By JOSHUA FREED, Associated Press Writer
Fri Oct 5, 6:15 AM ET



The recording industry hopes $222,000 will be enough to dissuade music lovers from downloading songs from the Internet without paying for them. That's the amount a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay for sharing copyrighted music online.

"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our recordings is not OK," Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music companies that sued the woman, said Thursday after the three-day civil trial in this city on the shore of Lake Superior.

In closing arguments he had told the jury, "I only ask that you consider that the need for deterrence here is great."

Jammie Thomas, 30, a single mother from Brainerd, was ordered to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.

It was the first time one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders had gone to trial. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars, but Thomas decided she would take them on and maintained she had done nothing wrong.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."

Toder said the plaintiff's attorney fees are automatically awarded in such judgments under copyright law, meaning Thomas could actually owe as much as a half-million dollars. However, he said he suspects the record companies "will probably be people we can deal with."

Gabriel said no decision had yet been made about what the record companies would do, if anything, to pursue collecting the money from Thomas.

The record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a Kazaa account.

Since 2003, record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits over file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music for free instead of paying for recordings in stores.

During the trial, the record companies presented evidence they said showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name "tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.

Toder said in his closing argument that the companies never proved "Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these things."

"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do this."

Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages in a middle range; Gabriel said they did not explain the amount to attorneys afterward. Jurors left the courthouse without commenting.

Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders to come to trial.

Illegal downloads have "become business as usual. Nobody really thinks about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are out there trying to protect our rights."

Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place — and later than she said in a deposition before trial.

The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party.

The record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February 2005 warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive was replaced the following month, not in 2004 as she said in the deposition.

"I don't think the jury believed my client regarding the events concerning the replacement of the hard drive," Toder said.

The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.

Wow...I don't think i'll be downloading songs anytime soon...That's insane. I think that judgement was too harsh, though.

They offered a settlement for a couple thousand dollars, but she rejected the offer and took them to court. On top of the $220,000 is her $60,000 lawyer fees.

If it were me, I would have taken the plea...stupid woman.

well

the record companies

needed a judgment anyway

now i will have something

to show the idiot

that says all i have to do

is download it

when they request

a song i do not have

The RIAA are a bunch of money grubbing scum anyway. But I'm sure there will be good samaritans to help out the mother because no normal working class person can afford that much against them.

You know maybe if artists started making good music, than there wouldn't all this downloading, just IMO.

so if you build a bad dog house

it is ok for someone to steal it cause

it was not a good dog house in their opinion

interesting

"Downloading" music.

When I was young, we called it, "taping". We would tape songs from the radio onto a cassette tape. I just realized I've been a criminal all these years .

I remember when this "downloading" fuss started. The biggest whiners were Metallica and Don Henley of the Eagles. Henley said that downloading music was stealing. Gee, Don, what do you call charging several hundred bucks for tickets for your crappy reunion tour?

knoxman,

You can still tape the music off the radio, which is why radios with cassette decks aren't illegal. Taking a digital copy is illegal. Here's an example: if you go in a museum, you can take pictures of a painting, but you can't take the painting off the wall.

well not so sure that is correct spidey

or logicwould say

if could you listen to music on the web

then you should be able to record it as well

which maybe you can as long as you tape it and not download it

hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

interesting thought

What if you downloaded with no intention of reselling? You know, just for personal use, like we did with those cassette tapes. If this was the case, during the trial, wouldn't the prosecutors have to prove intent to resell? I just think that this is a very tricky case.

adj4u,

It's legal to record something when it is broadcast for your own personal use, but you can't legally download a movie or TV that was recorded by another and you can't play your recorded program or music to others. It's really stupid, but that's how the law actually is. In many European countries, it's illegal to record anything on TV. They charge extra for recorders and tapes, which is supposed to somehow help the copyright owners, but I see no fair way of doing that.

I agree, Spider, it is a stupid law. According to that, I can record a television show, but if I invite someone over and watch it with them, I'm committing a criminal act.

Glad I'm more into modern jazz, celtic, and classical music these days. They don't seem to be as money grubbing as the rock 'n' rollers and the country folks.

yep i knew you could not use in performance without an original

Its stupid to say that one song costs $750 to make. And when we buy a CD for $20 with only 10 songs, its like "wtf"

It seems excessive to me. Maybe they can 219,000 for the music production company and give out the 1,000 or whatever is left over for the musicians.

The girl will never pay it so they will have to do what they can to seize her assets if they really want something from her. Maybe she will have to file bankruptcy for protection.

I only buy CDs from live bands at live shows. Its my way of supporting the local talent. Any decent R&B band can count on me for at least one CD.

My boycott won't cost the big music producers anything because I'm just not a music buying kind of guy so I hope some of the rest of you will put your cash back in your pockets when its time to buy CDs.

I don't like monopolies much anyway. Agressive greedy ones

well then does that mean when it hits 750,000

in sales per 10 song cd they break even

thats a lot of cds that is 50,000 cds at 15 dollars ea

not counting store profits so maybe it is really 75,000

thats a lot of cds

interesting

Agressive greedy ones particularly annoy me.

I wonder if the music producers are shaking their own hands in glee over beating the poor girl.

Once, on a nature show, I saw a hippo come to the defense of a young gazelle that was being attacked by a crocodile. It was none of the hippo's business, but I guess the crocodile just pissed off the hippo. They won't get any of my money.

*notes to self* kazaa is bad...BAD kazaa...