Damages in Thomas-Rasset File-Sharing Case Back to $222,000

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit rules that the 34-year-old is guilty of having lied about illegally uploading music and will have to pay $222,000 in damages to the RIAA.

Thomas-Rasset's case has first the headlines in 2007, when (then single mom) Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $222,000 in statutory damages for illegally uploading 24 files. Thomas previously had declined a $5,000 settlement offer. She was granted a re-trial, and received a $25,000 settlement offer and ordered to pay $1,920,000, or $80,000 per song, in that trial. The sum was then reduced to $54,000, which the RIAA declined and was awarded $1.5 million in a third trial. This amount was reduced again to $54,000, while the Court of Appeals now reinstated the original $222,000 judgment.

There is no reason to believe that this battle is over as Thomas-Rasset's attorneys said that they will be fighting all the way to the Supreme Court, arguing that the unreasonable awards are targeted to punish organized crime, not individual persons.

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
26 comments
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • joytech22
    The law can be stupid sometimes.
    A fine should only be as large as one can afford to pay back.

    Seriously.. Who the fuuu ruins somebody's life for reasons of sharing someone's work.
    If someone distributed one of my songs and I lost $100,000 who cares. I would still be sitting on millions.

    It's not like I would be poor, and if I had to take action I would fine according to their income (50k a year income, I would fine possibly 5-10k to give them a nasty slap).
    1.9M is NOT a reasonable amount.
    20
  • Super_Nova
    This evil woman got what she deserves. In fact she and her family deserved to fry. Think of all the good deeds the RIAA have done and could have done with the money they missed due to this most vile deed of her sharing 24 songs. Now they will never be able finance feeding the starving children in Urk or discover a cure for the ingrown toenail. Why, they barely make enough money to feed their starving management. Even their lawers are forced to sell their grannies into white slavery. And all because this woman shared 24 files on the internet.
    17
  • alidan
    joytech22The law can be stupid sometimes.A fine should only be as large as one can afford to pay back.Seriously.. Who the fuuu ruins somebody's life for reasons of sharing someone's work.If someone distributed one of my songs and I lost $100,000 who cares. I would still be sitting on millions.It's not like I would be poor, and if I had to take action I would fine according to their income (50k a year income, I would fine possibly 5-10k to give them a nasty slap).1.9M is NOT a reasonable amount.


    the punishment is worse than murdering another person... got to love how laws work.
    15
  • Other Comments
  • joytech22
    The law can be stupid sometimes.
    A fine should only be as large as one can afford to pay back.

    Seriously.. Who the fuuu ruins somebody's life for reasons of sharing someone's work.
    If someone distributed one of my songs and I lost $100,000 who cares. I would still be sitting on millions.

    It's not like I would be poor, and if I had to take action I would fine according to their income (50k a year income, I would fine possibly 5-10k to give them a nasty slap).
    1.9M is NOT a reasonable amount.
    20
  • Super_Nova
    This evil woman got what she deserves. In fact she and her family deserved to fry. Think of all the good deeds the RIAA have done and could have done with the money they missed due to this most vile deed of her sharing 24 songs. Now they will never be able finance feeding the starving children in Urk or discover a cure for the ingrown toenail. Why, they barely make enough money to feed their starving management. Even their lawers are forced to sell their grannies into white slavery. And all because this woman shared 24 files on the internet.
    17
  • Anonymous
    According to the article, it sounds as if she was offered a $5k settlement and declined. At some point it is cheaper to settle than continue paying a lawyer to appeal.
    -3