Just buy the CDs

[tinners]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm

A court in the US has ordered a woman to pay $222,000 (£109,000) in damages for illegally file-sharing music.The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song.

$9,000 a song, that's harsh ! I hope she got some good tunes.

[clearlyolly]

Does the punishment fit the crime? I think not.

[tinners]

24 songs ? If I put up my music collection of 800 CDs * 10 songs per CD = 8000 * $9,250 = £37,000,000
Am I glad I didnt do that.......

[Saracen]

There's an old adage .... "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

well, it's an analogy, since this was a civil lawsuit not a criminal case, but the same principle applies. And, of course, she could have done as many others have done and simply settled out of court. But no, she chose to fight and force a trial. Big mistake.

But even then, it looks like she may well have got off lightly. She was accused of sharing more than 1700 files, but this award was based on just 24. Imagine the potential if all 1700+ had been taken into account. At that $9,250/song rate, that's >$15,725,000.

And that's just for compensatory damages. The jury could have awarded punitive damages that, potentially, would have dwarfed the compensation. With the $150k per instance limit, that could have added $255 million to that award. Total potential exposure = approx $270 m.

Makes $220,000 seem like a bargain, don't it?

As for the damages, they're not based on what she gained by downloading 24 songs, but an assessment of what the music companies lost by her sharing them with others. So .... how many other people got them because she shared? If it's 1000, then it's $9.25 per share.

Oh, and bear in mind that this award came from a jury. It's not the music companies that decided the amount, or the judge. It's a jury.

She, of course, claims not to have done it. Well, maybe she didn't, but the jury didn't buy it.

She claims to have had a (convenient) hard drive failure, but there were (apparently) inconsistent claims from her. That the jury found against her and made an award like this strongly suggests they thought she was lying.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Well, it's compensation not a fine for a crime, and it's a jury's assessment of the losses incurred, so yeah, it would seem that it does. And the jury that sat through the trial and heard the evidence are better placed to judge if it fits or not than we are, without the benefit of the evidence.

As I said, "if you can't do the 'time', don't do the 'crime'".

[Paulm@scan]

Originally Posted by Saracen

There's an old adage .... "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".

She, of course, claims not to have done it. Well, maybe she didn't, but the jury didn't buy it.

No they probably downloaded it aswell

[clearlyolly]

"As for the damages, they're not based on what she gained by downloading 24 songs, but an assessment of what the music companies lost by her sharing them with others. So .... how many other people got them because she shared? If it's 1000, then it's $9.25 per share."

But does downloading a song/album constitute a lost sale? Were these people going to buy the songs otherwise? Who knows? Have people bought the songs/albums after illegaly downloading them?

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by clearlyolly

But does downloading a song/album constitute a lost sale? Were these people going to buy the songs otherwise? Who knows? Have people bought the songs/albums after illegaly downloading them?

That's for the jury to assess, though. And, it seems, they did.

[SilentDeath]

I think its compleatly wrong they they can ruin peoples lives over something that a large percent of the population will do and is imo not a morally wrong thing... people pirate becuase prices are far too high and the product is not good value.
If people buy music at those prices it also puts a huge limit on the size of your collection - which imo also limits creativity and is partially why %^*%%$% mass produced bands exist.

I also think you cannot put a value on the theft of a non physical item such as this. Microsoft made a very good example of what i mean why they said they are loosing some random number, in billions, from piracy in africa... yep like anyone in fammine is going to pass on what is probably a months worth of food so they can buy vista.

Oh, and bear in mind that this award came from a jury. It's not the music companies that decided the amount, or the judge. It's a jury.

stupid americans....

Originally Posted by tinners

24 songs ? If I put up my music collection of 800 CDs * 10 songs per CD = 8000 * $9,250 = £37,000,000
Am I glad I didnt do that.......

well 800 * the typical price of £13? (long time since i bought anything..) .. = £10,400... not THAT much less than £37,000,000....

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by SilentDeath

I think its compleatly wrong they they can ruin peoples lives over something that a large percent of the population will do and is imo not a morally wrong thing... people pirate becuase prices are far too high and the product is not good value.
If people buy music at those prices it also puts a huge limit on the size of your collection - which imo also limits creativity and is partially why %^*%%$% mass produced bands exist.

That you think the price is too high gives you the absolute right to refuse to buy. Price is determined in large part by supply and demand and if enough people agreed with you, prices would fall. But your belief that the price is too high does not give you any right, moral or legal, to pirate it, any more than the price of a Mercedes being too high gives you the right to go into a showroom and just take one.

And how does pirating encourage creativity? If anyone produces a piece of music and expects to get zero return from it, they can choose to make it public domain and give it away. There's ample opportunity for unrestrained creativity there. Bands are not forced to sign record company deals at gunpoint. The fact that they sign them demonstrates that they want a return and they think that's the best way of getting it. Of course, they can also bypass record companies and direct market themselves if they wish. If enough people prefer to do that, record companies will have to change strategy.

But at the moment, people sign up with record companies because by far the best chance of making it real big is to have the marketing and promotional muscle of record companies behind them. That is the artist's choice. So, how is creativity limited? There's nothing stopping you, or any band, avoiding record companies altogether and doing their own thing, at their own price (or free) if they choose.


As for ruining people's lives, people should take responsibility for their own actions, and for the consequences. This woman chose to share music illegally, and then chose to fight the court case rather than settle out of court. All she had to do to avoid that was to not fileshare.

Like it or not, it's illegal. The fact that a large percentage of the population does it simply suggests that they believe the chances of getting caught and/or held to account are small. But by that logic, we should all go out and rob a bank with a shotgun if we think we can get away with it without being caught.

She broke the law and got caught. A jury assessed what others had suffered and awarded damages accordingly. All she had to do to avoid that was not fileshare.

[tinners]

Originally Posted by SilentDeath

well 800 * the typical price of £13? (long time since i bought anything..) .. = £10,400... not THAT much less than £37,000,000....

theyre only £8 from the itunes store, and a load of them are cheap offer HMV 3 for a fiver etc. so not quite £10,000

[Splash]

Originally Posted by Saracen

She claims to have had a (convenient) hard drive failure, but there were (apparently) inconsistent claims from her. That the jury found against her and made an award like this strongly suggests they thought she was lying.

Just wanted to pick you up on this one - I've been keeping an eye loosely on this case for a while. As far as I'm aware the hard drive was replaced BEFORE she was informed of the action. Does this change the case? Not really in my eyes, but given the fact that the drive has been replaced has been used to imply guilt I thought this an important fact.

[TooNice]

Personally, I think there are moral grey areas when it comes to copyright law that the law do not fully take into account (abandonware, certain part of emulation, perhaps even fansubbing in some circumstances), but this really is not one of them. If you are caught filesharing then you can only really expect a guilty verdict. However, I do not fully agree with the punishment delivered.. or so called 'compensatory damage'. People should be responsible for their actions, but the punishment/compensation must be fitting of the crime. Otherwise, you might as well start handing out the death penalty/unlimited fine for every little thing. Could be effective population control.. just humanly questionable (even for the later).

Well, I recently sat my theory test (about time), so I've got my highway code on my table. Apart from causing death, or driving dangerously, all the fines I see on the able at limited to £5000 (including driving while unfit through drink or drugs). Somehow, I find that far more serious than the sharing of one song. The music industry might disagree, but seriously.. if $9250 per song is not punitive, I do not know what is.

Those who downloaded from her got away free, and she picked up the bills. I do not think that's particularly fair. It's probably easier than to chase after everyone who download, but I actually think that it is more appropriate that they slap 50x $5000 fines, than 1x $222,000 fines.

[Whiternoise]

I would have thought that something like a timed ban from being able to have a home internet connection is a fitting punishment (proportional to the extent of the sharing)?

$222k takes the proverbial **** to be perfectly honest. Fine, you stole music so you should be punished, but this is reminiscent of the time when the RIAA had the balls to ask allofmp3 for more than Russia's GDP because they were sharing music. http://www.zeropaid.com/news/8175/RIAA+sues+AllofMP3+for+$1.65+trillion and surely if you were fined that much, would it not just be fairer to take a 3-6 month jail sentence - especially if the poor sod who gets fined is obviously going to be screwed for life for listening to music?

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Splash

Just wanted to pick you up on this one - I've been keeping an eye loosely on this case for a while. As far as I'm aware the hard drive was replaced BEFORE she was informed of the action. Does this change the case? Not really in my eyes, but given the fact that the drive has been replaced has been used to imply guilt I thought this an important fact.

Well, according to the reports I read, the drive was swapped after she received the pre-action RIAA warning letter. But it has also been reported that her story about exactly when the drive was replaced changed between her initial claims in her deposition and her testimony at the trial. That's one of the "inconsistencies" I referred to. And both are formal, sworn legal procedures .... yet the story changed. That, I suspect, won't have helped her credibility with a jury.

But, clearly, I wasn't in court listening to the evidence. That's why I said that the jury (who were in court and presumably listening to the evidence) are better placed to judge than we are, based on a very brief and possible inaccurate media account of what the evidence was.

But ... regardless of when the drive was changed, the fluctuating account is suggestive, but no more than suggestive. I haven't said whether I thought she was guilty (in fact, rather than in law) or not, precisely because I won't judge her based on media accounts. My point was that the jury didn't believe her.

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by TooNice

Personally, I think there are moral grey areas when it comes to copyright law that the law do not fully take into account (abandonware, certain part of emulation, perhaps even fansubbing in some circumstances), but this really is not one of them. If you are caught filesharing then you can only really expect a guilty verdict. However, I do not fully agree with the punishment delivered.. or so called 'compensatory damage'. People should be responsible for their actions, but the punishment/compensation must be fitting of the crime. Otherwise, you might as well start handing out the death penalty/unlimited fine for every little thing. Could be effective population control.. just humanly questionable (even for the later).

Well, I recently sat my theory test (about time), so I've got my highway code on my table. Apart from causing death, or driving dangerously, all the fines I see on the able at limited to £5000 (including driving while unfit through drink or drugs). Somehow, I find that far more serious than the sharing of one song. The music industry might disagree, but seriously.. if $9250 per song is not punitive, I do not know what is.

Those who downloaded from her got away free, and she picked up the bills. I do not think that's particularly fair. It's probably easier than to chase after everyone who download, but I actually think that it is more appropriate that they slap 50x $5000 fines, than 1x $222,000 fines.

I hear where you're coming from, but the comparison with criminal fines isn't appropriate. Criminal fines are meant as a punishment. Civil compensatory damages are intended as compensation for someone's loss incurred as a result of your actions.

Suppose you're a successful author. Your last three books made £1m each. I then "pirate" the manuscript for your latest book three months before publication and release it onto the internet. As a result, when the book is published, you only make £200k. Is it a plausible assumption that my actions reduced the revenue you could reasonably expect to have made by £800k? If so, what figure would you want to compensate for that 'theft'? Note, "compensate". Not punish, but to compensate for the loss.

Sure, the analogy has weaknesses, but it suggests broad comparison. As for exactly how the $9250 per song was arrived at, ask the jury. Presumably, some sort of accounting analysis was done. I'm not suggesting that the reduced income technique in my book example is how this jury did it. But it illustrates how compensation for losses caused can be FAR in excess of any likely criminal penalties.

And if the damages are designed purely to compensate for loss incurred, then they aren't punitive, because that relates to an additional sum, on top of losses incurred, designed explicitly to send a message about the jury's view of the wrongness of the infringement.

[redlight]

I would think it would be down to the highly paid expert lawyers manipulating the jury.