$220,000 Jammie Saga: fined P2P user may appeal
When we first heard about the RIAA's recent filesharing suit victory and the 220k dollar judgment against the user in question -- we thought, "You'd have to be mad to share enough songs to rack up a judgment that large."Not so fast, jack. The offending copyright infringements totaled just 24--that's right, twenty-four copyright protected files on the user's drive. Breaking down to nearly 10 large per infringement; the defendant Jammie Thomas was hit square in the face with the book the court threw, wiping out her finances and sending her out of the courthouse literally in tears.
As an aside, we're left to wonder if the artists infringed upon could have generated the kind of revenue which would make such an enormous judgment possible if it weren't for the enthusiasm demonstrated by fans like Jammie. After all, a business needs its customers and, like it or not, rabid filesharers are also some of music's biggest fans, and the recording industry's bread and butter.
Nevertheless, Jammie, a MySpace user, has apparently raised nearly a thousand bucks to fund her appeal of the case, courtesy of her MySpace friends. She's also receiving funds from her Native American tribe, but not nearly enough to match the might of the RIAA, whose pockets have grown deep through record sales and insanely lopsided settlement agreements.
Declan McCullough of CNET wrote that the jury instructions given before deliberation may have been slanted in favor of a heavy statutory damage claim, as high as a hundred grand per incident. Is it just us, or does this kind of onesie-twosie infringement seem like it should be covered by a different set of fines? You can get a DUI with children in the car and still get off cheaper than Jammie Thomas did.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Christina Warren said 3:12PM on 10-09-2007
I'm actually kind of surprised that the defendant had to go to MySpace to try to raise money for her appeal, as I had assumed (wrongly, clearly) that she had taken measures to get her case funded by the EFF, ACLU, a non-profit for Native American litigants or you know, a pro-bono deal with a great lawyer who wants the publicity (although had she done that, she probably wouldn't have lost - or at least would have avoided biased jury instructions - so I guess I shouldn't be surprised). I don't know what universe $1000 will pay for even a draft of an appeal refuting damages in this magnitude -- again, I would think she would be better off foregoing begging on MySpace (which just looks tacky) and begging the old fashioned way by getting the ACLU, the EFF or a pro-bono deal.
As for her appeals arguments - not knowing the case and not being a lawyer, my very first thought was that unless the RIAA explicitly can prove that the artists whose music was shared lost sales that amounted to ~$9000 a track (and if they are arguing that overall album sales were lost and not just individual track downloads, they are really saying that ~$90,000 in sales were lost, if you average 10 tracks per CD - and that's just absurd), the damages will absolutely be overturned. If the jury got biased instructions - that in and of itself is not grounds for a reversal with prejudice (meaning that the RIAA couldn't bring the case again), because it would fall more under the theoretical "inadequate counsel" argument (and if she wasn't funded by legal aid and she paid out of pocket, that argument is much harder to make - a bad lawyer and an inadequate lawyer are different) -- but it would certainly be arguable in an appeals sense, to lower the verdict.
But as I said last week - I see this whole thing (not this particular case, unless a really good law firm takes up the cause, but the whole download/sharing thing period) ending up at the Supreme Court. At the very least, groups like the ACLU and EFF should start lobbying for a reduction in statutory minimums of fines in these kinds of cases - distinguishing individual downloads for personal use from widespread infringement/piracy (which is what they were designed to address).
God, it really does make sense now -- the woman had a straight-up shitty lawyer and that's why she lost and lost by that much. If any lesson comes out of this it should be that people who want to fight the man should make sure they have good counsel. I mean, I'm not fan of extortion, which is what I consider the $3000 settlements - but judgments like this just make it more likely that people will pay rather than fight.
Reply
Shibathedog said 5:52PM on 10-09-2007
They basically ruined this womans life, You can't just take that amount of money from someone and not expect them to be forced to make drastic lifestyle changes (unless she was hella rich, I don't know anything about her financial situation) and no one even feels bad about it.
They should be sued for basically throwing this woman out on the street. Bunch of inconsiderate bastards.
Reply
John said 9:08AM on 10-10-2007
I hope she wins with the inevitable appeal. This whole case illustrates the fact that using Kazaa (or eMule or Limewire...) is just plain dangerous. People should switch to using PRIVATE peer to peer apps, like GigaTribe, which is 100% legal: http://www.gigatribe.com
Reply
thecatt said 10:01AM on 10-10-2007
I hope she wins the appeal/is able to settle for less.
That being said, the law is exceptionally clear on these matters. The copyrights for the songs are registered with the government. Knowing infringement of registered copyrights means statutory damages. It's not a matter of damages done, the penalty is harsh to deter people from ripping off other people's intellectual property. Damages for these types of offenses range from $750 to $30,000 per work infringed.
Reply
p-diddy said 9:45AM on 10-11-2007
John, using P2P - ANY P2P - is 100% legal. Sharing copyrighted materials is what is illegal. If you were giving away (for free) CDs out of the back of a van, you would be liable for the same infringement she was.
@shibathedog, correction - SHE ruined her life. No one forced her to share those files. Let's have some accountability here.
I have absolutely Zero sympathy for people that get busted for sharing copyrighted materials. If you don't like it enough to pay for it, then just go without. And if you don't like what the label is charging, go without. You don't insist that Burger King give you a Whopper for a nickel, do you? If they don't, do you just take one? It's not like we're really talking food here - you don't need entertainment to survive.
-p-
Reply