[Dixielandjazz] File Sharing Verdict $222,000

[Steve Barbone]

Worth reading if you are illegally file sharing copyrighted songs, OKOM or
not, here in the USA. Note especially that: "the record labels did not have
to prove that songs on Ms. Thomas¹s computer had actually been transmitted
to others online. Rather, the act of making them available could be viewed
as infringement, the judge ruled."

Cheers,
Steve Barbone 


Labels Win Suit Against Song Sharer

NY TIMES - By JEFF LEEDS - October 5, 2007

In a crucial legal victory for record labels and other copyright owners, a
federal jury yesterday found a Minnesota woman liable for copyright
infringement for sharing music online and imposed a penalty of $222,000 in
damages. 

The verdict against Jammie Thomas of Brainerd, Minn., brought an end to the
first jury trial in the music industry¹s protracted effort to rein in piracy
with lawsuits against individual computer users. Since 2003, record labels
have brought legal action against about 30,000 people, accusing them of
trafficking in copyrighted songs.

Many of the people sued in such cases settle out of court for, on average,
about $4,000, according to the industry¹s trade association. Ms. Thomas
chose to face trial instead, saying that she did not share files on the
Kazaa network as the labels contended. She and her lawyer declined to
comment after leaving the courthouse.

The jury verdict, which called for $9,250 in damages for each of the 24
songs involved in the trial, came after brief deliberations.

Earlier, the judge in the case, Michael J. Davis of Federal District Court,
ruled in the industry¹s favor on a hotly contested technical question,
saying that for jurors to find her liable, the record labels did not have to
prove that songs on Ms. Thomas¹s computer had actually been transmitted to
others online. Rather, the act of making them available could be viewed as
infringement, the judge ruled.

In arguments and testimony, lawyers for the record labels sought to show
that an Internet address linked to a Kazaa user name belonged to Ms. Thomas.
In addition, the labels contended that Ms. Thomas replaced her computer¹s
hard drive to wipe out evidence of her file-sharing activities.

Ms. Thomas denied that she had a Kazaa account. She provided conflicting
answers to questions about when she replaced the hard drive.

In addition to providing publicity for the industry¹s crackdown on Internet
piracy, the verdict is likely to reinforce the notion that computer users
who do become targets of lawsuits ‹ a small fraction of the population using
file-swapping networks ‹ are better off settling.

The verdict represents at least a symbolic victory for the Recording
Industry Association of America, the trade group that has coordinated the
music labels¹ expensive legal campaign, which has recently suffered some
highly publicized setbacks.

This summer, for instance, the industry was ordered to pay about $70,000 in
legal bills for an Oklahoma woman after a judge dismissed record labels¹
claims that she had used a certain Internet address to trade copyrighted
music. 

In a statement after yesterday¹s decision, the industry association said,
³The law here is clear, as are the consequences for breaking it.²

But critics suggested that even the new verdict would do little to curb the
sharing of music. 

Eric Garland, chief executive of BigChampagne, which tracks file-sharing
activity, said he did not think the verdict would have an immediate impact
on piracy. There is ³no shortage of new and innovative tools for
infringement online,² he said.

On its Web site, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit
organization that has opposed the industry¹s legal effort, said that tens of
millions of Americans would continue to swap music, as they have since the
arrival of the original Napster peer-to-peer service in 1999.

³Every lawsuit,² the posting said, ³makes the recording industry look more
and more like King Canute, vainly trying to hold back the tide.²

The lead plaintiff was Capitol Records, a label owned by the EMI Group. The
three other major record companies ‹ the Universal Music Group, Sony BMG
Music Entertainment and the Warner Music Group ‹ also had songs involved in
the suit against Ms. Thomas.