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

News
By Wolfgang Gruener
published

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is back to square one.

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.

Wolfgang Gruener
26 Comments Comment from the forums
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • lahawzel
    How the fuck is this case still ongoing?

    Copyright infringement cases should just be settled by making the person pay for the stuff he or she pirated. You wouldn't sue somebody for millions if they took a CD from a music store; don't do that shit to people who downloaded it.
    Reply
  • America is beautiful in every way possible.
    Reply
  • freggo
    Oh, let the lawyers have some fun.
    When they attorneys for both sides are finally out of appeals and PR opportunities she will file for bankruptcy and have everything discharged.

    Fudge the RIAA ! They are just trying to protect an outdated business model.
    It is time to come up with a system that give a fair share to the artists instead of some fat cats in the studios !
    Reply
  • cookoy
    Some people are born for the sole purpose of making other peoples' lives miserable.
    Reply
  • gruffmeister
    Seriously how can they justify $222,000 for 24 files? I thought the fine had to be in proportion to damages?
    24 files (say music) would be worth maybe $0.99 each, call it $25 for 24 files. It would mean over 8880 people would have had to have downloaded the file from her to justify this money. Can they prove that? If they could surely these other people would be in the dock too?
    This type of law encourages people to hate RIAA and take up piracy just to get at them!
    Reply
  • K2N hater
    gruffmeisterSeriously how can they justify $222,000 for 24 files? I thought the fine had to be in proportion to damages?24 files (say music) would be worth maybe $0.99 each, call it $25 for 24 files. It would mean over 8880 people would have had to have downloaded the file from her to justify this money. Can they prove that? If they could surely these other people would be in the dock too?This type of law encourages people to hate RIAA and take up piracy just to get at them!There's much more in the world than just RIAA and Hollywood content and that's why they declared war to every means of learning it. They want their audience tied to them through ignorance and threats.

    Congressman should keep their eyes open for turning people into sheep was never the ideal of the founders of the USA.
    Reply