Minneapolis (MN) - The US Department of Justice failed to side with Jammie Thomas in her appeal that called a $222,000 award to the RIAA unconstitutional.

Earlier this year Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, went to court over a lawsuit brought from the Recording Industry Association of America.  They accused her of illegally sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer program Kazaa.

The jury found Thomas guilty and ordered her to pay $9,250 for each offense, a total of $222,000.  Thomas appealed the verdict, saying that the record companies involved in the lawsuit did not actually incur that much in damages.

The Department of Justice this week rendered a decision on that appeal, siding with the RIAA.  It noted that the damages awarded fell under the guidelines in the Copyright Act, noting that it was to act both as a compensatory and a deterrent.

"Given the findings of copyright infringement in this case, the damages awarded under the Copyright Act's statutory damages provision did not violate the Due Process Clause," said the ruling.  

The case is considered a landmark because it is the first of its kind to actually go to court, setting a precedent in favor of the record companies.  Dozens of other lawsuits have been filed against online music pirates but with the exception of Thomas's case, all of been settled out of court.

Disgusting

Dec 05, 2007 05:50     

What a gross amount of money, this person isn't Limewire, it's a human being, a single mother, $222,000 dollars just makes me want to hurl, how can the courts and a JURY find that amount at all reasonable?
Revrant report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Shooting yourself in the foot

Dec 05, 2007 07:42     

Ever since the record companies have started these cases, I haven't bought a single album from them. I think a lot of people are just fed up with them and are doing the same. It isn't the fact that people are downloading the music, but that they really aren't putting out new and creative music anymore. The companies look at the possibility of money and reduce the music to mere formulas to get the most money with the least effort or risk. Most things in life are about risk. The bigger the risk the greater the potential payout, but also the bigger the potential hurt. Companies try to minimize that hurt by not taking risks and so stagnation rules until there arises a truly innovative company that beats them... and the process starts over again.

Spacemonkey report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Wow, glad I live in Canada

Dec 05, 2007 07:53     

This is utter complete crap... and their are undoubtedly going to be repercussions for RIA. You can't expect to sue your customers and then stay in business.
LORD ORION report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Our Legal System at work...

Dec 05, 2007 08:08     

At least the RIAA can keep themselves in business with their lawsuit winnings. They surely won't do it selling albums after people finally realize we can do without them.
Wow report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

money buys justice

Dec 05, 2007 08:28     

It is clear to me RIAA must have paid and lobbied for the appeal as well.
geeg report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Spacemonkey isn't the only one

Dec 05, 2007 08:31     

With free music available (download.com) and great radio stations (pandora.com), who needs to buy music? Soon, most of the musicians will find the freedom of doing what Radiohead did. Even if they don't sell as many albums/songs, they still make MUCH more song per dollar vs letting the RIAA take most of their money. Pretty soon, they will NEED their $200K from this poor woman in order to stay in business! BTW spacemonkey, you on Caraudioforums.com?

NoDestiny report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Everything should be free

Dec 05, 2007 08:37     

Isn't it unfair for the owners of a product to not want it stolen, when people really, really want to steal it? If they REALLY, REALLY want to steal it, then their wish should be granted. Right? I mean, that's the way shoplifting works right? You get to keep what you've stolen if you really, really want it, and you get to choose your penalty if you get caught. Don't you?
A Consumer report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

lets stops buying music. don't need it. radio is fr...

Dec 05, 2007 08:43     

lets stops buying music. don't need it. radio is free.
andy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

This is not right!!! Greedy Bastages...

Dec 05, 2007 08:52     

What is fair about this? This is not within this person's welfare. If I liked an artist I would buy their album to support them. I'll never buy an album again. I'd say a deterrent.
Jon Stacey report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Ridiculous

Dec 05, 2007 09:12     

The only album I've purchased since hearing about RIAA's shenanigans has been Radiohead’s “In Rainbows”. I hope more artists decide to distribute privately instead of hopping on the RIAA Mafia’s bandwagon. Though I do support the idea behind Copyright laws, I find the $9250/song absolutely appalling. If I were a recording artist and someone was peddling my intellectual property, I’d just ask that they pay the equivalent of one CD / offense. Anything more is just unreasonable and unfriendly.

Vasily Grigoryevich Zaitsev report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

It wasn't her's to share

Dec 05, 2007 09:20     

Uh, it wasn't hers to share in the first place. Uh, she chose a jury. Uh, it was copyright infringement, not theft so the intrinsic value of a track has very little to nothing to do with it . Uh, the award was STATUTORY in nature, not COMPENSATORY. Uh, there was the potential that 10's or 100's of thousands of copies are distributed by her actions alone. Neither government,RIAA,jury has to be burdened with proving how far reaching the unprovable is. Objective fact is the content that wasn't hers to share was indeed shared by her. Ms. Thompson played a very dangerous game and lost.

Mark report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Haven't bought an album in 7 years

Dec 05, 2007 09:24     

And I have no desire to ever buy music again. The few songs that i'd want to hear are played on the radio and over the internet. So what's the difference between downloading songs and recording off the radio? fuck the riaa.
chris report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Totally Excessive

Dec 05, 2007 10:03     

Talk about over kill. It is totally excessive for the RIAA to sue for that amount.
TomLeeM/BigWarpGuy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

She caused this and probably screwed us all

Dec 05, 2007 11:06     

She brought this upon herself, from what I read she looked guilty all the way around from replacing her hard drive to having an email with the same name as her Kazaa account tereastarr, now she set a precedent with a weak case in the first place,
Agitated report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Umm

Dec 05, 2007 11:11     

Last I checked the US DOJ didn't decide appeals in US District courts. Perhaps what you meant was that the DOJ sided with the RIAA in an amicus brief.
J report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

She's a criminal

Dec 05, 2007 12:21     

Regardless of all the opinions, she is a criminal and she deserve's to be punished. I do think the fine seems excessive compared to some fines for other crimes. The system was in place when she broke the law, so she must pay. The record industry is one huge corporate black hole and the RIAA seems to be a form of secret police, but they are there to protect the artists. The artists don't receive what they deserve (pennies per CD, literally), but stealing from the artists to punish the record companies will not help. If you want to stop the corporate bullshit and support the musicians, go see live music and buy CD's and merchandise from the bands. Stop stealing music from the internet, stop bellyaching about the man and go out and experience life first hand. The internet, video games, chat rooms and comment boards are all just fog that separate us from reality. The younger generations are not exposed to enough reality to know how to survive in this difficult world and coexist peacefully with other people. You follow the rules or you change the rules. You don't just break them. JB Buffalo, NY

JB report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

I agree with you Consumer

Dec 05, 2007 12:28     

I completely agree with you A Consumer. First off, everyone in here has their own opinion...and I assume most people to agree the amount of money is inflammatory. I do not recall, but did this lady have the option to settle out of court...which would have cost her less money? Before we support her, first we should ask ourselves: Did she break the law? Yes. Could she have settled out of court? I don't know the answer to this.

Mean Mr. Mustard report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

A Consumer again

Dec 05, 2007 15:32     

I watched cable TV for free for 7 years at a residence I had, because the cable TV company had never disconnected it from the previous owner. Was I stealing - yes. Did I know I could be subject to a penalty - yes. Could the penalty have been substantial - possibly. I didn't try to justify it by saying, "the cable company is mean", or "I didn't ask for it, I can't help it if they are sending it to me." I knew it was stealing and I might get caught and penalized. That's how it works. They don't say "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" for nothing. And P.S.: I certainly didn't try to justify stealing cable because the quality of the programming was low - that's even more ridiculus.

A Consumer report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

@ Mustard, JB & consumer

Dec 05, 2007 16:04     

You guys are right! She is a criminal! And she got what she deserves! As a matter of fact I think they went too easy on her. I don’t think $222,000 for allegedly downloading 9 songs is enough. She is a criminal! They should have cut of her hand! That is what they do in the Middle East for stealing right? So why stop at just fining her. It is because of people like you that the economy is the way that it is, and its not getting any better any time soon. You guys side with multi billion dollar industry against a single mother whose salary is less the 40k. Not but she is a criminal! I say lets cut of her hands! And afterwards there is some old lady down the street who I swear is doing witch craft. I say we go burn her at the stake! And this girl I know, cheated on her boyfriend. I say we go stone her! What she allegedly did was wrong. But the fines imposed on her is absolutely ridiculous. All in the name of the mighty dollar. Makes me glad I’m not American.

Rob in Hood report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

@ Rob in Hood

Dec 05, 2007 17:33     

I totally agree with you Rob in Hood, I am glad you are not an American, as well.
actually... report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +1

JB... your wrong

Dec 05, 2007 18:09     

if everybody just follows the rules, then you have lost your freedom and your liberty. your a criminal to humanity.
R report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

fift grade problem

Dec 05, 2007 18:41     

Five friends walk on the street with five iPODS/MP3 players and they all have the same 5 000 songs on each player. Problem: how many criminals we count here accordingly to RIAA "laws"?
PC boy report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

She got what she deserved...

Dec 05, 2007 18:52     

They gave her the chance to come clean beforehand and pay a much smaller amount but she refused. She should have just accepted responsibility and payed her dues...Now she looks like a real idiot and has wasted even more money.
NutZ report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

musicians don't make money. these motherf*ckers do....

Dec 05, 2007 23:44     

musicians don't make money. these motherf*ckers do. DOWN WITH RIAA
bah report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

we are trained like a dogs by RIAA

Dec 06, 2007 07:27     

RIAA use method of "stick" and sending to us "message" instead to verify incompatibility of their “suing ordinary people for nothing” business formula with our society. This is excessive punishment, and it used similar to terrorists’ way to change our behavior. If we buy songs we can do with it we can do everything we want with it but copying big labels business selling faked CDs etc. If we buy tool at homedepot we can use it to make profit and homedepot cannot dictate us how to use it, The only problem for RIAA is counterfeited product such as CDs coming in millions from other parts of the world. If we buy license, they only what RIAA can do is revoking license and taking songs back.

member of society report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

Who really is the criminal

Dec 06, 2007 08:29     

Direct from the RIAA's web site: "ONLINE PIRACY - provide the URL of, or link to, the site or service you believe is engaging in music piracy. If the site or service does not have a URL, requires software to access, operates on a local area network (LAN) or has specific operation requirements, please provide information sufficient for us to investigate. You may also include names of individuals or other entities associated with the site or service, if known." Basically, if u think there is piracy, give us all the info we need to access the system or systems, including usernames and passwords if need be. So it seems to me the RIAA is not above acting in a criminal manner by taking usernames and passwords to gain access in order to investigate. However if anyone else were to do this it is a prison sentence for id theft regardless of the reason. It all starts with this basic of information and boom on your way to stealing someones online identity.

parrdacc report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

It's not about the artists

Dec 07, 2007 12:43     

JB, The RIAA don't give a flying freek about the artists. This is the way they spin the PR. They represent Music Publishers. Pure and simple. That said, if you steal stuff, you get punished. This was a civil proceeding, lucky her. She can probably declare bankruptcy and the whole thing is over. If you steal a CD from a store, you could go to jail. However, I see nothing wrong with ripping a CD or DVD--that I own--into my computer so I can watch it conveniently through my set-top rather than having to run downstairs to find the movie or album that I want. I own it and as long as I don't sell or give copies to others while I keep the original (and my copies), then I am supposedly covered under "Fair Use." I have a problem when they start DRMing everything so I can't use it fairly. As is quite obvious, DRM does not stop illegal activity. It does however criminalize (with the Millenium Act)what would be legal behavior in any other medium. Are they going to storm my house and haul me off to court because I copied a page out of a cookbook so I wouldn't get the book dirty in the Kitchen? Same thing.

Paul (The Other One) report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

This article is downright wrong

Dec 07, 2007 18:15     

She didn't lose her appeal. The Department of Justice does not decide her appeal. The Either Circuit Court of Appeals decides her appeal. The Department of Justice just decided to back the record labels on her appeal. Absolutely horrible "reporting."
mike report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

JB.....She's a criminal

Jan 21, 2008 17:01     

JB you're right on the money, ignore the little thieves that post here.
Stop stealing music you f**ks! report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0

the likes of Rob in Hood and R

Jan 24, 2008 01:08     

They believe stealing is perfectly okay. I think I'll exercise my freedom and break into their house and take whatever is in there that I want. Some reason, I don't think they would, after finding out their home has been stripped, that they would cheer me on for exercising my freedom to break laws or rules against their home. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
Redraider report abuse vote down vote up Votes: +0