|
|
Guitar Discussions -> 80,000.00 dollar download
There are 5 messages in this thread.
You are currently looking at messages 1 to 5.
|
80,000.00 dollar download - M.Butzin - 6-:18 -0-09-20
|
|
MINNEAPOLIS =96 A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to =
trial has ended with the same result =97 a Minnesota woman was found to =
have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the =
recording industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully =
violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies =
$1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a =
different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with =
a $222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had =
erred in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's =
finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. =
She raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 =
per song was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of =
ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a =
32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. =
"I'm a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the =
judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe =
Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were =
angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue =
the Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains =
willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged =
Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 =
earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain =
willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed =
what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater =
weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for =
the illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged =
jurors to hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said =
has significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove =
allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl =
Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on =
Kazaa," Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she =
could never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to =
$150,000 per song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007, =
ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to =
the jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove =
anyone downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. =
Davis later concluded the law requires that actual distribution be =
shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. =
He didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of =
downloading copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other =
users on peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the =
owners, are copyright violations.=20
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make =
it all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the =
music industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry =
has said it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now =
working with Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.=20
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On =
Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility =
for the first time in the long-running case that her children or =
ex-husband might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, =
though, that any of them had shared the files.=20
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on =
Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music =
subscription service following a settlement with entertainment =
companies. For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only =
24 infringements.=20
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to =
Thomas-Rasset as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under =
the screen name "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged =
having used for years for her e-mail and several other computer =
accounts, including her MySpace page.=20
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the =
files offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet =
Protocol address =97 the online equivalent of a street address =97 and =
to her modem.=20
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared =
directory on her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new =
instructions to jurors.=20
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but =
MediaSentry downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such =
records, Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had =
downloaded songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa =
was there for.=20
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the =
name "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it =
widely for several years.=20
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to =
stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could =
also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their =
computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.=20
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said. =
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the =
Recording Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week =
that only a few hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer =
than 10 defendants were actively fighting them.=20
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major =
recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal =
Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.=20
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music =
sales, although other factors include the rise of legal music sales =
online, which emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full =
albums.
She would have been better off shoplifting at WalMart.............
|
|
|
|
Re: 80,000.00 dollar download - Thomas - 6-:19 -0-09-20
|
|
"M.Butzin" <marcusfb@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:VID_l.126$j84.32@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
MINNEAPOLIS – A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial
has ended with the same result — a Minnesota woman was found to have
violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording
industry.
A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated
the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million,
or $80,000 per song.
Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a
different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a
$222,000 judgment.
The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had erred
in giving jury instructions.
Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's
finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty. She
raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per song
was read.
Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of
ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
"There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a
32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd. "I'm
a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the
judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's
denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursue the
Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains
willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged
Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000
earlier in the case.
"Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain
willing to do so," Duckworth said.
In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides disputed
what the evidence showed.
An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater
weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for the
illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors to
hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has
significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove
allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl
Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
"Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Kazaa,"
Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she could
never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,000 per
song.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007,
ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to the
jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyone
downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis later
concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently. He
didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading
copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on
peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, are
copyright violations.
This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make it
all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music
industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has said
it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working with
Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On
Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility for
the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband
might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, that
any of them had shared the files.
The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs on
Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music
subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companies.
For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24
infringements.
Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Rasset
as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen name
"tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for years
for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpace
page.
Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the files
offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol
address — the online equivalent of a street address — and to her modem.
He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directory on
her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions to
jurors.
Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSentry
downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records,
Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded
songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there for.
Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the name
"tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely for
several years.
He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough to
stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they could
also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their
computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
"They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said.
Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Recording
Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only a few
hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defendants
were actively fighting them.
The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four major
recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music
Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music sales,
although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, which
emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
She would have been better off shoplifting at WalMart.............
And yet after 2 costly trials and two verdicts, the last one being 1.9
million, the record industry is willing to settle for $3000. Are they
trying to make a statement here? Seems stupid to me for 24 songs as wrong
as it may be and she is just as stupid for not paying the $3000 two years
ago. Im willing to bet she is not paying court costs or attorney fees.
Thomas
|
|
|
|
Re: 80,000.00 dollar download - M.Butzin - 6-:19 -0-09-20
|
|
"Thomas" <nonegiven@none.com> wrote in message =
news:h1gu4o$un2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>=20
> "M.Butzin" <marcusfb@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message=20
> news:VID_l.126$j84.32@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> MINNEAPOLIS =96 A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go =
to trial=20
> has ended with the same result =97 a Minnesota woman was found to have =
> violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording=20
> industry.
>=20
> A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully =
violated=20
> the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 =
million,=20
> or $80,000 per song.
>=20
> Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a =
> different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset =
with a=20
> $222,000 judgment.
>=20
> The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had =
erred=20
> in giving jury instructions.
>=20
> Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's =
> finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential =
penalty. She=20
> raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per =
song=20
> was read.
>=20
> Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of=20
> ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
>=20
> "There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a =
> 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of =
Brainerd. "I'm=20
> a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
>=20
> Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the=20
> judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe =
Thomas-Rasset's=20
> denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
>=20
> Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or =
pursue the=20
> Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
>=20
> Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains=20
> willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged=20
> Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 =
> earlier in the case.
>=20
> "Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain=20
> willing to do so," Duckworth said.
>=20
> In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides =
disputed=20
> what the evidence showed.
>=20
> An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the =
"greater=20
> weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for =
the=20
> illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors =
to=20
> hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has=20
> significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
>=20
> Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove=20
> allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, =
Sheryl=20
> Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
>=20
> "Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on =
Kazaa,"=20
> Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
>=20
> Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she =
could=20
> never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to =
$150,000 per=20
> song.
>=20
> U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in =
2007,=20
> ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to =
the=20
> jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove =
anyone=20
> downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis =
later=20
> concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
>=20
> His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat =
differently. He=20
> didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading =
> copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on=20
> peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, =
are=20
> copyright violations.
>=20
> This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to =
make it=20
> all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the =
music=20
> industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has =
said=20
> it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working =
with=20
> Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
>=20
> In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On=20
> Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility =
for=20
> the first time in the long-running case that her children or =
ex-husband=20
> might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, =
that=20
> any of them had shared the files.
>=20
> The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs =
on=20
> Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music=20
> subscription service following a settlement with entertainment =
companies.=20
> For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24=20
> infringements.
>=20
> Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to =
Thomas-Rasset=20
> as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen =
name=20
> "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for =
years=20
> for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her =
MySpace=20
> page.
>=20
> Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the =
files=20
> offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol=20
> address =97 the online equivalent of a street address =97 and to her =
modem.
>=20
> He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared =
directory on=20
> her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions =
to=20
> jurors.
>=20
> Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but =
MediaSentry=20
> downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records,=20
> Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had =
downloaded=20
> songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there =
for.
>=20
> Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the =
name=20
> "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely =
for=20
> several years.
>=20
> He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough =
to=20
> stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they =
could=20
> also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their=20
> computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
>=20
> "They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he =
said.
>=20
> Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the =
Recording=20
> Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only =
a few=20
> hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 =
defendants=20
> were actively fighting them.
>=20
> The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four =
major=20
> recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal =
Music=20
> Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
>=20
> The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music =
sales,=20
> although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, =
which=20
> emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
>=20
> She would have been better off shoplifting at WalMart.............
>=20
> And yet after 2 costly trials and two verdicts, the last one being 1.9 =
> million, the record industry is willing to settle for $3000. Are =
they=20
> trying to make a statement here? Seems stupid to me for 24 songs as =
wrong=20
> as it may be and she is just as stupid for not paying the $3000 two =
years=20
> ago. Im willing to bet she is not paying court costs or attorney =
fees.
>=20
> Thomas
>
She can declare bankruptcy and wipe it out...........
|
|
|
|
Re: 80,000.00 dollar download - IUnknown - 6-:19 -0-09-20
|
|
On Jun 19, 4:05=A0pm, "M.Butzin" <marcu...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Thomas" <nonegi...@none.com> wrote in messagenews:h1gu4o$un2$1@news.eter=
nal-september.org...
>
> > "M.Butzin" <marcu...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> >news:VID_l.126$j84.32@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > MINNEAPOLIS =96 A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go t=
o trial
> > has ended with the same result =97 a Minnesota woman was found to have
> > violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording
> > industry.
>
> > A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully viola=
ted
> > the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 milli=
on,
> > or $80,000 per song.
>
> > Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a
> > different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset wit=
h a
> > $222,000 judgment.
>
> > The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had er=
red
> > in giving jury instructions.
>
> > Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the jury's
> > finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential penalty.=
She
> > raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 per =
song
> > was read.
>
> > Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of
> > ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
>
> > "There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, a
> > 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of Brainerd.=
"I'm
> > a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
>
> > Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the
> > judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset=
's
> > denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
>
> > Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or pursu=
e the
> > Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
>
> > Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry remains
> > willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged
> > Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000
> > earlier in the case.
>
> > "Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we remain
> > willing to do so," Duckworth said.
>
> > In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides dispute=
d
> > what the evidence showed.
>
> > An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the "greater
> > weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible for t=
he
> > illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged jurors t=
o
> > hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has
> > significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
>
> > Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove
> > allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, Shery=
l
> > Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
>
> > "Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on Ka=
zaa,"
> > Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
>
> > Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she co=
uld
> > never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to $150,00=
0 per
> > song.
>
> > U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in 2007,
> > ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions to t=
he
> > jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove anyo=
ne
> > downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis la=
ter
> > concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
>
> > His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat differently.=
He
> > didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of downloading
> > copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on
> > peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, ar=
e
> > copyright violations.
>
> > This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to make=
it
> > all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the music
> > industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry has =
said
> > it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now working =
with
> > Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
>
> > In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. On
> > Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the possibility f=
or
> > the first time in the long-running case that her children or ex-husband
> > might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, though, t=
hat
> > any of them had shared the files.
>
> > The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 songs o=
n
> > Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music
> > subscription service following a settlement with entertainment companie=
s.
> > For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24
> > infringements.
>
> > Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to Thomas-Ra=
sset
> > as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen na=
me
> > "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used for y=
ears
> > for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her MySpa=
ce
> > page.
>
> > Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the fil=
es
> > offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet Protocol
> > address =97 the online equivalent of a street address =97 and to her mo=
dem.
>
> > He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared directo=
ry on
> > her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new instructions =
to
> > jurors.
>
> > Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but MediaSent=
ry
> > downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such records,
> > Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had downloaded
> > songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was there =
for.
>
> > Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use the =
name
> > "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it widely =
for
> > several years.
>
> > He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave enough t=
o
> > stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they coul=
d
> > also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their
> > computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
>
> > "They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he said=
.
>
> > Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the Record=
ing
> > Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that only =
a few
> > hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 defend=
ants
> > were actively fighting them.
>
> > The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four majo=
r
> > recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal M=
usic
> > Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
>
> > The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in music s=
ales,
> > although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, wh=
ich
> > emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
>
> > She would have been better off shoplifting at WalMart.............
>
> > And yet after 2 costly trials and two verdicts, the last one being 1.9
> > million, the record industry is willing to settle for $3000. =A0 Are th=
ey
> > trying to make a statement here? =A0Seems stupid to me for 24 songs as =
wrong
> > as it may be and she is just as stupid for not paying the $3000 two yea=
rs
> > ago. =A0Im willing to bet she is not paying court costs or attorney fee=
s.
>
> > Thomas
>
> She can declare bankruptcy and wipe it out...........
Not so...
IANAL, but I believe if the defendants actions were caused
intentionally, then the bankruptcy judge can limit their eligibility
for dismissal.
The same type of thing happened for the 'MDY Industries' vs. Blizzard
(world of warcraft). The owner of MDY wrote a piece of software that
allowed users to 'automatically' play world of warcraft. He refused to
stop selling it and the court considered that 'willful' and
'malicous'. As a result, the dude is in the hole 6 million dollars or
something (more than he ever made from selling the software), and will
never be able to dismiss it via bankruptcy.
Personally, I think the decision against MDY was wrong, but if he cant
get the case appealed and reversed, he might as well just eat a bullet
or move out of the country.... cause they will garnish every penny he
makes for the rest of his life.
|
|
|
|
Re: 80,000.00 dollar download - M.Butzin - 6-:19 -0-09-20
|
|
"IUnknown" <stevementzer@gmail.com> wrote in message =
news:cf52ac2c-4083-432a-a386-b3629b3d0479@y33g2000prg.googlegroups.com...=
On Jun 19, 4:05 pm, "M.Butzin" <marcu...@NOSPAM.net> wrote:
> "Thomas" <nonegi...@none.com> wrote in =
messagenews:h1gu4o$un2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > "M.Butzin" <marcu...@NOSPAM.net> wrote in message
> >news:VID_l.126$j84.32@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> > MINNEAPOLIS =96 A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to =
go to trial
> > has ended with the same result =97 a Minnesota woman was found to =
have
> > violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording
> > industry.
>
> > A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully =
violated
> > the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 =
million,
> > or $80,000 per song.
>
> > Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When =
a
> > different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset =
with a
> > $222,000 judgment.
>
> > The new trial was ordered after the judge in the case decided he had =
erred
> > in giving jury instructions.
>
> > Thomas-Rasset sat glumly with her chin in hand as she heard the =
jury's
> > finding of willful infringement, which increased the potential =
penalty. She
> > raised her eyebrows in surprise when the jury's penalty of $80,000 =
per song
> > was read.
>
> > Outside the courtroom, she called the $1.92 million figure "kind of
> > ridiculous" but expressed resignation over the decision.
>
> > "There's no way they're ever going to get that," said Thomas-Rasset, =
a
> > 32-year-old mother of four from the central Minnesota city of =
Brainerd. "I'm
> > a mom, limited means, so I'm not going to worry about it now."
>
> > Her attorney, Kiwi Camara, said he was surprised by the size of the
> > judgment. He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe =
Thomas-Rasset's
> > denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
>
> > Camara said he and his client hadn't decided whether to appeal or =
pursue the
> > Recording Industry Association of America's settlement overtures.
>
> > Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the RIAA, said the industry =
remains
> > willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged
> > Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to =
$5,000
> > earlier in the case.
>
> > "Since Day One we have been willing to settle this case and we =
remain
> > willing to do so," Duckworth said.
>
> > In closing arguments earlier Thursday, attorneys for both sides =
disputed
> > what the evidence showed.
>
> > An attorney for the recording industry, Tim Reynolds, said the =
"greater
> > weight of the evidence" showed that Thomas-Rasset was responsible =
for the
> > illegal file-sharing that took place on her computer. He urged =
jurors to
> > hold her accountable to deter others from a practice he said has
> > significantly harmed the people who bring music to everyone.
>
> > Defense attorney Joe Sibley said the music companies failed to prove
> > allegations that Thomas-Rasset gave away songs by Gloria Estefan, =
Sheryl
> > Crow, Green Day, Journey and others.
>
> > "Only Jammie Thomas's computer was linked to illegal file-sharing on =
Kazaa,"
> > Sibley said. "They couldn't put a face behind the computer."
>
> > Sibley urged jurors not to ruin Thomas-Rasset's life with a debt she =
could
> > never pay. Under federal law, the jury could have awarded up to =
$150,000 per
> > song.
>
> > U.S. District Judge Michael Davis, who heard the first lawsuit in =
2007,
> > ordered up a new trial after deciding he had erred in instructions =
to the
> > jurors. The first time, he said the companies didn't have to prove =
anyone
> > downloaded the copyrighted songs she allegedly made available. Davis =
later
> > concluded the law requires that actual distribution be shown.
>
> > His jury instructions this time framed the issues somewhat =
differently. He
> > didn't explicitly define distribution but said the acts of =
downloading
> > copyrighted sound recordings or distributing them to other users on
> > peer-to-peer networks like Kazaa, without a license from the owners, =
are
> > copyright violations.
>
> > This case was the only one of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits to =
make it
> > all the way to trial. The vast majority of people targeted by the =
music
> > industry had settled for about $3,500 each. The recording industry =
has said
> > it stopped filing such lawsuits last August and is instead now =
working with
> > Internet service providers to fight the worst offenders.
>
> > In testimony this week, Thomas-Rasset denied she shared any songs. =
On
> > Wednesday, the self-described "huge music fan" raised the =
possibility for
> > the first time in the long-running case that her children or =
ex-husband
> > might have done it. The defense did not provide any evidence, =
though, that
> > any of them had shared the files.
>
> > The recording companies accused Thomas-Rasset of offering 1,700 =
songs on
> > Kazaa as of February 2005, before the company became a legal music
> > subscription service following a settlement with entertainment =
companies.
> > For simplicity's sake the music industry tried to prove only 24
> > infringements.
>
> > Reynolds argued Thursday that the evidence clearly pointed to =
Thomas-Rasset
> > as the person who made the songs available on Kazaa under the screen =
name
> > "tereastarr." It's the same nickname she acknowledged having used =
for years
> > for her e-mail and several other computer accounts, including her =
MySpace
> > page.
>
> > Reynolds said the copyright security company MediaSentry traced the =
files
> > offered by "tereastarr" on Kazaa to Thomas-Rasset's Internet =
Protocol
> > address =97 the online equivalent of a street address =97 and to her =
modem.
>
> > He said MediaSentry downloaded a sample of them from the shared =
directory on
> > her computer. That's an important point, given Davis' new =
instructions to
> > jurors.
>
> > Although the plaintiffs weren't able to prove that anyone but =
MediaSentry
> > downloaded songs off her computer because Kazaa kept no such =
records,
> > Reynolds told the jury it's only logical that many users had =
downloaded
> > songs offered through her computer because that's what Kazaa was =
there for.
>
> > Sibley argued it would have made no sense for Thomas-Rasset to use =
the name
> > "tereastarr" to do anything illegal, given that she had used it =
widely for
> > several years.
>
> > He also portrayed the defendant as one of the few people brave =
enough to
> > stand up to the recording industry, and he warned jurors that they =
could
> > also find themselves accused on the basis of weak evidence if their
> > computers are ever linked to illegal file-sharing.
>
> > "They are going to come at you like they came at 'tereastarr,'" he =
said.
>
> > Steve Marks, executive vice president and general counsel of the =
Recording
> > Industry Association of America, estimated earlier this week that =
only a few
> > hundred of the lawsuits remain unresolved and that fewer than 10 =
defendants
> > were actively fighting them.
>
> > The companies that sued Thomas-Rasset are subsidiaries of all four =
major
> > recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's =
Universal Music
> > Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
>
> > The recording industry has blamed online piracy for declines in =
music sales,
> > although other factors include the rise of legal music sales online, =
which
> > emphasize buying individual tracks rather than full albums.
>
> > She would have been better off shoplifting at WalMart.............
>
> > And yet after 2 costly trials and two verdicts, the last one being =
1.9
> > million, the record industry is willing to settle for $3000. Are =
they
> > trying to make a statement here? Seems stupid to me for 24 songs as =
wrong
> > as it may be and she is just as stupid for not paying the $3000 two =
years
> > ago. Im willing to bet she is not paying court costs or attorney =
fees.
>
> > Thomas
>
> She can declare bankruptcy and wipe it out...........
Not so...
IANAL, but I believe if the defendants actions were caused
intentionally, then the bankruptcy judge can limit their eligibility
for dismissal.
The same type of thing happened for the 'MDY Industries' vs. Blizzard
(world of warcraft). The owner of MDY wrote a piece of software that
allowed users to 'automatically' play world of warcraft. He refused to
stop selling it and the court considered that 'willful' and
'malicous'. As a result, the dude is in the hole 6 million dollars or
something (more than he ever made from selling the software), and will
never be able to dismiss it via bankruptcy.
Personally, I think the decision against MDY was wrong, but if he cant
get the case appealed and reversed, he might as well just eat a bullet
or move out of the country.... cause they will garnish every penny he
makes for the rest of his life.
I have a similar thing I hired a lawyer he screwed me I got Judgment for =
16 million dollars against the firm because he mishandled the case. They =
filed for Bankruptcy in Federal Court the Judge told him he has a =
Fiduciary Responsibility to me as a client and did not dismiss it, he =
allowed his personal bills in, but his company no. Then he tried filing =
as the business and got the same Judge..LOL the Judge sent us to =
arbitration / mediation so now he has a Federal Lien and has to send me =
money each quarter I have frozen his assets and bank accounts. She could =
get it off if she files a Chapter 13 personal, it will stay on her =
credit for 10 years (thank you George Bush) it used to be only seven =
years. But if she ever wins the lotto they won't get it.
|
|
|
|
1 |
|