Minnesota file-sharing case finally ends after six years—$222,000 ruling stands

Supreme Court won't hear Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case about 24 downloaded songs.

Read the whole story

 

[Cherlindrea]

And given that she's being hit for distribution (so not just 24 songs, but 24 songs distributed who-knows-how-many times).

There's that "who knows how many", "it could have been", "it might have been" and so on. In the parts of the case I read, the prosecution couldn't prove that anyone, other than a representative of the RIAA, had downloaded the songs from her computer. If one is going to base punitive damages on "who knows how many", why not go for billions and forget the chump change. Now that would make a statement. I am only in my 60s, but I can remember a time when the law could only hit you with actual damages, plus interest and REASONABLE punitive awards. But damages had to be PROVEN, and in this case, I don't see where that was shown beyond a reasonable doubt. All I've seen is a lot of "could have been" and "who knows". Thank god she wasn't on trial for murder with the evidential bar set that low.

The problem with your stance there is that there has always been a difference of required burden of proof between criminal and civil cases. It is in criminal cases where (there is supposed to be) "beyond reasonable doubt" proof must be offered by the prosecution against the defense. In civil cases, it's more of a "it needs to be more likely than not that the defense was doing the accused unlawful behavior". So your age or talking about any young whipper-snappers now that are getting by with the vagueries in this case is not really making any difference. Civil has always been a lower bar for proof, and that is why it has been an appealing environment for the litigation-as-business-model groups. If you note on the FBI warnings on DVDs, it *says* that copyright infringement _even not for commercial purposes_ is a criminal offense. However, there has never been--to my knowledge--a single persecution of a non-commercial copyright infringement case through a criminal court. Burden of proof is too high to get a guilty verdict, and the only damages to be recovered are ones that can be proven.

Civil courts bypass all that (be it right or wrong). That is why MPAA, RIAA, and patent troll firms go through these channels. Low standards of proof and high (nigh infinite) monetary damages awarded.

 

[cmacd]

The objective by the record labels (back in 2007, as iPod/iTunes was/is booming), was to cause fear in all internet users, as a strategy to attack the P2P networks...since there's not really any practical way to stop P2P networks.

(As you can see, their attorneys are laughing in money; and piracy continues unabated...while the record labels are making 70% profit from the billions or songs sold on iTunes and subscription services. And the woman was basically terrorized for 6 years by over-reaching litigation.)

I think you have an odd view of the current state of music piracy. That, or you just have no idea what it looked like in the early 00's. It continued, but not unabated.

Yes, I'm well aware that I can find a bittorrent of most albums pretty easily, and whole discographies of many artists. But prior to the start of these lawsuits, it seemed like freaking everybody was just sharing their whole music library. Because why not? I could find any given random version of a song I wanted, B-sides, etc. No problem.

Finding out you might get a letter asking for thousands of dollars put that on ice pretty quickly.

 

[ruddy]

This is insane. That doesn't make me feel any particular sympathy for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, though, due to the nature of her particular case. But in general, yes this is insane.

Granted, she ended up where she is at least partly (maybe mostly) because she was being a dipshit.

That's being too kind.

How significant is debatable. A number of these works should be in the public domain by now and one of the artists even came forward to challenge the justice of this kind of verdict.

Who was that?

 

[dufas-duck]

When the movie and recording industry get caught as they have many times not paying royalties, percentages of the gross, or shorting artists with other schemes that they involve artists in, or they fight alternative distribution methods that independent music and movie producers use, the industries always say 'that's different' and squeal that they have to pay the artists. Before Micheal Jackson purchased the rights to the Beetle's music, even Paul McCarthy had to sue to get the record company to pay royalties.

The entertainment industry works on a one way street...their way or nothing. It is a 'do as we say, not as we do' environment.....

I was going to post this pretty much. For those that think this is fair, do you think it would be fair to hand over 5-10 years worth of income from the recording industry to one artist as a punishment for one lawsuit? Then why is it ok to do it to this woman?

There some artists that get zero compensation. The industry is also known for using VERY creative bookkeeping..................

 

[Accs]

As the juries all found willful infringement, all it should take is an objection by the record companies.

No, that is what the precedent set forth by the 9th circuit specifically dealt with - that "willful" did not automatically constitute "willful and malicious" and therefore was not necessarily excepted from discharge. They drew a distinction between "willful infringement" and "willful and malicious injury" to property with the latter having the additional requirement of intent to cause harm. Willful infringement means they knowingly infringed on their copyrighted work, but the 9th circuit ruled that even in the case where one is actually selling bootlegged copies of a work they may not necessarily believe or intend that their action would be genuinely harmful to the rights holder even if they know it is illegal. If the infringer did not intend to cause harm or believe their actions would harm the rights holder - even if it has been determined the infringement was willful and that harm resulted - they ruled that the debt must be discharged as it does not satisfy "willful AND malicious" as defined for bankruptcy.

Thanks for the good information. The juries found her infringement willful, but I'd say that her actions (destroying evidence, lying, stretching the trial process out as long as she could, combined with her statement about bankruptcy) might well combine to be considered malicious. In any case, I expect the record labels to go after her to collect a token of the judgement, then leave her alone. On the other hand, if she continues to try to avoid any liability for her actions, they may well decide to push as hard as they can.

Trollish crap.

Stick it Moses Ronald (I'll just call you MoRon for short ).

 

[fablefox]

Gotta love how the music industry has lobbied so hard that file sharing actually incurs worse penalties than raping or even murdering someone.

Based on?

We did this recently, when somebody made a similar claim. Average murderer is sentenced to nearly twenty years, and that's not including those serving life (or death). Average rapist is something north of five years. Neither includes any fines.

Now, is a period of my life ranging from five years to infinity years worth more than $222K? I don't think so. What value are you placing on a year in prison? Even just given lost wages, $222K is worth more than five years of the median American's life.

Or were you just shooting for hyperbole?

http://www.shrink4men.com/2011/06/28/ex ... ecute-her/

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/ns ... 6460649450

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20296389/site ... UfP6RxkOh0

I'm busy at the moment. But trust me, there is a lot of cases on that level.

 

[Halsy]

Ever steal a candy bar when you were a kid? Tons of kids do. Generally more for the thrill of it - or on a dare - than because they're really bad. Imagine the reaction from parents the country over if everytime a kid stole a candy bar the parents were fiend 10 grand. There'd be bloody revolution! No politician would ever come out for it no matter what the lobbyists pay. And what's really offensive is that it's a victimless crime because it's not like the artist or their label actually lost anything - and no theft does not imply a lost sale because if it's buy or don't many people won't.

The free ride for rock stars and execs should be long over by now. Jesus, imagine if everyone got royalties for working once. Having to pay everytime you basically touch or use anything that didn't create. So no, I'm not ok with some people thinking they have that "right" while most others don't.

 

[locozozi]

This TED talk from Rob Ried covers the issue so, so well.
Do yourself the favour & "spend" the 5:11 minutes to watch it.
Rob Reid: The $8 billion iPod

 

[cmacd]

fablefox, we don't generally look at individual cases when making broad statements about the justice system.

I've looked at median and mean sentences for both murder and sexual assault. I doubt you have.

I care not one bit if you can dig up a few outliers. Yes, there exist rapists and murderers that receive short sentences. There exist "hackers" that do as well. Duh.

And one of those cases wasn't even from the U.S., which is the justice system we're discussing. The ".au" should have been the tipoff, sparkles.

EDIT: Sorry, wrong thread. Yeah, you're even more wrong, when we're only discussing a $200K fine, for which the state can (apparently) garnish at most a quarter of earnings. Whereas the average murderer does somewhere around twenty years. Go ahead, post examples of outliers, they're irrelevant.

 

[OldManBrodie]

don't think bankruptcy will help her, here. Generally, you can't discharge debt that accumulated due to fraud or malfeasance, so if her guilty verdict was upheld, I'd imagine that it would also be a non-dischargable debt.

Which is a shame, because the fine is absurd.

Debts incurred in this manner are not automatically excepted from discharge. For them to be excepted the creditor would have to successfully object arguing they fell under the category of "willful and malicious injury to another person or person's property." Now it used to be that if they did object then that they would be successful was pretty much automatic, however a ruling a few years back has changed that.

In Barboza vs. New Form, the ninth district court has affirmed that "willful" copyright infringement does not always constitute a "willful and malicious" injury which would be excepted from discharge. They established this while reversing a bankruptcy court's decision excepting from discharge an $893k ruling against a couple who had sold bootlegged versions of the plaintiff's copyrighted material and continued doing so after receiving and responding to letters warning them of their infringement. This provides a precedent in which the file-sharing compares fairly favorably as far as being considered willful but not "willful and malicious." So actually getting a court to agree not to discharge these debts, which used to really only require actually bothering to object, is now potentially a source of more legal costs for the creditor and far less automatically successful.

If they do object and they do successful argue that, even in light of precedent, the act was both willful and malicious injury to property the debt can not be discharged. Then they would still have to attempt to collect it and, depending on the person's assets and protections based on their state of residence, could well find them "judgment proof." Given the 9th circuit's decision and the relatively small amount of assets which may not be considered excepted from forfeiture, they might not actually bother objecting if it did come to bankruptcy. They got their headlines of them winning big and the defendant's last decade ending in her looking toward bankruptcy as a solution. In terms of extracting settlements out of future potential defendants, that has more value to them than what they could even likely squeeze out of her assuming they did prevent discharge of the debt. Sure the debt would continue to exist if they did succeed but if she refused to pay and had little beyond exempt assets and income (not all income can be garnished and in some States wages can not be garnished for this at all) they might never see a penny for their further effort.

Thanks for the excellent explanation.

 

[philhanson]

Does anything stop her from just moving out of the country and just saying, fuck off?

I was wondering this same thing.

 

[lohphat]

I don't think bankruptcy will help her, here. Generally, you can't discharge debt that accumulated due to fraud or malfeasance, so if her guilty verdict was upheld, I'd imagine that it would also be a non-dischargable debt.

Which is a shame, because the fine is absurd.

And the will then be unemployable and have no incentive to work off the debt -- she will become a ward of society where we pay for her day to day support -- or her incarceration.

 

[ruddy]

There some artists that get zero compensation. The industry is also known for using VERY creative bookkeeping..................

I've never understood this rationalization for excusing piracy. You're essentially saying that because the labels abuse artists, it's okay for you to abuse the labels and the artists.

 

[Flashlight]

I have no sympathy for illegally downloaders and I feel they should be heavily fined but this fine is absolutely ridiculous. Vicious is the only way to describe it. It's is designed to ruin someone's life. Karma will see to it that those responsible will pay for what they are doing.

 

[abhi_beckert]

I genuinely don't understand the logic that leads to 24 songs being worth thousands of dollars. [...] What they're really doing is more-or-less ruining someone's life over what should be a misdemeanor.

She didn't just download 9 songs, she distributed those 9 songs to anybody in the world who wanted to grab them off her PC (that's how most filesharing networks operate, you don't just download - you also redistribute).

Downloading probably would be a misdemeanour if even that. But deploying them... that's another story altogether.

Personally I still think it's insane, but that is why the penalties are so high.

 

[openaperture]

$222,000: how much is that in solid gold Humvees?

Supposedly this is all from record money.

Yes, those are all statues of David. At one point they were painted gold.

 

[maclancer]

Figures. The Supreme Court is always useless for copyright and warrantless-wiretapping cases.

That's because their soul are already sold to the big corporations and rich powerful lords that can buy justice for themselves.

 

[davmoo]

I'll be odd man out. As I have stated a couple of times before when this has been in the news, I have absolutely zero sympathy for her. She lied to the court, she tampered with evidence, and she actually did what she was accused of doing. And she did it knowingly, and tried to implicate her own children. The RIAA offered to settle with her several times for *substantially* lower amounts, and she refused and took it to trial.

If she were an innocent person who got unfairly caught up in the RIAA's scatter-shot lawsuits, I'd happily rise up to defend her. But this idiot Jammie has never been the innocent down-trodden citizen trying to fight the good fight.

The RIAA should offer to let her settle again for their original offer amount, which I think was somewhere around $8000 to $10000 dollars. But she should not be allowed to walk away for free, nor should she get away with some ridiculous token fine like $24.

 

[Titanium Dragon]

Some things that should be made clear;

1) She was sharing over 1,000 songs, though she was ultimately charged with only 24 of them.

2) You are very unlikely to get prosecuted for this sort of thing. Speeding tickets cost multiple hundreds of dollars, so something which is many orders of magnitude less likely to get you caught will need a commensurately larger fine to discourage.

3) She deliberately destroyed evidence of what she did.

4) As for comparison to wrongful death lawsuits, you have to recognize that, firstly, the value of human lives varies considerably (and in reality the actual value is often closer to a million dollars; settling for a lot less is not uncommon, but if it goes to court, you can expect six digits worth of damage to your wallet), and secondly, its irrelevant anyway. If I burn down someone's house, that can easily be worth more than $250k, and if I was to burn down a very expensive house, that could easily be a million dollars or more.

5) Those of you who are comparing it to rape/murder are being silly. Being put in jail for four years will cost you $222k easy, and those crimes can earn you up to life sentences, not to mention fines which are comparable to the one she was assigned on top of your prison sentence.

At some point the exact numbers are irrelevant because, in a distributed sharing network, one person is hardly important to the process. Conceptually, all she really did was marginally increase how quickly other people could download the file and she was one of millions of people doing this. It's not like she was printing out copies and handing them out to people--she was doing no work at all and was really just offering her computer as bandwidth. The people who should be prosecuted for distribution are the people who put the file out there in the first place, not the people who download it and let their computer rehost (not that they're blameless, of course).

You don't get a discount for committing crimes in bulk. Or at least, you shouldn't.

The fact is we will never imprison every criminal, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't prosecute those we can catch.

The fact that multiple people are responsible doesn't mean that any one person isn't still responsible for their actions.

Hmm... The good thing that comes out of this is that since they refused to hear the case (they've probably got more important cases *cough* DOMA *cough* coming up), there was no precedent set either way, so there is still the ability to argue that being charged seemingly ludicrous amounts for damages is unconstitutional the next time the RIAA sues someone for copyright infringement. The only place that might have a precedent for something like this as a result will be the Eighth Circuit Court (IANAL).

The reason that they didn't rule on it was because they felt that the argument was stupid in the first place. Saying that they didn't "set precedent" is really incorrect; their not seeing the case implies that they agreed with the lower court's ruling, and other courts will take that into account when people make similarly stupid arguments.

It wasn't an unreasonably large fine anyway, as pointed out above.

I agree that the amounts involved are simply ludicrous for a single individual not engaged in commercial infringement. That said, this ongoing bit of litigation has wasted far more time and money than will ever be collected from a person who quite likely actually did the downloading and sharing in question, then lied about it.

People put this importance on commercial infringement, but in reality it is irrelevant. It really makes no difference if you are destroying my business for commercial purposes or not to me; as far as I'm concerned, I'm still out a ton of money either way.

Someone burning down my house for profit isn't really any worse from my standpoint than them burning it down for fun; in both cases I'm still out a house. The legal system may care because of their callous disregard for the rules of society, but as far as I'm concerned I'm still out the same amount of money either way.

People are whining about this because they don't understand reality.

If you don't have extremely large fines for this sort of thing, people won't care. Heck, few of them care even with these fines.

 

[ToRJS]

This is so sad and shows the power media companies now have over our lives.

 

[igor.levicki]

Now, is a period of my life ranging from five years to infinity years worth more than $222K? I don't think so. What value are you placing on a year in prison? Even just given lost wages, $222K is worth more than five years of the median American's life.

As a reference point, the minimum wage rate in 2009 was $7.25 per hour or $15,080 for the 2080 hours in a typical work year. That is also a number that is very close to a median average listed for female workers in 2005 in the USA.

I understand that she might have higher wage and that situation might have improved (oh wait, we are in a global crisis, who am I kidding?), but $222,000 is still an insane amount of money.

For example, if you are making $8.32/hr it would take you 12 years and 10 months of essentially working for free -- giving up your whole wage every month and having absolutely no expenses, not paying any bills and taxes, not eating, and never getting sick during that whole period to pay out those $222,000.

Ask anyone and I am sure they will tell you that they will rather go to jail for 5 years and eat free prison food than pay such an absurd and disproportional fine.

I have a feeling you'd regret that decision after about six months.

Also, given that most avenues for collecting on the judgment will cap how much of her income they can take in a given time period, I highly doubt any reasonable human being would prefer half a decade (or more...remember, rapists and murderers) in prison over losing X% of their income.

Though some people do make poor decision. How's it goin', Mr. Snipes?

I just gave you an example how if you earn $1,440 a month it takes 12 years and 10 months of them taking 100% of your income to pay out $222,000.

Given the cap usually can't be more than one third of your income, you would be paying your debt for the next 39 years, which for a 35 year old woman means you would probably be dead before you pay the last instalment of it.

Ask yourself, what is 5 or even 10 years in prison compared to nearly 40 years of enslavement?

I'd also like to remind you that they cannot prove how many times those 24 songs were downloaded from her computer -- they can only claim they were able to download it once. The damages are totally unrealistc, especially given the fact that nobody who downloaded those songs off her computer was going to buy them anyway.

For those saying that she was offering the songs to the whole world by sharing them:

No, because she wasn't standing in front of every music store on the planet Earth at the same time and offering potential buyers a free copy of an album they wanted to purchase. Instead, they had to get into a very specific shady back alley (Kazaa) to get them.

File sharing does not automatically translate into a loss of profit -- it should be the burden of the industry to prove the actual damages before being allowed to demand compensation.

 

[puzzler]

I have a question for the legal experts:

It seems to me that this and other similar cases are examples of handing very high fines and penalties that far exceed any actual damages, in order to "set an example" and deter would be offenders. Would that be a violation of equal protection (14th Amendment)?

 

[Gisboth]

The complete lack of respect for the jury system as evidenced by many in this thread is eye-opening.

It seems many here would prefer trial by mob. (But only if "their" mob is in control.)

 

[Gisboth]

I am only in my 60s, but I can remember a time when the law could only hit you with actual damages, plus interest and REASONABLE punitive awards.

You must be older than in your 60s.

Statutory damages for copyright infringement in the US date back to, literally, the very first copyright act, signed into law by George Washington. Statutory damages were further codified in the 1909 Act on copyright.

 

[Ruefus]

The amount does not coincide with any rational person's assessment of what was actually *ahem* taken.

This is the music industry's idea of deterrence. An attempt to stem some tide of illegal file sharing. Too bad no one seems to care. This case is an unfortunate relic. Particularly for one person.

Forced bankruptcy, while distasteful is the real penalty here. They'll never repay $222,000. So run the BK gauntlet, rebuild your credit and move on. It's not right by any means, but happens all the time.

 

[Hadron001]

I'd be interested to know what portion of the damages was considered reparations and what portion punitive.

I always thought that just laws were supposed to punish in proportion to the crime. If each song came from a separate album, and each album cost $20, the damages break down into $480 as compensation for economic loss, and a $221.5K punitive fine that's 461 times greater than the defendant's loss of income.

To put this in another perspective: US law says that 24 illegal downloads is a crime worth a sum equivalent to 4.4 US household's annual income, with the downloader's financial ruin thrown in as a bonus.

 

[etc inittab]

I'm conflicted. One the one hand I would gladly donate a few bucks to help some sort of donation fund for her to cover this outrageous judgement, that would be good.

However that would mean the RIAA would get their money, that would be bad.

However I know $222,000 to the RIAA is nothing, so helping her would be good.

But then it might encourage whatever knucklehead court that awarded the verdict to do so again if another case comes down, that would be bad.

So conflicted ...

 

[Technoid.se]

$222,000: how much is that in solid gold Humvees?

its aprox 8 pounds of gold at current prices....

 

[Digger]

Gotta love how the music industry has lobbied so hard that file sharing actually incurs worse penalties than raping or even murdering someone.

Based on?

We did this recently, when somebody made a similar claim. Average murderer is sentenced to nearly twenty years, and that's not including those serving life (or death). Average rapist is something north of five years. Neither includes any fines.

Now, is a period of my life ranging from five years to infinity years worth more than $222K? I don't think so. What value are you placing on a year in prison? Even just given lost wages, $222K is worth more than five years of the median American's life.

Or were you just shooting for hyperbole?

In a previous career, I was a hitman for the EPA. One of the things we focused on, of course, was penalties and punishments for violations. I recall one that has stuck with me to this day.

A foreman sent two employees into the enclosed space of a gasoline tanker truck to clean it out and prep it for hauling milk (yes, really) without adequate respiratory protection (SCBA gear).
Both workers died as a result.
The fine to him?
$50,000. No jail time.
2 people are dead, forever and ever, and he got less punishment than this woman did for sharing ones and zeros.

 

[SolidSquid]

Gotta love how the music industry has lobbied so hard that file sharing actually incurs worse penalties than raping or even murdering someone.

I don't think a $250,000 fine is quite equivalent to a couple of decades in prison. Maybe at minimum wage, if you place no value on your freedom.

Based on compensation rates for false imprisonment when someone is found innocent, $250k is equivalent to 5 years in prison (Federal recommendation is $50k/year for prison, $100k/year for death row)

 

[Zak]

I'd be curious to hear anyone's rationalization that this fine is just.

This is not about justice. If it was, this case would have ended back in 2007 with a few thousand dollars penalty.

 

[jinjuku]

Since everyone is so upset by her financial ruin at the hands of the American Justice System and RIAA start up a collection and help her pay the fine.

 

[jinjuku]

I'm conflicted. One the one hand I would gladly donate a few bucks to help some sort of donation fund for her to cover this outrageous judgement, that would be good.

But then it might encourage whatever knucklehead file sharer that received the verdict to do so again. That would be bad

So conflicted ...

Fixed it for you.

 

[mnaman]

Anyone up for creating a White house petition to get them to respond about this issue?

 

[qasimq]

Is there an online account to help this poor woman ?
Not that I condone her actions but MPAA and RIAA are IMO in the wrong here to punish some one this severely for mere 24 songs. If there is an online account to donate money to help this woman I would like to contribute.

 

[misatakashino]

I don't think bankruptcy will help her, here. Generally, you can't discharge debt that accumulated due to fraud or malfeasance, so if her guilty verdict was upheld, I'd imagine that it would also be a non-dischargable debt.

Which is a shame, because the fine is absurd.

But if she doesn't have the money how will she pay it then? Is there something like debtors prison in America? Assuming her lawyer is pro bono, If she only makes enough money to support herself in food, clothing, and housing necessities, how are they going to get anything out of her?

Won't it eventually result in prison time anyway since she can't pay?

*Genuinely curious*

 

[OldManBrodie]

misatakashino[/url]":3c6d9qa7]But if she doesn't have the money how will she pay it then? Is there something like debtors prison in America? Assuming her lawyer is pro bono, If she only makes enough money to support herself in food, clothing, and housing necessities, how are they going to get anything out of her?

Won't it eventually result in prison time anyway since she can't pay?

There is no debtor's prison in the US. Though I'm not sure what happens when you don't pay a court-mandated judgement...

They'll just garnish her wages, I imagine. And she'll either have to get .gov help to live, or live completely on welfare.

A lose-lose for everybody! (except the RIAA, I guess)

 

[Shimme]

Basically, the statutory damages are essentially punitive damages. They're not intended to represent the actual value of the works. Agree or don't with doing this, but that's the concept.

I was under the impression that fines from lawsuits were meant. To repay the injured party, not to punish the offender. Actually, wasn't that one of the major issues with the jury in the Samsung vs. Apple case?

 

[WaltC]

I'd wager that the original settlement offered to here was somewhere on the order of this amount.

She chose to fight it.

Might have been the wrong choice, given that she was pretty obviously "guilty," from the evidence I recall seeing.

IIRC, she was originally offered a $1500 settlement which she rejected, as you point out. She messed up, I think, by playing fast and loose with her hard drive--or something like that, as I recall. The question remains, though, as to why the ending judgement should be greater than the initial offer of settlement made by plaintiffs. If $1500 was good enough then, why not now?

Looks like she's stuck with the judgement, so if she wants to avoid icky stuff like wage garnishment she should go ahead and do the BK route and report the judgement as a debt which the proceedings will zero out. The BK will stay on her credit record for ~10 years--a judgment for seven years. But, her creditor could renew the judgement for another 7 years unless the debt is zeroed and wiped by the BK (or she paid it.) She's young and this is but a blip. What a miserable way to have to learn about the essential inequities of civil court, though. Best advice I ever had from a lawyer: "Whatever you do, no matter how you have to do it: stay out of court."

 

[Azethoth666]

She declined a settlement offer of $5,000. She lost the case and was ordered to pay $222,000. She asked for (and was granted) a new trial and again declined a settlement, this time $25,000. She lost that case as well and was ordered to pay $1,920,000. That sum was reduced to $54,000 by someone with at least a modicum of common sense, but this award was rejected by the labels and she was again ordered to pay $1,500,000. Capitol was not happy with that decision and again appealed and she was again ordered to pay $222,000. The end...

I wish this was the featured post so I could just move on and not waste time reading endless bitching about how she got nailed for a large sum. Also the endless ranting about how music should be free otherwise thieves will steal it.

Summary: stupid thief gets caught, stupidly fights a reasonable penalty, gets the book thrown at her. Boohoo.