Home › DMW Daily › June 18, 2009

Jury Orders Jammie Thomas to Pay $1.9M for Sharing 24 Songs

Authored by Mark Hefflinger on June 18, 2009 - 12:42pm.
Duluth, Minn. - A jury has awarded the record labels that sued Jammie Thomas-Rasset for copyright infringement on a file-sharing network $1.92 million in damages, or $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she shared, the Recording Industry vs. The People blog reported. After three days of testimony this week, closing arguments were heard on Thursday before the jury began deliberations in the case.

"The nonsensical exorbitancy of the verdict actually enhances the constitutionality argument, demonstrating how open ended the statute is if the RIAA's wild eyed interpretation of it is allowed to survive," wrote attorney Ray Beckerman, who operates Recording Industry vs. The People.

Beckerman and others have argued that the $150,000 per song damages that may be claimed for copyright infringement are unconstitutionally high.

He noted that, in the current case, Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay 228,571 times the actual damages, or retail value of the songs in question.

Thomas-Rasset was initially convicted and ordered to pay $220,000 in damages, but the judge later declared a mistrial after admitting he erred in giving jury instructions.

The verdict in the new trial marks the first conviction on copyright infringement charges for an accused file-swapper. The majority of those charged end up settling with the RIAA for $5,000 or less.

 

Related Links:
http://snipurl.com/kejjt (Recording Industry vs. The People)

http://snipurl.com/keklk (DMW previous coverage)

Published in DMW Daily, June 18, 2009
tags: Law | Lawsuits | P2P | Music | RIAA | Copyright | Jammie Thomas | Ray Beckerman |



Comments

That'll learn em

Submitted by anonymous (not verified) on June 18, 2009 - 1:34pm.
Yippee for the wondrous legal system! Those low-life file sharers need to be given a dose of their own medicine. They've caused so much pain and loss to the poor music industry, it's time they paid some of those bills. I mean to say, 24 songs - left lying naked on an open share - that is simply outrageous.

Verdict

Submitted by Chrystal K. (not verified) on June 19, 2009 - 10:38am.
I don't understand. Why are the charges so high?

RIAA

Submitted by Jill (not verified) on June 23, 2009 - 6:00pm.
This is just another reason why I will never buy an album associated with the RIAA. The RIAA needs to learn how to evolve into the current universe. These insane lawsuits just turns off people like me. I dont want to buy anything that will in turn pay the salaries of these lawyers.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.