Would you pay $80,000 for a music download?

newsguy 0 412 Views

Seems like a silly question, right? But $80,000 per track is exactly how much Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a single mother from Minneapolis, has been charged. Well, I say charged but actually she was fined this amount for each of 24 songs downloaded via a file-sharing site at the end of a jury trial which found her to be liable for wilful copyright infringement in every case.

The $1.92 million in damages for the four record labels involved sets a new record, if you will excuse the pun. Her attorney told reporters he was angry about the damages, but Thomas-Rasset was more laid back and insisted that the recording industry would find that getting the money from her would be like "squeezing blood from a turnip."

Indeed, an RIAA spokesperson has even hinted that the industry may not even bother collecting the fines by saying it had been willing to settle from day one and remained "willing to do so." Could the recording industry be scared of stirring up even more surrounding how the music business deals with individuals who illegally download and share music.

Still, it could have been worse as the jury could have imposed a maximum $150,000 per infringement in such a case under the terms of the Copyright Act. Some, of course, might point out that it already is worse: than her first trial on the same charges that is. Then the total in damages came to just $9000 per song, some $1.7 million less than the fine imposed by this second trial jury.

Dani AI

Generated

A quick, practical summary of the Thomas‑Rasset story and what the headline numbers actually mean.

A federal jury in Duluth found Jammie Thomas‑Rasset liable for willful copyright infringement of 24 songs and in June 2009 returned an $80,000‑per‑song verdict (about $1.92 million total), which is where the “$80,000 for a download” headline comes from. (arstechnica.com)

Statutory damages under the Copyright Act give juries wide discretion (generally $750–$30,000 per work, and up to $150,000 for willful infringement), so very large jury awards are legally possible — but they are not the last word. The district judge later found the $1.92M award “shocking” and used remittitur to cut it to $54,000 (offering plaintiffs a choice between the reduced award or a new damages trial); the case went through a third damages trial and then to the Eighth Circuit, which ultimately directed entry of a more modest judgment ($222,000) and a broader injunction. Key dates: June 2009 (verdict), Jan 22, 2010 (remittitur order), Nov 2010 (third damages trial), and the Eighth Circuit decision filed Sept 11, 2012. (law.cornell.edu)

Practical takeaway for this thread: is right that the $80,000 headline is shocking; is right that enforcement can have real consequences — but the legal process often narrows headline awards through judicial review, remittitur, retrial, and appeal, and many RIAA suits ended in settlements rather than collection of sky‑high verdicts. For anyone facing a similar threat the sensible course is to obtain counsel promptly, preserve evidence, and respond through the courts rather than ignoring the matter. (eff.org)

Member Avatar for TradeYourAsset
TradeYourAsset 0 Newbie Poster

I'd rather not, but it's already the verdict, so she has to suffer the consequences. At least, the law of anti-piracy here is active. So anyone who will do the same act like she did, will now be aware.

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.

Edit Preview