Follow us on...
Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Facebook Watch us on YouTube
Results 1 to 8 of 8
  1. #1
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    somewhere over the rainbow
    Last Online

    10.25.16 @ 11:04 AM
    Liked 777 Times in 312 Posts

    Default Download case should go to jury today

    DULUTH, Minn. - The case against Jammie Thomas is expected to go to jurors today. Six major record companies accuse Thomas, 30, of sharing 1,702 songs online in violation of the companies' copyrights. The record companies claim they found the songs on a Kazaa file-sharing account they later linked to her.

    After two days of testimony from 11 witnesses, the defense rested without calling anyone to the stand, and closing arguments in the civil trial are scheduled for this morning.

    U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he would decide then whether the record companies would have to prove the songs were actually transferred to any other users for jurors to find Thomas liable.

    Thomas testified yesterday that she didn't do it, though she acknowledged giving conflicting dates for the replacement of her computer hard drive. Record company attorney Richard Gabriel has suggested she replaced the hard drive to cover her tracks.

    Yesterday, she testified under questioning from Gabriel that while pursuing a college degree in marketing, she did a case study on the original Napster file-sharing program and concluded that it was not illegal. A judge ruled in 2001 that it was.

    She acknowledged she listened to or owned CDs released by more than 60 of the artists whose music was in the Kazaa file-sharing folder at the heart of the case. Thomas denied the folder was hers.

    "Did you ever have Kazaa on your computer?" Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, asked her.

    "No," she said.

    Toder has tried to raise doubts that the companies can prove it was Thomas who downloaded and shared the music.

    Earlier in the day, Thomas set up her computer in court to show the jury how quickly CDs could be copied onto it. The demonstration was aimed at countering testimony by an expert who testified that the songs on one of Thomas' computer drives were created just 15 seconds apart, suggesting piracy. But each song Thomas copied in court over Gabriel's objection took less than 10 seconds to land on the computer.

    Jacobson said the comparison might not be valid because the version of Windows Media Player that Thomas used to copy, or "rip," the CDs in court was different from what was available in February 2005, when the files in contention landed on her hard drive.

    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.

    The record companies have not specified how much they are seeking in damages. But on Wednesday, RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said they would be asking for damages on the 24 songs that the trial is focused on, not the 1,702 that were described in the lawsuit.

    Copyright law allows damages of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." That means Thomas, who works for the Department of Natural Resources of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, could face a judgment of anywhere from $18,000 to $3.6 million for the 24 songs.

    Regardless of how the first trial of a person accused of illegally sharing music online turns out, the record industry plans to keep suing listeners for a while.

    "We think we're in for a long haul in terms of establishing that music has value, that music is property, and that property has to be respected," said Cary Sherman, President of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits.

    Some 26,000 lawsuits have been filed starting in 2003, but the case against Thomas is the first to go to trial. Many other defendants settled by paying the record companies a few thousand dollars.

    Sherman said Wednesday night that he's surprised it took this long for one of them to go to trial.

    After four years, he said, "it's become business as usual, nobody really thinks about it. 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."
    "Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. -- Gen. George S. Patton

  2. #2
    carpe damn diem billy007's Avatar
    Join Date
    On the wild card line...
    Favorite VH Song

    "Dance The Night Away"
    Last Online

    10.25.16 @ 08:07 AM
    Liked 814 Times in 561 Posts

    Premium Member

    Default Labels Win First P2P Consumer Trial


    October 04, 2007, 6:10 PM ET

    Susan Butler, N.Y.

    Twelve jurors in Minnesota decided unanimously this afternoon that single mother Jammie Thomas is liable for infringing 24 recordings she shared over peer-to-peer service Kazaa. The verdict for $222,000 came in the first trial held in a suit filed against a consumer by major labels for P2P file sharing.

    "We welcome the jury's decision," the RIAA said in a statement. "The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it. As with all our cases, we seek to resolve them quickly in a fair and reasonable manner. When the evidence is clear, we will continue to bring legal actions against those individuals who have broken the law. This program is important to securing a level playing field for legal online music services and helping ensure that record companies are able to invest in new bands of tomorrow."

    Six labels sued for infringement of 24 recordings, a sample of the 1,702 audio files they claimed Thomas shared over Kazaa just after 11 p.m. ET on Feb. 21, 2005. The recordings included titles by Janet Jackson, Richard Marx, Journey, No Doubt, Green Day, Sarah McLachlan and Godsmack.

    The labels claimed that on that night, their investigator, SafeNet, detected an individual using a specific IP address and the username tereastarr@kazaa to distribute 1,702 audio files in the individual's "shared" folder on her computer. Charter Communications was identified as the ISP associated with the IP address.

    After the labels filed a "John Doe" lawsuit for copyright infringement, Charter responded to a subpoena, identifying Thomas as the subscriber on that day in February. The labels claimed that Thomas also used the tereastarr username for multiple purposes for many years.

    Thomas denied that she was involved in any file sharing. The jury didn't believe her and awarded the labels $9,250 per recording, finding that Thomas willfully infringed the labels' recordings.

  3. #3
    Atomic Punk bsbll4's Avatar
    Join Date
    St. Louis, MO
    Favorite VH Album

    Van Halen/ADKOT
    Favorite VH Song

    Hot For Teacher
    Last Online

    10.23.16 @ 01:32 PM
    Liked 1,372 Times in 690 Posts


    That's total BS. Almost a quarter million for sharing songs. Unbelievable. Over $9,000 a song!? Jesus christ how do you justify such a fine in reality?

    That's why I haven't bought a CD in over 6 years. The band gets screwed anyway, and the record companies soak up the profits.

    With the age of the internet, bands should just release their songs on their website--screw the record companies.
    CNN may think my opinion matters, but you shouldn't.

  4. #4
    Atomic Punk LLFHS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Secret Witness Protection Location
    Favorite VH Album

    Anything Mike played on
    Favorite VH Song

    Anything Mike played on
    Last Online

    04.01.16 @ 10:23 PM
    Liked 54 Times in 31 Posts



    OKay fine.....stealing is wrong. But to ruin someone's life over it???

    Fucking rapists and child molesters dont get slapped this hard.

    Your Hacked Nude Photo Here!

  5. #5
    Eruption wingnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Last Online

    01.01.08 @ 09:00 PM
    Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    Record companies rip off artists for sure, but at the same time the indie market is getting bigger and bigger. If an artist (who owns the rights to their own works, no major label involved) wants to protect their work and sue for lost revenue then they have that right.

    And the damages should be high and punitive. I think this is a too high in this case, but it shouldn't just be for money lost. Punitive damages have to send the signal that copyright infringement will be enforced.
    Last edited by wingnut; 10.05.07 at 07:16 PM.

  6. #6
    Atomic Punk
    Join Date
    Southern California
    Last Online

    10.25.16 @ 12:49 PM
    Liked 2,122 Times in 1,260 Posts


    First of all, it isn't the label's intention to punish people. Their whole purpose is for something bigger. 3 years ago, the majority of peole polled didn't know it was illegal to share songs online. In a poll taken this year, the tide has finally turned, and the majority of people now know that this is in fact illegal.

    I know I am in the minority, but I support the labels here.

    Labels front bands money to make a record and get a tour started. So I don't necessarily see a problem with the label profiting since they found you, gave you cash, and got you distributed.

    That being said, it's relatively easy now to promote yourself, and it can be done. The Dave Mathews band was grossing over a million dollars a year before they signed to a label. But, it's also fair to say that I don't believe they would be NEAR the popularity they are now, and therefore making the money they are now, without the label.

    Also, copyright is the holder's responsibility. The state isn't going to file a lawsuit if they hear a song that rips another song off, and they aren't going to file a lawsuit if someone is illegally using your songs. Someone, at some point, has to standup for their copyright, or no one will.

    What scary to the labels is that despite the fact that digital sales are increasing, they are not increasing at nearly the rate that illegal downloading is increasing. One might think that the napster/metallica era was illegal downloading at its worst. Illegal downloading is increasing by over 60% per year.

    Eventually labels are going to have to embrace the format. But they should never have to embrace people who are stealing, or violating copyright. Eventually it will render copyright meaningless if they do.

  7. #7
    Forum Frontman
    Join Date
    Last Online

    07.04.16 @ 07:03 PM
    Liked 6 Times in 5 Posts


    I'm having a hard time forming a solid opinion about this one, mostly just because I haven't been patient enough to read all of the details in this case specifically. I've got a weird angle, however; I'm a musician--for a living--but I've had so many loathing experiences with major labels I've come to have little sympathy for their loses in recent times. Early on they should have been embracing the technology of the future, not fighting it. On the other hand, if this chick was offering up MY songs for free to people who would otherwise likely buy it, I'd be furious and hoping someone big out there was looking out for me. This was a case of precedent, though; the winner was going to help determine how viable future downloading cases would be judged, and it looks like favor will go to those holding the copyrights.

    So Richard Marx go screwed out of royalties because of this woman, huh? Is it a situation that... don't mean nothin'? Will he stop until he's satisfied? Has he warned her that if she tries it again he'll be... right there waiting for her?

  8. #8
    Atomic Punk jimmy812's Avatar
    Join Date
    Last Online

    08.11.16 @ 05:57 AM
    Liked 327 Times in 204 Posts


    Quote Originally Posted by View Post
    So Richard Marx go screwed out of royalties because of this woman, huh? Is it a situation that... don't mean nothin'? Will he stop until he's satisfied? Has he warned her that if she tries it again he'll be... right there waiting for her?
    Well, I guess the record companies are just trying to ..Hold On To The....Rights.
    2-time Fantasy Baseball Champion.



Similar Threads

  1. Michael Vick's jury selection
    By Bob_R in forum Play Ball!
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08.29.07, 05:19 AM
  2. Jury Duty
    By Bob_R in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 05.26.06, 03:27 PM
  3. Wow! Jury convicts priest in slaying of nun 26 years ago
    By BradS in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05.12.06, 04:37 AM
  4. Jury rules for death penalty in Westerfield case
    By Bob_R in forum VH Fans Meeting Place (Non-Music)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09.18.02, 10:25 PM
  5. "The jury looked at me and said..."
    By TrapZZ in forum VH Songs/Albums/Videos
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08.23.00, 10:35 AM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts