to a system that is created to work against you. Prince was a part of that system too, for a long time. That's why he resorts to their business methods a lot of the time.
The RIAA is losing. Their reach is only in the U.S. and a few other places. Downloading is worldwide; nothing can stop it. Get your show game up if you're going to make money in the music business.

Well like PRINCE said about 7 years ago on the Leno show, Artists dont really get paid anyway, only about a dozen have good deals where they get paid and even then they get screwed. This lawsuit is not going to scare anyone, to put it in a nutshell, i was checking the new Jennifer Lopez a few days ago because i wanted to hear it in advance, though i know im buying it anyway since i have all her stuff, but anyway when i went to this site to hear the tracks it tells you how many times it has been downloaded, as of last friday it said 245, this friday 3560, so if you think downloading and the theft of music is going to go away because they got this one woman its not going to happen. Me i will only download something from an artist that im going to buy anyway, i just want to get stuff in advance, which is how it was back when i was in the business and i would get a promo advance, i still bought the cd when it came out because, even though i knew that the artist really wasnt getting the $$$, i knew that the label was going to look at the sales figures at the end of the day and keep or drop an artist based on that. What the industry has to do if it really wants to save itself somewhat, is to stop letting all this advance stuff out, because once you do, its over, once it gets on one site it will multiply to millions before the day is over, and i would say 90% of those downloading arent going to buy the music anyway.

sosgemini said:

Mariah Carey even got a favorible review of her unreleased track in The Source magazine for "Feelin It". Im pretty sure she didnt give the ok for it

I mean what are the point of Tape recorders? CD burners? DVD burners? Why do they make these things if we arent supposed to be doing it? Then expect people not to use it to the advantage.

Music companies are trying to take back their rights I agree with...but in the same time, we do have the right to share music with one another....

paisleypark4 said:

I agree with you to a point. I have never understood why those things were created and I also don't understand why sites like youtube exist when those companies know people are gonna do bad things with their products. Hell, there is so much copyrighted stuff on youtube that I am suprised they haven't been shut down by now.

We can share with others but it doesn't make it right.

anyways...my policy and belief its.. if its an old song that i can't find the album on the internet for a reasonable price.. then YES i will download the music... (I only do this if its 1-3 old rare songs that i like off an album... but if i like the whole album... I will just buy it... )

but as far as new music... i defintily pay for my downloads unless i get burn music from my sister's cds to my computer....


if someone bootlegs kanye west, or 50 cent music.. i don't care... I personally do NOT think their music is worth that much anyways...

TotalAlisa said:

me 2. Tons of rare stuff thats out there I download i cant find at the record stores..and Im not about 2 go to another city to get it.

Lothan said:

You all sound "well-trained" by labels. Youtube is NOT damaging to an artist in any way AT ALL. MUSIC VIDEOS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FOR SALE! UGH!!!!!
Ignorance of this is a pet peeve of mine. Sorry. First off, when artists shoot videos, those are promotional tools. All of the money that gets spent on making them gets written off as a loss by the record label, so they loose NOTHING. The artist incurs the cost of the video via record sales. Who's pocket is it really coming out of? The artist. Check the sales of ANY music video compilation on DVD and you will see LOW FIGURES. People don't buy music videos in general. The product doesn't move. Its not really supposed to. You tube's resolution is so bad that there is no useful purpose other than promotion of a song. Live bootlegs get posted but even thpose aren't high enough quality to sell. Youtube was created for attention whores in the first place and BECAME A SOURCE FOR MUSIC VIDS LATER. It was not designed for the usage that is applied to it today. Still, companies use youtube all of the time for promotion. So you mean to tell me that its "bad" when an individual uses it but "good" when a corporation uses it to get you to buy their shit? Well trained puppies.
There are hundreds of thousands of youtube like sites. They are NOT a threat to anything an artist is trying to do.
Also, without music sharing, people don't know who the hell an artist is. If all music sharing of any kind (down to cassette passing) stopped tomorrow, in a VERY VERY short time, all artists careers would slow to a crawl and people (artists and labels) would be begging for it to start back. The problem is majors want it both ways. They are used to being able to manipulate accordingly and when it is to their benefit, sharing is good. They call it "promotion". When they are not controlling it, they call it "bootlegging" even if no money is being made from it. All of you defending the RIAA and majors think you are defending artist's rights but you aren't. You're only defending the major's control and you think that would trickle down into artist's pockets. It doesn't.

BlaqueKnight said:

Exactly.

Lothan said:

because the technology does not commit the crime...the individuals do. you can create your own music or film and share them via these resources...its not about the technology.

Next case please!

BlaqueKnight said:

Iam far from ignorant, BK and I do know that what you say is true. I am not defending RIAA: I can't tell you the last time I've actually bought an album and not just downloaded a track because I refuse to pay 18 bucks for an album full of crap. I don't see the harm in watching videos on youtube but there is copyright law and our favorite artist has his panties in a bunch over it.

I agree with your post wholeheartedly.

TotalAlisa said:

Exactly totally agree, and that is the way most people think, mainly younger people that the INDUSTRY targets, and im not saying its wrong to think that certain artists are not worth my money. Case in point on 50 cents new cd hes got a song with my girl NICOLE called "Fire", do you honestly think im gonna spend 10 bucks to get it? no way, and the SYSTEM is set up to each either get it for 99cents or find it for nothing. The thing is the industry set itself up in this game, technology advanced and they wanted to reap its rewards as usual, but this time it ended up biting them in the ass, and by the way, the movie industry will go the same way too. But in reality the artists dont really care espcially if they have a following, do you think Bruce Springsteen gives a shit if someone downloads his new cd without paying, no way, hes paid, and even if he got dropped form Sony for low sales he would go indie and make 50 times more money.
[Edited 10/5/07 12:56pm]

Lothan said:

With PRINCE its a control thing and yes dont be mislead PRINCE is leading that lawsuit because there is no label behind him, right now Prince is not signed by anyone so his YouTube lawsuit is his personal thing and not a product of Warner or Sony or Universal, its his pocket that its coming from and that any money from that lawsuit will go into. Though 99% of the other suits are for the labels.

BlaqueKnight said:

let's try this again.
slow down, cowboy.
i'm not mr. "company" guy.
i'm the "i think prince is being a dick" guy because of the whole YouTube thing.

with that said, if you've got a computer full of music you didn't pay for that's STEALING. PERIOD.

i'm the guy that could get free cd's from just about every record company and STILL pays for them, because i want to support the artist.

now the RIAA didn't sue this woman for $200,000+ dollars. she got caught with like what 1500 illegal downloads? now she could've settled out of court for much less, but she CHOSE to take it to court to prove a point and she LOST. i'm sorry, she gets no sympathy from me.

ButterscotchPimp said:

Actually, she'll end up winning the war (despite the lost in the courtroom) because now she'll just file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, meaning that the RIAA will never get the money.

What if it's an album that's out of print? I would much rather have an original copy from the record store than a homemade one from a friend but I can't buy it if it's not in the store for sale. It's also not taking any money away from the artist because the album is no longer for sale anyway.