Well, I know I’ve downloaded my last song from an RIAA-affiliated company after reading this story:
What’s the value of a song? Jammie Thomas-Rasset has spent the last few years in court debating that question. The Minnesota mother of four is being penalized for illegally downloading and sharing 24 songs on the peer-to-peer file-sharing network Kazaa in 2006, but how much she owes the record labels has been in question. The jury in her third trial has just ruled that Thomas-Rasset should pay Capitol Records $1.5 million, CNET reports, which breaks down to $62,500 per song. It’s a heavy penalty considering the 24 tunes would only cost approximately $24 on iTunes, which was Thomas-Rasset’ argument, too.
[ . . . ]
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the organization that represents the four major record labels, was pleased by the most recent decision, even if it has no intention to collect the $1.5 million from Thomas-Rasset. “Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions,” the RIAA said in a statement. Earlier this year, the RIAA offered Thomas-Rasset the opportunity to end the legal battle for $25,000 and an admission of guilt; Thomas-Rasset declined.
You know, the maximum fine for violating an FTC order is $11,000 per day — about one-sixth of the per-song fine imposed on Ms. Thomas-Rasset. When you make the FTC seem sane and rational in comparison, you know the RIAA is a true bastion of evil.
{ 5 comments }
Good move, corporatism. I just can’t imagine any worse publicity for the RIAA, so why do they continue to pursue it?
Are any of the pro-copyright “libertarians” going to defend this court decision? I hope not.
Old resolved story is old and resolved. Seriously, this was getting finished when I first found Mises, over a year ago.
What happened?
I know that on the Internet, the definition of old is much different than anywhere else, but trying to call a blog post on an article, which was written 13 hours prior to your comment, is bizzare. The appeals trial just happened two days ago.
Either read the damned story or redefine your ridiculous standards of what is old.
Comments on this entry are closed.