What do you think about music file sharing, now that a Minnesota jury awarded music companies $222,000?

Jamie Thomas, a 30 year old single mother and employee of an Indian tribe, was ordered to pay a $9,250 fine for each of 24 shared songs, a total of $222,000.

"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," her attorney said.

He said earlier this week that she had racked up some $60,000 in legal fees because she refused to be bullied.

And while Thomas insisted that she had never downloaded or uploaded music, her lawyer tried to convince jurors there was no way to prove who had uploaded songs on the Kazaa file sharing network.

A jury took just five hours to decide that evidence provided by the music labels showed otherwise and found Thomas guilty of copyright infringement.

So, are YOU still going to music file share after this jury's verdict, or do you think that this could only happen in Minnesota, where someone like Al Franken could be elected their new Senator?

6 Answers

  • 1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    Although I don't even know HOW to "DO" file sharing (not only is it a legal debacle but it's EXTREMELY dangerous to the health of one's computer!), I think the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree with their ince$$ant greed!!! They even claim that if you copy a CD you bought ...just for a back-up... that you are breaking the law!!! THAT is insane and against Fair Use.


    I quit buying music supported by the RIAA over a Decade ago and I'll be damb if I'll 'support' their efforts by even trying to use file sharing or other means to get "music" supported by them. I've had my own personal boycott of them and the "artists" that are _members_ of the RIAA going during this whole time.

    What I say is: BOYCOTT THE RIAA!!!


    That means NO buying of RIAA supported music and NO downloading of it, either...by "legal" or _other_ *ways*!!!

    Learn about the RIAA and who it's members are here:


    They (the RIAA and the "artists" that belong to it) need to learn that it is THEM who NEED$ _US_ NOT the other way around!!!




    EDIT: And while you're at it learn about the MPAA, too. They are just as bad!!!

    Source(s): BTW: here's an article that you'll find "interesting": http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9791764-38.html And learn even MORE here: http://p2pnet.net The Archives of that site are REAL eye-openers! ;)
  • lare
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago

    filing sharing is not my thing and i am not starting any time soon. The RIAA was bound to get a judgement sooner or later. I think the penalty was all wrong even if the evidence was valid, wrong amount and against wrong person. A penalty like this should be reserved for someone who profited financially, or was blatant in desire to cause harm to the recording industry. The inadvertant offender should get a stiff wrist slap at most.

  • Anonymous
    1 decade ago

    Isn't Minnesota where they had a professional wrestler as their Governor? I'm pretty sure.

    I can't believe that a jury would find her guilty or award that much money. That's Democrats for you. They've ruined her life for their stinking greed. How much money do they need to be happy anyway? It's not like any of them are living in a cheap rental or working for an Indian Tribe.

  • 1 decade ago

    The Law should hammer the p2p software providers and not the users, so this issue would not arise in the first place, as it is blatantly obvious what the software is going to be used for .

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Anonymous
    4 years ago

    record sharing web content are unlawful web content they don't pay the copyright vendors unfastened track is unlawful ninety 9% of the time till the artist facilitates it that violates the copyright regulations

  • 1 decade ago

    I don't do that stuff~ That sucks!!!

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.