A US woman must pay US$220,000 to six major music labels after a federal jury found her guilty of illegally sharing copyright music online.
Accused of sharing more than 1,700 songs, Jammie Thomas, 30, elected to fight it out in court with the recording industry instead of settling for far less money. That set up a court battle that would mark the first time that a music file-sharing case has gone before a jury.
Many of the 26,000 persons sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) since 2003 have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. The jury ordered Thomas to pay US$9,250 for each of the 24 songs that the RIAA concentrated on. She was initially accused of sharing 1,702 songs.
Thomas denied wrongdoing. While she was accused of sharing music with Kazaa, she argued that she didn't even own a Kazaa account.
The jury didn't buy her argument and the decision is important in that it shows file sharers can't hide behind Internet anonymity, said Chris Castle, a copyright attorney and long-time music industry executive. He said that it's easy to hide out on the Web and very difficult for copyright owners to prove who was sitting at a particular computer at a specific time.
What is precedent setting in this case is that jurors told the woman that they didn't care who was sharing music on her computer.
"The answer that the court gave was 'It's your account, you're responsible," Castle said. "It's your screen name. You pay the bills. It's in your house. You are on the hook for it."
The recording industry has claimed to have lost billions to online file sharing. Ever since Napster cropped up in the late 1990s, the RIAA has been playing -- and some say -- losing a game of cat and mouse with file sharers.
It's important to note that the damages awarded to the RIAA in this case are not precedent setting, Castle said. Each court that hears a case like this must rule on the facts.
According to a story in Wired.com, the court could have awarded damages from between US$18,000 to over US$3 million.
Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman said that the money collected from Thomas will be reinvested back into the group's antipiracy program. "This is not a money-making venture," Lamy said.
About the verdict, Lamy said this: "This decision affirms what we've said all along. This kind of action is illegal and when people break the law there can be real consequences."
Like this article? Click below to send it to your mobile for free!
Dean
05/10/2007 07:42 PM
Brave but ultimately stupid.
Report offensive content
macca
08/10/2007 05:32 PM
I guess this means future out of court settlements will be much higher. Funny that such a petty case would be the first to go in front of a jury. This just makes the RIAA look stupid. The online community will raise the funds to pay Thomas' fine for her in no time at all!
Report offensive content