ZDNet Government

David Gewirtz

Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

By Richard Koman | July 6, 2009, 11:07am PDT

Jammie Thomas-Rasset will appeal that almost $2 million verdict for having 24 songs available over Kazaa, P2PNet reports. Here’s what she told the site:

Will they be answered in my favor? I truly hope so because then every other person who has been targeted in the RIAA’s litigation campaign might have a better fighting chance.

I will admit this battle is wearing me rather thin, but I have to continue as I don’t know of anyone else to have ever reached this point, and we might help to establish a more fair set of laws in a new digital age.

I didn’t ask for this, it was thrust upon me by the RIAA and now they get to deal with the consequences of their extortion litigation tactics of using the law as a hammer to squish innocent bystanders in their war against everything new and not under their control.

Wish me luck.

Meanwhile, Richard Marx, whose “Now and Forever” was one of the songs in Thomas-Rasset’s folder, offered apologies for being associated with this particular travesty of justice.

As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels.

These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.

So now we have a “judgment” in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive.

Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I’m ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “ZDNet Government”

NSA will monitor private-sector networks

DOJ confirms Google Books investigation

Topics

RIAA, Music, Litigation, Business Operations, Richard Koman

Full Bio
Disclosure
Contact

Vendor HotSpot

The 360° Conversation around Cloud Computing

TECH VISUALIZER brings the social conversation to life... powered by Brocade

Learn More »

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?

Ask a Question Start a Discussion

Comments

Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Follow via:: RSS; Email Alert

Just In

Jury Award

JJ Brannon 7th Jul 2009

What it tells me is that the jury members were idiots.

Full disclosure: back in the 90s & early Naughts, I ran KazaaLite to download MP3 copies of songs I already owned on vinyl, cassette or 8-track because the digital-conversion process took too damn long with the slower processors back then and was unwieldy with the necessary cabling.

I took the precaution of moving all the MP3s out of the expected Kazaa folder so that there were no uploads possible.

Technically, I used the service to copy music I already owned legitimately and sidestepped distribution.

Today, I have an Ion USB turntable for my vinyl and a faster processing workstation to digitize my own music library.

I'll support the RIAA just as soon they provide complete transparency in accounting to the artists.

Someone made the statement about the respondent in this case not paying the creators for their works. That applies more so to the RIAA and the labels.

Just ask Janis Ian.

JJB

JJB

View in thread

Please Select
Please Select

0 Votes

+ -

She sure did ask for it.

ye Updated - 6th Jul 2009

By sharing copyright protected songs. She should stop trying to blame the RIAA for her predicament. Regardless of the appropriateness or not of the $1.9M award two juries have found her guilty of willful infringement. Own up to it and take whatever settlement offer the RIAA is bound to make.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Guilty as sin... but it's not my fault.

Fark Updated - 6th Jul 2009

"I didn't ask for this, it was thrust upon me by the RIAA..." - - I only knowingly and willfully stole someones elses property, this whole getting caught business is on the RIAA. IF they weren't looking, none of this would have happened.

"...and now they get to deal with the consequences of their extortion litigation tactics of using the law as a hammer to squish innocent bystanders in their war against everything new and not under their control." - - I'm somehow innocent because stealing music is legal. Wait, what?

This is such a crock. She should beg the RIAA for a reduced settlement and agree to be the poster child for "thou shall not steal."

Waste of the courts time and taxpayer money to keep appealing. YOU DID THE CRIME - NOW PAY THE PIPER!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

super_J 6th Jul 2009

Actually, the appeal is going to bring up technical issues which show that she can't be proven to have violated any copyright, or illegal sharing/downloading.

In any case 1.9 million for 24 songs is ludicrous, farcical, and immoral, even if she did do it.

The market value for those songs are, at most, $24. And the amount of people who downloaded from her machine, if it did indeed occur, is purely speculative and unprovable.

Also, forcing settlement amounts to extortion. The RIAA should be forced to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone has indeed infringed. And they can't. They're just using the flawed laws as an extortion racket, because few of the people they sue can afford the attorney's fees to defend themselves, and are forced to pay $3-4000.

Remember, the RIAA has sued grandmas, dead people and other innocents.

And, has any of their settlement money gone to artists? Nope. Not one dime.

The bigger issue is the outdated business model the members of the RIAA are trying to protect. With the internet, and affordable software for recording material, and the ability to promote through other means, have all rendered the "service" that the big record companies provide to be completely useless. Really, the big record companies provide absolutely nothing of value to society. They only artifically inflate music prices, attack and inconvenience innocents and paying customers alike, exploit artists, and otherwise get in the way of great artists and the listening public.

And the members of the RIAA are unwilling to change with the times and technology, and try to reinvent themselves to provide value to both artists and the music buying public alike.

They are using cases like this one to intimidate the public into keep using their outdated business model.

And I'm saying this as someone who buys regularly from eMusic and Amazon MP3, and I never share my music in public folders. I'm completely against stealing of people's hard work. But I'm even more against the extortion and bullying and exploiting that is the members of the RIAA.

May they experience a very swift demise. The music industry will surely flourish in their absense.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

super_J 6th Jul 2009

To those saying she's "guilty as sin", consider this from the link provided:

"Questions that didn?t come up in this trial include:

* whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded
* whether the RIAA?s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators
* what her own technical expert witness found
* whether the RIAA?s technical expert?s procedures and findings were sound
* what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual ?distribution? of copyrighted music files
* what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages

That was a lot to leave off the table in such a trial, we would think.

Therefore, forget the courtroom theatre, including the RIAA cartel companies? wailing that this defendant, at the time a single mother, somehow must pay penalties of nearly $2 million, and Thomas-Rasset?s performance as the defendant in the witness box where she showed her anguish at all of the one-sided proceedings against her.

No, this trial was merely the prologue for the real battle, which we believe will be played out in the appellate courts. Jammie Thomas-Rasset?s lawyers are, we think, playing a long game, and we?ll see how that all works out, over several more years."

'nuff said.

Sorry, in this country you innocent until proven guilty. In a civil trial, that's not the case. But nonetheless, with the above list of very important elements being left out of the trial, the trial was a complete, absolute, farce.

Thomas-Rasset is far from "Guilty as sin". Fark and ye, let's hope you never have this happen to you. It could easily happen to you, me, and anyone, thanks to things like DHCP (which ISPs use), and IP spoofing, or simple hacking. The RIAA is free to sue anyone they wish, without any evidence whatsoever.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Uh yes, they did come up.

ye Updated - 6th Jul 2009

*whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded

The RIAA did provide evidence as much.

* whether the RIAA?s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators

Brought up prior to trial and ruled Media Sentry did not need to be licensed as a PI.

* what her own technical expert witness found

She did have her own technical expert witness testify to what he found.

* whether the RIAA?s technical expert?s procedures and findings were sound

Not sure if this was brought up or not but if it was not the failing was on her attorneys and not the system/RIAA.

* what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual ?distribution? of copyrighted music files

Wasn't that the whole point of the trial?

* what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages

I don't believe they have to establish facts in order to claim statutory damages. All that's required is for the RIAA to ask.

In my opinion there is absolutely no doubt she infringed. It's not even in question. I can see taking issues with the size of the damage award. But for her to pretend she wasn't infringing and this is all the RIAA out to get her is an insult to the intelligence of any rational person.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Sources?

super_J 6th Jul 2009

I'm not saying your wrong, because my source was from P2PNet reports (linked in original article), and they have their own agenda. But can you site sources that validate your claims?

Apart from that, let me ask you this:

Have ever done any peer to peer file sharing or downloading?

Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?

Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?

Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?

Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?

Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?

If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.

Remember, Peer to Peer, unto itself, is completely legal, and is used for many completely legitimate and legal activities.

In other words, p2p is fine, just like roads are. Just because bankrobbers can use roads to get away, does not mean roads themselves are bad.

I really suspect that if there were no grounds for appeal, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers would not attempt such an endeavor. They would advice on a settlement. They would not continue on a fools errand, even if their only motivation is publicity. Ultimately, they need victories for their clients, and to bring in money (not the case here, as they are doing it pro-bono).

I really think that the trial was completely one sided, with the jury and judge hand-picked by the RIAA.

0 Votes

+ -

ok...

Fark 6th Jul 2009

Have ever done any peer to peer file sharing or downloading?
***No.

Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?
***No.

Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?
***No.

Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?
***Such as? Drivers, sure. I have downloaded things from tech sites that are free to download (freeware from cnet, that kind of thing).

Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?
***Depends on what it is? Condsidering the amount of crap send via e-mail, I don't open attachments unless they are from people I know. And most of my friends agree you pay for what you take.

Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?
***Legally ripped data via Zune Player - sure.

If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.
***Doubt it highly.

0 Votes

+ -

You can find a lot of good information at Ars Technica.

ye 6th Jul 2009

Here is a link:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars

At the bottom are five links covering the trial.

As to your questions:

Have ever done any peer to peer file sharing or downloading?

No

Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?

No

Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?

No

Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?

Yes

Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?

Yes

Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?

Yes, all legal

If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.

This is a lousy case to hold up as an example of extortion. There is no doubt in my mind she was infringing. Two juries found her liable for willful copyright infringement. While I agree the RIAA has targeted some very questionable people she is not one of them.

The only thing left to discuss about this case is the size of the damage award. Her liability is a point which has already been decided.

0 Votes

+ -

Won't happen to me...

Fark 6th Jul 2009

I don't steal music or software. My interal network is as secure as possible. More importantly, my family is taught the value of hard work and not to steal said work from others. If you want to product, you pay for it. If the price doesn't warrant the value of the product, don't buy it. It's VERY simple logic.

I think I'm safe from RIAA boogiemen!

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Sorry ...

super_J 6th Jul 2009

but you're not safe from them. Getting sued by them is about as likely as being struck by lightning or being attacked by a shark, but it still could happen.

By the way, I don't steal music either. All of my digital music on my computer is either ripped from my extensive, legally purchased CD collection, or purchased from Amazon or eMusic. My family is taught the value of hard work and not to steal from others, just like you.

Which is why I'm against the RIAA on this one (and in all cases, really). Extortion has nothing to do with hard work. Just because you have deep pockets and can afford the best lawyers doesn't mean you can haphazzardly, indiscriminately ruin the financial lives of people that are often quite innocent.

Btw - Thomas-Rasset has a collection of over 200 CDs (the fact is in the link I provided).

If she has spent that much money on that many CDs, why would she willfully, illegally download or share 24 songs?

What is the motive?

I could see ignorant mistake, or her boyfriend or kids screwing around on her computer as being plausible (or someone hacking her machine, or IP spoofing, or something else).

But willful infringement, when she is a huge, legal customer of CDs? That is completely implausible and nonsensical.

Fact is, Thomas-Rasset is a great customer of of the Big 4 (the main members of the RIAA).

The RIAA is literally biting the hand that feeds it.

And if the RIAA continues with this course, they will drive both artists and consumers away from their wares.

0 Votes

+ -

Try ~1,700 songs.

ye 6th Jul 2009

If she has spent that much money on that many CDs, why would she willfully, illegally download or share 24 songs?

The RIAA only pursued her for 24 of them.

0 Votes

+ -

formats

super_J 6th Jul 2009

Again, those 1700 songs were in WMA format, not MP3. And she has a collection of over 200 CDs, which she legally purchased.

0 Votes

+ -

And?

ye 6th Jul 2009

Again, those 1700 songs were in WMA format, not MP3. And she has a collection of over 200 CDs, which she legally purchased.

0 Votes

+ -

Not just 24 songs...

Fark 6th Jul 2009

So she has 200 CD's? GREAT! Those artists got paid for their work.
The other artists who didn't? It's ok to screw them because she bought other guys work? That makes no sense.

The question of 'Should the RIAA go after a woman who is actively buying CD's' is a good question, just not the question at hand.

Did she steal the work of some artists? Yes. The law says you can't steal - and then lays out a price range for said theft.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Music (especially the crap they are pumping out now) is not worth jail or huge penalties.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

super_J 6th Jul 2009

from the following link ...
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars :

But the outrage isn't confined to the blogosphere. The Washington lobby group CCIA, backed by AMD, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and others, calls the verdict "ridiculous."

"Our copyright laws are overbroad, being misused and enforced with a zeal out of proportion to common sense," said CEO Ed Black. "When Sony BMG massively and illegally distributed music CDs containing spyware that compromised individual users' computer security and infected government and military networks worldwide, the FTC only ordered them in 2007 to reimburse end-users up to $150 for computer damages. Yet when Ms. Thomas shared 24 songs belonging to Sony BMG and other labels on the Internet, she was penalized $80,000 for each single track."

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

I agree the penalty is too high...

Fark 6th Jul 2009

I agree the penalty is too stiff, which is why she should throw herself on the mercy of the RIAA and cut a deal. They will lower the judgement if she asks nicely and agrees to help them with anti-piracy (I'm just guessing here, but they have lowered the settlements before and it's a good PR move).

Saying the reward is too high is fine - saying she's done nothing wrong is totally insane.

Remember, they only went after her for 24 songs - the easiest 24 to prove - she had downloaded and shared many hundreds more. Even if all the stuff she stole was tallied, the judgement is huge, but sometimes the courts make a statement about willfully breaking the law.

Madoff got 150 years... he MIGHT live another 12 if he has no 'issues' in jail (or a lot less if he's ever in general-population as some convicts hate people who prey on the elderly and childen).

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Again, look at the Ars details of the trial ...

super_J 6th Jul 2009

... it's far from conclusive that she definitely infringed.

Yeah, they focused on 24 songs. But many of the other songs were death metal, something the a 30 yr old mother of two is highly unlikely to be into. Also, the stuff she ripped from her 200+ CD collection was done in WMA format (a default when you use Windows Media player), not MP3, which is the format used in the alledged infringement.

0 Votes

+ -

It is in my opinion.

ye 6th Jul 2009

it's far from conclusive that she definitely infringed.

You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.

0 Votes

+ -

Bold statement. Back it up

super_J 6th Jul 2009

What evidence do you know about the case to back up that statement?

Just repeating something does not make it true.

Again, read the Ars link I provided. It's an unbiased article about the stages of the trial, from jury selection to Attourny summations and Jury verdict. And there is plenty in there to give reasonable doubt about her guilt.

0 Votes

+ -

I have the information from the two trials and the reporting...

ye 6th Jul 2009

...of several web sites.

Just repeating something does not make it true.

I agree. Good thing for me I have facts presented at trial and two independent jury verdicts to back me up.

0 Votes

+ -

They linked

Fark 6th Jul 2009

Her IP address - to the Music - to her Kazaa account. They linked the Kazaa account to her because she used the same USER NAME on multiple sites (I think) like Paypal and Yahoo.

It's her account, unless a by a miracle another user on her IP address used her standard User Name. Her Account was matched to the music being downloaded via IP address and ISP records.

How do you think she didn't do it? Give me the scenario where she's innocent (not where she can't be proven guilty)?

A hacker breaks into her machine and installs Kazaa. Monitors he web traffic to get her common user name across multiple platforms. Uses it to steal music and frame the defendant. The woman doesn't notice major traffic on her machine - doesn't notice the new applications running 24/7 - doesn't notice the new files on her machine. She's a complete bystander in this frame up, right?

What's more likely - Woman installs Kazaa and uses her standard user name and steals some music thinking she'll just grab a few tracks and never get caught.

0 Votes

+ -

Ever hear of phishing?

super_J 6th Jul 2009

... it's easy to steel someone's account info via phishing attacks.

0 Votes

+ -

@super_J: And of the IP address?

ye 6th Jul 2009

Did they fish that too?

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

super_J 6th Jul 2009

Fascinating - please read.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars

Follow all of the links for each stage of the trial.

Based on this detailed account of the proceedings, it's hard for me to fathom why the jury would come down so hard on Thomas-Rasset, or conclusively rule in favor of the plaintiffs. The first page, about jury selection, kind of sums it up. No techies there, no-one really familiar with the technology.

I'd say there are lot's grounds for appeal.

One other point. Throughout the trial(s), the possibility of her computer being hacked was never brought up.

That has to be a strong possibility. If someone wanted to illegally share MP3s, wouldn't they rather hack someone else's machine to store the MP3s, than store them on their own machine?

And BTW - the defense never got the chance to bring up their own technical analysis, nor was the question of the soundness of the MediaSentry methods brought up. That's very important, because MediaSentry has a very shady reputation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaSentry

"In January 2009, the RIAA canceled their usage of MediaSentry for undisclosed reasons."

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

Hacking?

Fark 6th Jul 2009

Think about all the steps needed to do what you're talking about.

Seriously, plot in your mind what needs to be done to hack someones machine, run Kazaa for months undetected, and then get the data off her machine.

Wouldn't it be easier to get said music ANY other way?

If you're playing devils advocate, Kudos! If you think this woman DIDN'T steal - then I hope you never produce a product worth paying for because you're reality shift might hurt people around you.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

That's how I earn my living ..

super_J 6th Jul 2009

... I work for a proprietary software company. Companies regularly pay $5000 + for the product, plus $500 + per client license, plus $1500 + for annual support.

I'm all for protecting intellecual property. Selling and supporting software is how I support my wife and kids.

I also think that if my company wanted to start suing people who haven't paid fairly (and I'm sure there are some, because our authorization process is far from full-proof), it would be business suicide for us to go on a extortion/suing campaign.

Plus, I just don't think there is enough evidence to rule against Thomas-Rasset. She may have indeed done it, but there isn't enough to prove it, IMHO. And the amount was draconian, and beyond reason.

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

super_J 6th Jul 2009

If MediaSentry's method's were sound, why did the RIAA dump them?

And if MediaSentry's method's were not sound, and the RIAA used their testimony has principle evindence against Thomas-Rasset, how could the jury rule in favor of the plaintiffs? More importantly, how could they demand $80,000 per song?

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

jerry@... Updated - 6th Jul 2009

That they are using civil court is a problem with me. If it is illegal, a crime, then the person should do the time (or pay the fine) if found guilty in criminal court.

But to have a system where the "crime" is punishable by such large sums is ludicrous and grossly unfair to ruin a person's whole live, make them homeless, and property-less for the rest of their life as they try to pay the judgment. I know that is extreme as most negotiate a lower amount but even $25,000 is more than most people could afford even if they had 20 yr. payments.

So criminalize it if the majority think it fair just like any other "crime" but to allow civil judgments of this amount just to scare others is a misuse of the legal system IMO and should be illegal itself.

If I "borrowed" my neighbor's riding lawn mower, mowed my yard, and let another neighbor mow their yard, I could and probably would be arrested for B&E felony since most riding mowers cost over $2,000 but after doing the time is it fair for the neighbor to sue me in civil court and take EVERYTHING I own plus attach all my income for the rest of my life in order to pay a multi-million dollar judgment?

I think not. I know that Pre-Law 101 does say that the law is not always fair but it is the law enacted by the people we chose to represent us. So the answer to ?unfair laws? is to change the law through our representatives but when the reps are in the pocket of the very people who stand to gain from the unfair law the little guy has no hope for redress.

EDITED TO ADD: It appears that this woman has admitted to "stealing" the songs and having them available for others to "steal". So she's admitted the criminal act and is disputing the civil tort law that enabled this judgement.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

She admitted guilt?

super_J 6th Jul 2009

If that is the case, I take back a lot of what I've posted here. If you have a link, it would be appreciated.

But I agree with the rest of your post. The financial reward to the plaintiff is draconian, and beyond what the "crime" justifies, and is clearly being misused for extortion by the super wealthy RIAA members with the help of them lobbying politicians.

And then there is "fair use". You should be able to borrow your neighbor's lawn mower.

Finally, if someone can be slapped with such a huge fine on such flimsy evidence, then we should all take pause. The RIAA can and will and has already used this nonsense for their massive extortion scheme.

Again, nobody is advocating or condoning stealing intellectual property. But we should all fight against extortion.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict

gunner221 6th Jul 2009

She was wrong to have downloaded and allowed distribution of these songs. But RIAA is doing itself and the music industry a great disservice by their heavy handed approach. They are alienating music fans who may now feel justified to " stick it to the music industry ". Suing Ms.Thomas-Rasset for nearly two million dollars is absurd. I guess they were trying to send a message but it backfired because of their unreasonable actions. I hope her appeal wins and her fine is reduced to a reasonable amount.

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

The only reasonable fine would be ...

super_J Updated - 6th Jul 2009

... at most 10 times the market value of the alleged stolen songs - 24 songs at $0.99 a song X 10 = $240.
wink

Reply
Flag

0 Votes

+ -

They didn't sue her for $1.9 million. They jury awarded...

ye Updated - 7th Jul 2009

...that amount. The RIAA said they would abide but whatever amount the jury awarded. The jury could have awarded a mere $750/infringement but they opted for $80K/infringement. That alone should tell you something.