leave your turntable on.

[enamoured]

Oh dear. RIAA wins key victory, accused file sharer must pay $220,000

Accused of encouraging the illegal sharing of more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out with the recording industry instead of settling out of court for far less money. The ensuing legal battle marked the first time the recording industry has argued a file-sharing case before a jury.

Since 2003, many of the 26,000 persons sued by the Recording Industry Assoc. of America (RIAA) have avoided litigation by agreeing to pay a few thousand dollars. Thomas, who could not be reached for comment, has always maintained her innocence. Accused of sharing music through the use of peer-to-peer service, Kazaa, she told the jury that she didn't even own a Kazaa account.
"This woman found lawyers who tried to make her the Joan of Arc of illegal downloading. And are they going to write the check?"
--former music exec Chris Castle

The jury didn't buy her argument. Thomas was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs. The decision is important in that it sends a message to file sharers that Internet anonymity won't protect them from lawsuits, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and longtime music industry executive.

There's even more news on it--it's one of the top stories on Google News right now and everything.

Comments

[rajni.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's pretty disgusting. Seriously, over $200K? What is wrong with them? This might actually deter people from buying music now. I doubt anyone is feeling particularly supportive of the RIAA.

[supersyncspaz7.livejournal.com]

I get that the RIAA is pissed about the downloads, but just $200K to set an example is wrong. She was charged $9250 for the 24 that they focused on, but 24 songs is the rough equivalent of two (short) CD's. They could've charged her [x] (maybe four or five) times that price and it still would've resonated, but nearly $10,000 for 24? That's absurd.

[rajni.livejournal.com]

They're just trying to make an example out of her, and they obviously have no ethical issues in doing so. Leaving aside the fee, the (handpicked) jury was practically illiterate about downloading. Plus, the RIAA is obviously going to have better lawyers than a single mom. Way too much WTF going on in this case. Gah.