if you give lift to someone in a car are you defrauding the bus company out of a tcket ? or the goverment out of petrol Tax ?

fred , London,

If this is such a problem, the courts should leave the users alone and focus on the programs providing the downloads! I don't think it's wrong to download, musicians make tons of money from touring & live shows and I don't think anybody in their right mind is going to pay $0.99 cents a song x 10,000....it's just not realistic...Like another user said, you can just type in Youtube.com and search any of your favourite songs, tv shows, movies and listen to full length songs, see clips of tv shows...according to what they are doing to people downloading music...is this not considered the same thing?? If the record companies are going to start acting like this when they are already FILTHY rich, than they are going to be LOSING A TON OF FANS. I also cannot believe what they did to that single mother with two kids...that is unbelievable and not right at all.

Mitch, Vancouver,

I don't condone copyright infringement but if I bought a 45 rpm vinyl single in the 70's of say the Doobie Brothers, it became warped , scratched and generally unplayable. I save my pocket money and buy the album (only for Long train running because you can't buy the single anymore), I buy the cd , it get's lost moving house , I buy the itune and then the enhanced itune . Does the record company not think I own my own personal copyright for Long train running after 30 year's.It is no wonder people have jumped at the chance to reclaim their pocket money at the first oppurtunity by file sharing.If you listened to the Beatle's catalogue from start to finish it last's about 10 hour's. How many billion's has that body of work realised?Not bad for ten hour's work.I think they have earned enough , it's time to reduce the intellectual property and copyright duration to 25 year's.After all if bands hadn't earned good money by that time their music probably isn't worth listening to anyway.

Nick Dixon, Sutton Coldfield, England

The real crooks are the record industry!
I wouldnt even waste my Bandwidth downloading their tripe!

If I want to listen to a song...I just click on Youtube!

Simon F, Newcastle-upon-Tyne,

limewire represent :)

., ., Australia

The music of the 1990s and later is utter rubbish. In fact, much of the music from the 1980s onto the modern day is nothing more than annoying noise.

The vast majority of this music has no shelf-life. The music industry will not get my money for the noise and nonsense it currently promotes and generates. I couldn't even waste my time downloading this rubbish, not even if western governments forced the music industry to provide it completely free of charge.

Who cares about music and copyrights? The Internet is providing us with much, much more to do than to bother wasting our time supporting traditional media and the music recording industry. Who's even watching TV NEWS?

With the advancement in technology, one can record and distribute an album, completely independent of the traditional record label system. Who cares about this story? Why have people to become so worked up about this? Nobody has discussed the possibility of an appeal.

The music industry has promoted drug abuse.

PJ F, San Francisco, US

Come and live in Italy!!

http://www.alcei.org/?p=26

Tommaso, Brescia, Italy

Some of you have poor math skills. Making her pay for the songs? Uhm, she may very well have bought the CDs. That does NOT give her right to "share" them with other people. The price took into consideration all the people who she "shared" them with - at 99 cents a piece. Be glad that didn't go to those that THOSE people "shared" them with.

I'm a songwriter. We make our money two ways: airplay, and via Mechanical Rights, so much per song pressed/sold/reproduced. That's the ONLY way we make money, and there are far less talented songwriters than talented musicians; we're a rare breed... and yet we get paid this way. When people "share" they cut us out of that amount (under 10 cents per song per copy). Sure, the labels get cut out too, and they take the lion's share of the price of an album, but they also put hard cash on the line.

It's not okay to steal/"share" without our consent. Simple enough, eh?

Radiohead may be up to something with In Rainbows. Meanwhile, nothin

JT, El Paso, TX

The argument that sharing music is stealing money from artists would be good if it wasnt for two inconvenient facts.

The first one is quite simply that the main people stealing from artists appear to be the big record labels. Only a very small proportion of the cash payed for music goes to the artist and record companies use every trick in the book to reduce even that.

The second one is if I download a song it does not cost the record company or the artist a penny. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that people who download a lot of music still spend just as much on buying music so still give just as much to the music industry. If they stopped downloading additional music industry would not get one penny extra.

Andrew Wimble, Brighton, England

I think the following article
says it all:

http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/index.html

Thank You Courtney Love for the
plaintext !
And now the question:
Who are the REAL pirates ?

Alexander, Cologne, Germany

This case is represents a seriously new low for the Recording Industry. A Single mother of two who maintained her innocence and decided to fight the charge ...and lost...gee what a surprise when you go up against a multi-billion $$ industry. ...show your support jammiethomas.org.

Mike Healy, Toronto, Canada

There are 24 songs in question? Then her fine should be simple: $23.76. At 99 cents a piece on iTunes, that's how much she would have paid for them. If she had then burned them on a CD and then distributed them to her friends - "file sharing" - it would have been completely legal.

I would like to know how they determined that her fine should be in excess of 200 Gs. The math simply does not add up.

Anyway, eerybody does it - why single out this poor woman? Goo after someone who actually has money.

Jayne, St. Louis, MO

$10,000 per song??? A little steep, there. How about she pay's a the $24 for the 24 songs, that's what itunes charges isn't it? How do they motivate the 10k??!

md, chicago,

Crime = punishment.

Mike, Milford, New Hampshire

It s not about the musicians, it s about those corporate idiots thinking "I don t make the music but I want to exploit everybody" . Musicains make music to make peoople happy and get paid a whole lot for it but MOST of the money and virtually 99% of trials are started by GREETY people who don t have talent and just want to use Art to their advantage. How can you put a woman into bankrupcy just because she shared a few songs over the net? How about we reduce the record companies' profits, and keep musicians salary up, thus allowing low prices for CDS and accessibility? The file sharing system would dissolve itself...

raphael del bono, Paris/London/Montreal, France Uk Canada

If musicians want our money they can come to our cities and play for us.

Rik, Halifax, CA

This is insane. 20 bn tracks illegally downloaded every year? How many of those people would walk into a music store and steal (that's right, steal) the cd's they wanted? Just pay for the songs.

And to Tom from Switzerland... Are you freaking serious? It's not stealing, it's only copywright infringement??? That's like saying that holding a pillow over someone's face isn't murder, it's only unpermitted suffocation. Give me a break! I'm tired of people justifying their actions when they commit a crime. Semantics doesn't change the fact that it's a crime!

Jeremy, Denver,

If Pavarotti had to work a 40-hour shift in Pizza Hut would his music have been as good?

If I walk into an electrical store and see a ridiculously overpriced TV, does that give me the right to steal it?

If I steal someone's car, they no longer have a car. If I steal someone's music, they can't afford to buy a car. Then they have to get a job in Pizza Hut.

(Apologies to people who work in Pizza Hut - I hope you release that great album soon)

John , Bristol,

Seems like every big story is a diversion, at some level. The labels respect music less than the people they sue. If you download a whole album and send an anonymous money order for a buck or three to the artist, that's something they hate far more than outright theft. Doesn't matter how manyfold they broke even on everything they spent, they want every drop of blood they can extract from their clients.

Aaron, Los Angeles,

Catherine says "it's not a good idea to teach our kids that it's OK to steal." PLEASE be correct in your wording, don't fall for the trap of the industry. It's NOT stealing, it's only infringing copyright!

Tom, Bern, Switzerland

So we all download music for free, what then? Money is a big incentive for all of these people - it pays for marketing, employee wages, investment in new talent and yes the "bathroom [I] can play baseball in". Music industry and artists own the rights to THEIR music. You want to listen either get a radio or BUY the track / album. If I enjoy an artist enough to want to listen to an album then I'll sure pay the 15 bucks it costs to puchase.

Compromises are where itunes comes from, or the recent free download from Radiohead et al...

Law is clear, you break it then you'll suffer the consequences - and it's not a good idea to teach our kids that it's OK to steal.

Catherine, Atlanta, USA

I especially like that "The judge also ruled that she is guilty [ ] regardless of whether anyone else had downloaded them. " To make an analogy (and american law does that), you are guilty if you leave your keys in the car, regardless if somebody steals it or not (and not the thief!).
Also, car makers could prohibit that you take anyone in your car (they should buy one too), so if you take a hitchhiker you should pay the price of 100 cars.
The music industry is deaf.

Ria Asure, Bucharest, Romania

This is where Apple really comes into play. Ever since the iTunes music store emerged I have stopped using Kazaa for the relatively small amount of songs I listen to. But considering I could be fined a quarter million or more for the music I could have downloaded, the .99/song from Apple seems very fair. This could be a problem for people that download way more music than I but, $200 for about 200 songs is better than buying the CDs or having big brother take $220,000 from you. These fines are ridiculous.

RIAA: EVOLVE OR DIE!

Sean Burns, River Ridge , USA, Louisiana

I have resorted minimally to paid downloads. Most albums are one cut wonders and balance is filler in my view. The music industry is just one element of modern society driven by greed beyond reason.

The most a consumer can do is buy less. What a concept!

Mike , Willingboro, NJ

They did not have to do that, people are going to share twice as much now. Very bad idea.

Bob, bobtown,

This clearly is a case that requires "situational ethics", a variety of thought abhorant to the fundamentalist. In my humble opinion, file sharing is no where near the purported (and propagandized) analogy of stealing someone's car. Late capitalist enterprise and technology has unwittingly, but logically, blurred the lines of ownership. I cannot copy someone's car and use it, but if I could, I definitely would!

Andrew Guthrie, Hong Kong, Guandong, China

This means file sharers will migrate to undetectable technology, such as DarkNet
Even the military cannot track files shared that way.

Vlad, Lancaster,

Well, the RIAA will be as unpopular as ever for doing this but unfortunately it's necessary in today's climate. Internet file-sharing is rapidly destroying the music industry. There are fewer and fewer new artists coming out now due to lack of funding from record sales and the ones that do get released are gong to be 'safe bets' and less original than ever before.

Music sales are currently dropping like a stone even though its cheaper than ever before, so much that as a life-long musician I have now decided to quit and earn a living elsewhere.

This is a victory for musicians and bands everywhere, but really its just a tiny drop in the ocean and I fear its too little too late. I predict the major labels will all fall in time.

JT (ViralEssence), SE, England

The size of the fine is ridiculous. Multi-millionaire music mogels versus a single mum with no money is simply not a fair fight. No wonder music sales are declining with this kind of adversarial relationship between the industry and its consumers.

Brian Munn, Kettering, UK

the only thing wrong with this decision is the level of the fine, which should have been $500.

but americans appear to have no concept of what is a fair settlement amount.

jem, london, uk

I've only read a few of the idiotic remarks posted here in favor, evidently, of owners giving up their rights to just about anything: songs, arrangements, and -- why not -- inventions. Do away with the patent office. Do away with royalties. How about mineral rights? Why not socialize them, too? Come to think of it, how about socializing all real property as well? We could just wander around the country, and when we wanted something to eat or a place to sleep, just walk into the nearest house and help ourselves. Just think -- we could completely do away with the crime of theft, because everyone would own everything. Most people give up that kind of thinking when they graduate from grade school. Phooey.

WAD, Oklahoma City,

"by stealing music, you hit the artist in the pocket. If you like something, buy it. "

Actually we rather hit the rapacious record companies in the pocket. On any new album there are at most 3 songs worth buying, all the rest is either leftovers or rework (ie, shameless copy) of older songs - crap that is, for which neither the record company nor the artist deserve any money at all.

Next we'll have to do what, stop lending books for fear of rapacious copyright owners unhappy with their already-pocketed millions?
This is all both stupid and revolting. Long live the Open Source!

Valentin , Paris, France

I am sure glad that we do not pay royalties to the man who invented fire or the wheel... It is about time musicians thought of music, love of, not money.. Music, art and information should belong to all.. We need a radical rethink and elimination of this monopolistic system

Patrick Dunphy, Joinville, Brazil

For over 20 years BIG Music, has buried its collective head in the sand choosing to ignore the fact that its SOP business model is crumbling.

In the late 1980's DAT - Digital Audio Tape was prepared to take off, but BIG Music lobbied the US congress and effectively prevented the sale of the technology to the public. A few years, later the personal computer and a file type called mp3 irrevocably changed all that.

Over the past few months, the world has gotten an inside look at the broken music idol that was Britney Spears. Everything about the old system of promoting a few stars and releasing over produced albums is over.

The fact that delusional old music executives in smoke filled rooms continue to buy their way to enforce laws bought by those same executives, can not change the fact that in today's world their product and traditional methods of distribution are fatally flawed.

We can only hope that a new generation will soon take over and bring new life to a dying industry.

Josh, Florida,

If she had been vindicated, then the headline would have been:
"JAMMIE DODGER". Which in itself is a reason for acquittal.

Kevin Smith, Kent, UK

I think we should sue the bands who release "sucky" albums. Why should I spend $16+ to buy their album if all the songs sucked minus the one on the radio that made me buy their record. I feel as though they stole from me....really felt ripped off.

Amber & Aaron, Camden, USA

There is a simple solution - Stop being music sheep.

Stop buying the CD's or trading the music of pop stars altogether and support your own local live performance musicians. The one's who become good enough will have their own locally produced CD's and will also offer free concerts and service to your community. They might even know what YOUR name is. The "super stars" will then be forced to their true sustainable level. If you are a local musician, the current system keeps you from making a living in music unless you have the hype behind you to get the necessary notoriety for national exposure. It is a corrupt system that makes the promoters rich rather than giving the largest numver of musicians a sustainable life. In today's system you never hear most great musicians, just those sold to you. The internet will wipe out this system in time, despite law suits, but you can make it happen sooner by supporting musicians of your own community.

Butch, Brigham, UT

Billy Bop, it is worse than you think. It is a worldwide conspiracy. The prices for CDs are the same in ALL countries, whereas you might pay $15 , say one hours wages, we here in Brazil also pay $15 , in fact more because of our high taxes) which is 5 hours wages

Patrick Dunphy, joinville, Brazil

Billy Bop, it is worse than you think. It is a worldwide conspiracy. The prices for CDs are the same in ALL countries, whereas you might pay $15 , say one hours wages, we here in Brazil also pay $15 , (in fact more because of our high taxes) which is 5 hours wages

Patrick Dunphy, joinville, Brazil

It's incredible to me how many people on here justify their dishonest actions by citing the overpaid musicians and music biz execs as fair game.

The fact that some people are overpaid is completely irrelvant in this case. If you think they are overcharging for their product you have one choice - don't buy it. You may not just take it. You would not apply your 'help yourself' mentality to any other industry or product - I hope!

Iain, Hereford,

I am sure glad that we do not have to pay royalties to the man who invented fire or the wheel. music, art, inventions, knowledge should belong to all, not just a mafia who abuse their dominant power. We have been ruled by Kings, priests etc for too long who kept us in the dark. Now it is our turn..Free enterpise they say? just not for us to fight back

Patrick Dunphy, Joinville, Brazil

This verdict is a disgrace and despicable to mankind. Whoever said "punishment to fit the crime" is absolutely correct. How many crimes committed result in this kind of fine? Hardly Any. This is total abuse of the legal system against a sole individual who clearly has no means of paying this fine.

So above all, the record comapnies sued her, they won 200K+ but this is absolutely pointless because they are never going to see this money because she does not have it.

So the record companies are actually NO better off... Since she cannot pay, poor taxpayers have to foot this legal bill which the crybaby record industry started because the wont adapt to this evolving world.

Get real everythig is changing= Phone companies/ISPs dont sue because you get free voip calls, Royal mail dont sue when you send an email instead of a letter, Kodak doesnt sue becase you dont buy 35mm film... TV stations let you download the programs... the list is ENDLESS.. Wake up and get real music industry

Ryan, UK,

Why doesn't RIAA sue China, but goes after a single mom who never made a penny out of it? Evidence would be simple to gather (street vendors who make a living out of selling pirated goods).

What a statement they made! They should be ashamed of themselves.

Vlad, Montreal, Canada

Many of the people who have responded to this story have completely missed the point. It's not about downloading music for free; the lady was not prosecuted for downloading music for free.
In the days of vinyl and cassette you were allowed, under what copyright lawyers call "fair use" to copy your records onto a cassette to play in your car, or at the office. For your own use.
What this lady did was to make an unlimited number of copies of thousands of songs and advertise on the web where everyone can see her ad, that they are available. You don't have to have a warrant, or have access to her computer to know she is doing this because she is doing it on the web in full view of the whole world.
This is not fair use. She does not have a license to distribute music in this way, but she went ahead and did it anyway. And when she got caught, rather than hold her hand up and say sorry, she fought it through the courts, and lost.
She was fined $200k for her stupidity and arrogance.

Martin, Portsmouth, Hampshire

Uhmm... who is stealing from who?? The courts don't seem to back the public when it comes to UK overpriced CD's or itunes downloads. I would say this is 'payback' time. Now music industry redress the balance and charge sensible fees for legal environmentally friendly downloads and I'm sure many more of us would buy a lot more music than we ever did during the past era of overpriced tapes/records & cd's.

Billy Bop, london, uk

This is unbelieveable. It is atrocious that the recording industry is going this far. They must figure they can really start supplementing their income if they start going after citizens and charging them 2,000+ per song. I figure they can charge every college student in the country or maybe they should just attack more single mothers. You make me sick!

James, Galena, Oh

If I gave you everything that I owned
And asked for nothing in return
Would you do the same for me as I would for you
Or take me for a ride
And strip me of everything, including my pride
But spirit is something that no one destroys

And the sound that I'm hearing is only the sound
Of the low spark of high-heeled boys
Heeled boys

McMurdo, Omaha, NE

No piece of music lives until someone listens to it. You cannot "own" a tune or a song, you merely buy the right to hear it at your own convenience. If you choose to listen to a shop bought CD with a group of friends, is that stealing by sharing? You, after all, are the only person that paid up in the first place.

kenw, Hemel Hempstead, UK

Consumers world-wide should consider a boycott of music purchases -- or at least of full CD purchases. It could be modeled on the spread of "green" consumer activity and bring social pressure to bear on the industry. Force these multi-national conglomerates, in other words, to realize that their continued, arrogant behavior, and their failure to adopt more consumer-friendly business practices, will REALLY hurt them where it counts. To recording executives I would say: think the last decade has been difficult for your industry? Pull another couple of stunts like the outrage in Minnesota and you'll REALLY learn the meaning of the word "difficult".

Jasper, Boston, USA

Vince buddy, you don't want Microsoft vista believe me... whether it was a knocked off copy or not...Microsoft "Missed- Er..Ah" more like.
On to the topic though... music is hideously overpriced and the music industry is flabby and in trouble with the new technologies. Look at what happenned to the established carriers in the airline industry, before other carriers (e.g. Ryan air / easy jet etc) found ways of doing the same thing for less cash... without the flab if you like. All they did was work out they could use the internet for ticket sales, so they didn't need all those expoensive people and paper systems. Sell your shares in music cos would be my advice because when things get too expensive technology and people find alternatrive (legal) ways of getting what they want

fat boy, dubai, uae

Im willing to donate to a fund for this woman, does anyone know if one has been set up?

Max, drogheda, ireland

And might I also add that just before reading this article I purchaced The Eraser by Thom Yorke as a download. It will be a long time (if ever) before I buy a CD from the likes of Sony again.

Max, drogheda, ireland

Why does the criminal law helps the rich when their IP rights are breached but leaves it to the civil law to provide remedies to the victims of corporate negligence causing death or bodily harm?
It is amazing that companies like Microsoft and Sony can get the assistance of taxpayer funded police to enforce their Intellectual Property rights when a person disabled by corporate negligence by those same or similar companies has to rely on his or her own funds to bring a law suit for compensation.
Something is NOT right here.

Krish, Sydney, Australia

The music industry doesn't add anything to music except hype. The only "musicians" that need it are teenie-pop bands that no-one could be duped into buying without a cynical marketing machine behind them. There attitude to technological progress has been a disgrace. The sooner they go bust the better. Real musicians can make a living from touring.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

regarding her fine and punishment. One cannot be put in prison for not paying a debt. If one has a "financial judgement" againts them, it simply shows up on your credit rating. You can stilll eat, pay rent, work, and have a life. There is no such thing as debtors prison in this country USA.
Credit mentality is a prison of illusion.

Otter, louisville , KY

This debate has nothing to do with supporting socialism. I despise both socialism and the record industry.

The record industry is a vested interest, a middleman, that wants to extract rent from the populace without giving anything of value in return. The value of the output of all the people in the record industry other than the musicians themselves is zero, so they shouldn't be allowed to get away with making a living out of it, any more than unionised workforces in obsolete loss-making industries should be able to protect their jobs through political means.

This rent-seeking happens in all sorts of societies and it is always bad. Democratic and capitalist societies are best at disrupting such activities and creating new economic structures. That is what is needed here, the destruction of a rent-seeking clique and its replacement with a system that pays the fair value of the production to the people who produce - and only to them.

Oliver Chettle, Bedford,

The bass guitarist from U2 wanted to buy a £6,000,000 house in London.So did some rich model-was it -kate moss- and so this guy doubles it to 12million and gets the house.He obviously has a higher moral code than Jammie .

robert varley, chicago, michigan

When you buy a song or a CD, you don't OWN "the song." You own the right to listen to it or to a COPY of it. The artist or copyright owner still OWNS the song. Just like when you buy a book: you own a COPY of the intellectual material. You may burn it, shred it, read it aloud to others, stick it on a shelf, etc. You may LOAN it to someone, in which case you can't read it while it's in the other person's possession, and you can give it away, in which case, again, you won't be able to read it anymore. You MAY NOT copy it and give that copy to someone else or keep the copy and give the original to someone else; THAT is stealing. I know that in most cases of software (don't know about CDs/DVDs) you may make a backup copy, that you don't share, in case something happens to the original. (Or you can use the copy and save the original as the back up.) However, now the media companies are trying to outlaw the process of copying. i.e. you can have a copy but you can't make a copy. THAT's bogus.

Al, Ohio,

Jay, from the USA--please use the money which you have saved by downloading files to buy a dictionary.

Dectora , London, UK

The record industry is losing out on all fronts to the Internet. Bands can do it all on their own now and that is hurting the industry. They bleat about how much money they are losing from piracy. What about the billions they milk out of their back catalogues?

Tig, Birmingham, UK

Insane. Downloading for free is a godsend against greedy corporations and greedy musicians. Try and follow the Radiohead route and give it away for nothing.
To those who disagree, this is just a natural process of balancing out. Things become too expensive and greed sets in, as do egos, then the internet comes along and disturbs those making a nice packet from sales.
Tough luck really as anyone with half a brain can download anything and not be traced.
RIAA can never truly win and they know it. Close one site, and ten more will pop up. Theyre just trying to intimidate people.

Rafa, London,

This outrageous! My heart goes out to that woman. As for that company, they will never stop music file sharing. This is disgraceful what they did.

S A, Cairo,

I find the "only stole one" argument from Sony's lawyer absolutely hilarious. I own a Sony Ericsson W810i mobile phone that came with software that allows me to steal only one copy as many times as I want from my cds onto my phone. So Sony is happy to take my money for the phone, and they happily took my money for the 4gb memory card, and they were happy for me to download the software from the box. All said and done, $500 to Sony and its distribution channels (I bought the phone, no carrier subsidized it). Let's add in another 100 cds that I currently own that are from Sony artists at about $15 each, I have paid $2000 for Sony products. And now I am stealing if I use their hardware, their CDs, and their software in order to enjoy my music in a form factor that fits my lifestyle?!? What am I buying? The music, or the space it takes up? I bought my first CD in 1981. I bought my last CD in 2005, is there any wonder if that is the RIAAs approach to my "property"?

don., San Diego, USA / CA

If it were possible to actually stop illegal downloads, does the RIAA really thing their sales would go up? Or are most of the illegal downloads just songs people want to hear, but are not willing to pay for?

I believe that 99.9% of "pirated" downloads are made by people who want to hear a certain song, but are not willing to pay for it. It's the same reason in the 1980's I never bought a Maddona CD or Cassette. While I liked a song or two by her, I never liked her music enough to ACTUALLY pay for it, but if it came on the radio, it was OK.

(OK, so all of Maddonna's music is crap and I can't understand why anyone would buy it -- she is just a metaphore for any music you like, but not enough to actually PAY for!!)

JAY, Hattieburg, USA

As a musician I know that I will not record any of my work until I am sure I will get something for all the hard work, time and money that it takes to make the music. If all musicians were like me there would be no more recorded music. Good by file sharing, radio, cd's no more movies with music in them. Sorry all you Richard Martin's but you will have to buy a ticket to get in to hear music!

Hotriff, Hutch,

Musicians should make their money through live performance, like through almost the whole of recorded history. If they want to produce CDs as promotional content good for them. If they expect people to pay for CDs I guess they'll be disappointed.

If they can't make enough money they can always get a job and do music as a hobby, again like many of the great musicians throughout recorded history.

Adriana, London, UK

This article is incomplete and sloppily researched. I like the stats that were offered at the end of the article, but the author missed one crucial angle.

I'd like to know how much revenue is being realized from the settlements, not the sale of music. I'd also like to know how much, if any, of that money goes to the artists whose music is supposedley downloaded. Are the recording companies experiencing an unexpected profit from people who settle, profits that are not shared with the artists?

W., Wake Forest, NC

frankly the record industry is going a bit far.
here's a thought, if i'm sitting round with some friends and i'm playing the guitar and we're all singing...are we in breach of anything, copyright, unlawful broadcasting etc of the songs we're playing and singing along to?
the next step will be on the spot fines for singing or whistling tunes

jorge, telde, canary islands

The key element here was not that she had the tracks, it was that she was distributing them to others. It's the same difference as carrying drugs for yourself or dealing.

File sharing networks only work if people offer files to share, and that's what the industry is targeting.

Record companies do not pay for anything, they loan the artist the money and then they demand it back through sales - by stealing music, you hit the artist in the pocket. If you like something, buy it.

Granted, music is overpriced here but if you want to avoid the mainstream tat clogging up shelves, try eMusic - it's much, much cheaper and features some great musicians.

Ross Liversidge, Ripon, North Yorkshire

its a rip off.i am someone who has not downloaded 1 tune from the internet. if i wanted it i either bought a cd or bought tape.as someone who performed for 10 years without once asking for payment i might be different(strange)but i sung becase i loved to share my love of music,

john, stockholm, sweden

Dock from Miami....

Interesting reasoning...erm...maybe you should just try going to school.

Paul, Esher,

Good! I hope this will make people think again before downloading such terrible 'music'.
All the 'artists' on the labels involved are sell-outs, their's is a product of marketing rather than art.
People can easily find all sorts of music on the internet, if they want to, and the original artists want you to hear it too, for free.
Unfortunately most people prefer to listen to major label tat, because they are too lazy and unimaginative to think for themselves.

James, Leeds, UK

COMMUNISM - share everything - do as little as possible:

Those who do the work just get screwed? I like the people who say music should be free - maybe they'll work their own jobs for free? Castro would love you guys! How about a free ticket to Cuba!

Who's gonna pay for music? Those who truly appreciate it!

Rob, Orlando, FL

Why does the writer need to include that Jammie Thomas is a Native American from Minnesota? Does her heritage have anything to do with why she was sued by the Recording Industry Association of America? I highly doubt the plaintiff took her heritage into account when deciding who to sue. Is the writer trying to create sympathy for Ms. Thomas by saying she is a Native American and from a poor area? Yes I believe she is. Report the story as it is!

Jonathan, Wilmington, IL

She looks like that crazy lady from the movie Misery

PT, NYC,

I'm just hanging back to see what becomes of this case and the Radiohead move to offer music tracks directly to the customer. Love it when folks cut out the middleman. I can see a site managing the download process on behalf of renegade artists -- and people able to pick and choose what they want since the content is unbundled. Ultimately, I suppose, most artists will not be able to make a living by selling individual tracks, so perhaps they will bundle, too. The volume of unprioritized content -- ie, selected songs not getting heavy replay on the radio -- will seem overwhelming to customers, unless a site helps them prioritize the content based on preferences. Exciting times -- looking forward to seeing what evolves from these "early" struggles.

JL, Alexandria, VA

Times change. It is becoming clear that copyright on music cannot be defended, and will have to go.

Malcolm McLean, Bradford, UK

It might be against the law, but they should quit insisting that it's "stealing". If someone steals your computer, then it's missing and you don't have it any more.

They like to say "steal" because it sounds so much more dramatic than "uncompensated file sharing".

Jerry, Simpsonville, SC / USA

Surely she has a counter claim against teh company providing teh software for teh downloads and a further claim against the ISP.

This is like a tape recording of a record and giving that tape to a friend to play. If you can stop that then maybe the record industry will have a case.

For me the option is simple make records less expensive, downloads should be 50 cents or 25p in the UK the surge sales would far outweigh the costs of production and packaging.

Purps, Chelmsford, Engerland

sounds like what was done with Sattelite programming in the 80's

Rural People had to pay thousands to buy equipment to watch satelitie tv. Then the cable companies decided that they should pay 3-4 times what cable charged then they built a scrambler.\

The crambler didnt sell til a "hack " was secretly released. Then the same company sold millions of the scramblers albeit minimal subscriptions. After they sold millions of the devices They were defective and they sold new ones prosecuting all who had done anything to their previous module.

That industry is dead ( Big dish) and so will the music industry will be if they keep up the bad press....

Ron, minneapolis, USA

If they would charge a FAIR price for their product....they would not have these problems. They would also still have CD sales.

I hope this case puts an end to their heavy handed tactics!

Jo, Colorado Springs, CO

When you give your car to your grandchild you do not have your car anymore. If you destroyed the song and the only copies are now with your grandchild; then you have given away something not stole it. If you still have the song you are a theif and no amount of rationilization will make that go away.

Anthony Sargent, Palatka, Florida

The recording of music is intellectual property and should be handled in accordance with the moral and legal rules regarding private property.

Does downloading a song without paying the owner of the property harm the owner? If it does harm him, then one has to ask is this act the kind of act that is publicly allowable by some rational persons? If it is allowable by some rational persons, then morality of the act is controversial and is weakly justified, but it would also be publicly allowable to legally punish the downloader until it was decided by all that it is either publicly allowed or not publicly allowed. That is the way impartial rational morality works.

happily , Las Vegas , Nevada

If I purchased a Beatles album on vinyl, then 8 track or cassette, I don't think I'm infringing on a copyright if I download it from a file sharing site. I think the whole copyright issue needs to be examined. Once I hear a song without requesting it (at a public event or similar), it should be public domain. If artists like Metallica want to be capitalists pigs and receive money for their songs, don't put it out there. In order for someone to own something, they need to possess it. If I hear it without requesting it, its out there and they no longer possess it.

Ed h, DOuglaston, NY

I am 60 years old & while I do own a computer, I have never downloaded music in my life. I haven't even learned how to. I used to buy cd's in larger numbers than I do now. Not because I can't afford to but because, cd's are overpriced. I know the music companies, writers, porducers, performers all have to make a buck but with all the industry policing, sales continue to fall so the bigger culprit isn't illegal downloading but rather over-pricing the product in the first place.

Doug Collier, Norfolk , Nebraska

I agree, if you like it, buy it. Who's right is it decide that people work for free (or worse, at a loss)? How would you like it if the boss stopped paying you and started stealing your work? But of course, people aren't about honesty, they are about narcisim. It's easy to steal from someone and say, they have too much money anyway. I think that is an evil notion.

Dan, Tulsa, OK

If anyone else went into the music industries computer and checked their files they would be put into prison, why shouldn't they be punished for doing something that is totally illegal.

erm the argument is that she was making the files freely available whereas the RIAA's files aren't - which would be hacking, which is illegal.

bob, berkshire,

Let us assume a chocolate company produces a box filled with 8 different chocolate candies. Only 1 of the chocolates in the box is any good. That gives you no right to walk into a store and pilfer the chocolates. I see the crime in this.

However, if the chocolate-purchaser wishes to share his/her chocolates with other customers walking into the store...it is his/her right to do so. Those customers can now decide if their chocolate experience was too horrible or not to buy that very same box of chocolate candies.

Where is the crime in that?

Clint, Alexandria, VA

While I pay for downloads I think the record industry rips customers as well as performers off. When you download something and pay for it it should be your property to use as you see fit. I have had the experience of downloading and when I no longer wish to use a certain service ( I won't mention names) I can no longer access the music. They also ripped me off for a years worth of month;y fees. I have no sympathy for the record industry or their minions.

Irma, Scappoose, OR

I think it's funny. I agree with the artist that they should be paid , but I remember listening to them over the years saying what's yours is mine and mine is yours. What happened? ..............GREED...............Hey , free health care and free downloads. Isn't music good for the health?

ken, long beach, ca

I've seen these stories popping up for years, and I still don't see how downloading music is theft. If you read the legal caveats on any CD or movie, it prohibits the reproduction or distribution of that media. DOWNLOADING is not reproducing anything or distributing anything. By downloading a song, all a person does is acquire a file made available on their network. If the RIAA really wants to go after those who are reproducing, it needs to focus on those who allow the downloading of music by others from their computers.

Hey, maybe I should go to law school....

Dock, Miami, FL

The concept of copyright is a peculiar one. A bit like prostitution; you sell it and still have it.
Charles Dickens complained bitterly that he got no royalties from American sales. It was not until US corporations had acquired substantial 'intellectual rights' that Congress introduced copyright legislation.

The reason that people share files or other items is the cost of the original. My neighbour may ask to borrow my lawnmower, but is hardly likely to borrow my knife and fork. Incidentally, the lawnmower manufacturer is unlikely to complain that I have breached the terms of some arcane agreement entered into by virtue of opening the box.

No one bothers to copy the printed edition of The Times. The vast bulk of us buy one when we want one. It is affordable and good value for money.
The same cannot be said for the materials most often replicated. Who would bother duplicating Microsoft Vista, say, if it cost £5 instead of £100? (or whatever) Most of us would rather have the original.

Vince Meegan, Brighton, England

GB, Sofia, Bulgaria > hate to knock you off your high horse... but according to Sony BMG you are a thief too

Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer: "Copying" music you own is "stealing"

Testimony today in Capitol Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas quickly and inadvertently turned to the topic of fair use when Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG, was called to the stand to testify....Pariser has a very broad definition of "stealing." When questioned by Richard Gabriel, lead counsel for the record labels, Pariser suggested that what millions of music fans do is actually theft. The dirty deed? Ripping your own CDs or downloading songs you already own.

Gabriel asked if it was wrong for consumers to make copies of music which they have purchased, even just one copy. Pariser replied, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'," she said.

Adam, New Orleans,

The nerve of these dinosaur/obsolete record companies crying over the demise of their industry. My impression from all I've read over the years is how the recording industry has robbed artists of billions of dollars (by now) by hiding/refusing to pay/altering royalties, as well as forcing artists to sign over their publishing to the companies. This is truly a scumbucket industry and when it dies, no one will know, or care. Gee, how it must hurt to be on the other side of the coin of robbing people.

Jeff Goldsmith, Deer Park, NY

The record Companies are dinosaurs.. The internet their meteor.....

This isn't about artist or music but about business people loosing their gravy train..

I say, "Fairwell!"

Michael, Phoenix, Arizona

You mean to tell me: you have to buy mp3 songs of a cd you already bought at the dang store? You cannot copy a song of the cd you bought, and put it on your IPod? That is a big rip off. No wonder people are illegally downloading stuff. Maybe if they put the prices a little more reasonable, and stopped the rip offs, they wouldn't be in the shape they are in. This makes me so angry I don't want to buy or listen to anything but music I already bought in the past. I don't want to give the music industry another dime. This creates bad will among your customers music industry! I remember when I had lots and lots of albums. Cd's were set to come out, and would get as cheap as albums...eventually. Wrong. Now look at the prices. It costs more than one hour of wages for most people to buy that one cd. For teens it is much more than that. Once you have the cd collection, it will be some other format of music. Then there you go, spend more money once again. :-(

The Wonderer, Mitlon, Ohio

Surely this is less about protecting the copyright / musician, and more about protecting a distribution channel. It seems perfectly reasonable that someone should be able to own a tune in any (file/disk/tape) format they wish, and not have that dictated. It seems perfectly reasonable to pay the artist for his work.

What is not so reasonable is for a corporate entity to use the legal system to attempt to guarantee *their* arcane, outmoded distribution methodology. That is, to shore up a technologically outdated business model / industry. In any other area of activity, they would have been marginalised by sleeker, more advanced competition already.

Luddites, by any name, should not get the backing of the courts.

Geoff Harrison, Frankfurt, Germany

The punishment does not match the crime. Putting an enormous financial burden onto somone whom innocent children rely on should have been taken into consideration at sentencing.
Community service should have been ordered and I'm very very certain that despite having infringed the copyrights of the bands in question there is not a single band member who would want to see profit being put ahead of innocent childrens futures.

charlie thomson, singapore,

No more . From this day on I'll not buy any cd thats not in the reduced bin. When CD's were $8 in the US they were £14.99 in the UK (approx $20 at the then exchange rate.) Thanks to the supermarkets, howls of protests from record companies, and off shore internet agencies, more howls, the costs £9.77 for a CD (still $20). The court found her guilty of 24 counts - why not the rest? Maybe she had 24 songs she was going to share. Why aren't they going after every kid who burns the new release for his mates then? Whats the effect on an artist going to be if everyone buys reduced bargain CD's? Amy and Pete will need to wait another few mnutes for their next hit..... but the fat cats won't get their new bentley and thats what this is about.

Crazy Dave, Leeds,

A quick fix to this problem would be to reduce fines for illegal downloading to something like 2x the price of a song. Which to me sounds fairly reasonable. Fines for piracy were made back in the days when the internet and and electronic formats weren't around. This would immediately take the wind out of the RIAA's sails because It wouldn't be worth it to sue. Really if prices were lower like 20 cents a song, the black market wouldn't exist and people would again begin to spend part of their disposable income on music.

Dustin, D.C.,

bye-bye record labels
it's the age of the ipod now

johnny maro, los angeles,

it's time to abolish copyright law.

Is there a fund to help her that one can donate to?

Mark Joshi, Melbourne,

Regarding the title of this article: 'Single mother Jammie Thomas fined $220,000 for music file sharing'.

Does no one else think it odd? What has the fact that she is a mother got anything to do with the matter at hand (copyright law). You don't hear about 'Father of three jailed for robbery', or 'Father of one accussed of financial fraud'.

This is irresponsible reporting, as their are emotive connotations to the title. (i.e. : oh no, she is a mother, she can't possibly have deliberately infringed copyright law, or oh no, she is a mother, no one should even dream of prosecuting her for breaking the law)

Shane, Guildford, England

The music companies are doing a wonderfull job at bringing about their own demise. There overblown claims to entitlement to royalties when they have been systematically ripping off artists and consumers for decades.

In this day and age people share files all the time on MSN, facebook etc. Be it photos, audio or video clips, so they are basically trying to criminalise anyone with an internet connection.

Consumers have a lot of power - we must all shut our wallets untill the greedy record companies change there ways. If they wont they deserve to go bust

Ian Hislop, London, England

I too hope they lose. I hope they lose their a**. I hope she wins millions/billions from them.

They are a rip-off and always have been, ripping off artists and fans alike. And at this point I think we can get by with distribution via the Internet, rather than CDs. We can burn our own CDs, right?

rezeski, richardson, TX USA

This about copyright. One might think that the music industry is greedy, but it isn't. We forget that the money paid for CDs and downloads does not go completely and directly to the record companies. A percentage the royalties go to the artists who created the music. But the music companies have to recoup their own investments - as well as pay staff - from the vice president of public relations to the mail room workers - their salaries, their health care insurance, and so on. Thus, every time someone steals music, they are taking money away for average workers.

Marlene, Alexandria, VA USA

how can single mother pay this fine.

lucky, ogden, utah, usa

O.K. There are 2 sides: offering and taking the offer. Which is illegal?
If I buy a CD, copy it and give it away? Is that illegal?
Only 1 CD was bought. The person I gave it to, copies the CD ..... and so on. Is that illegal?
Just 1 CD was bought but in the end thousands of people have copied it.
I've seriously thought about this kind of chain. And I have a lot of CDs. I'll put my offer on the internet.

Peter, Mexico City, Mexico

Stealing is only a bad metaphor for file sharing. Therefore the RIAA only deserves a photograph of the $220,000.

_Felix, Nottingham,

The artists doing music sold today are vastly overpaid as are movie actors and pro athletes. And then we have their managers, agents, publishers etc thrown in and the greed factor soars to the stratosphere. Speaking of music, anyone ever hear the song "Have A Cigar" by the band Pink Floyd? A perfect example of the record companies greed and how they manipulate and try to control the artists. They call it "Ridin' The Gravy Train", brother.
They haven't got a clue-the band Pink Floyd recalls one music company exec asking which one in the band was named Pink.

Paul, Indianapolis, USA/IN

I have a large number of CDs collecting dust. Frankly, I did, in the past buy them for one or two songs, but eventually I got tired of the songs. Instead, now I have an mp3 player, a gizmo that lets me play the mp3 player over the car radio, and a subscription to Rhapsody-to-go. If I like a song, I put it on the player, when I get tired of it, I replace it with my current interests.

Also, I am an independent musician who sells music on SoundClick. People can listen all they want for free, but I also get sales.

Although I make a little from music, I don't understand people in it for the money or who quit because they can't make money. Whether I make a few bucks or not, I cannot not make music. I'd haul my guitars and keyboard outside and entertain the neighbors for free if I had to just to be making music. Which, I think is the point, if music didn't pay, there'd still be people who can't not make music. Perhaps, that wouldn't be swuch a bad thing.

T Lewis, Loves Park, IL

Music companies struggle against piracy crime, they cannot win this fight becouse we live in modern time, time has changed, many people have fast internet conection and they can download songs even in a flash.I am from czech republic and music companies sell classic CD´s for 25$, average salary is 1000$ per month but 2/3 people do not have even this salary and rather download songs for free.It is best way how to get songs, just one click.It is question of money.

BeeDee, Prague, Czech republic

Music will out; it's been around for thousands of years, and dire predictions of the collapse of the music industry due to nefarious freeloaders (no pun?) are probably not going to happen. But the problems of the music industry may contain a larger warning for the western world: if the trend for the future is a more direct link between producers and consumers, and if western nations continue their trend toward managing production without actually producing "things," then the fate of the music industry is the least of our worries. Eventually, we may find we aren't needed to manage production in China, India, or Indonesia anymore.

Entertainment is one of the last major western exports.

cdb, Colorado Springs,

I don't buy music anymore since they started pulling this crap. I haven't missed anything either. I support a lot of Indie bands and listen to free sources. If I really want to get a song I know how to do it in a way that the Riaa can't do anything about. This is a disgrace.

Jon, Las Vegas,

So, R of Glasgow - if you believe that "I don't feel I'm cheating the band, and I'm using the power of technology to my own advantage" presumably you would feel the same if someone used "the power of technology" to take money from your bank account, or to publicize your medical records? Drivel. It's theft. That it is convenient (and cheap) to you matters not.

Nick, Seattle, USA (ex-UK)

A few people here who’ve made comments are really terrible! I'm talking about those who say they don't pay for music or for CDs. I'm an artist and I've been trying to sell my music independently, but because people download my songs for free, I can no longer stay in business and make music. Making music costs lots of money, hours of practicing while you watch TV and for anyone to say that artists' music is now reduced to background noise should be made deaf! You don't deserve to listen to music! I've worked very hard for many years & spent countless dollars to make music and it debuted on college radio in the top 20s for 6 weeks! But 'cuz I can't make enough money selling my CDs or enough to promote, I'm out of business. So thank you all of you Thieves! I now have to work a day job because music fans want my music for free. Do you watch DVDs? Do you go to concert events? Those shows aren't cheap! Where do you think that money comes from to pay for that stuff? It does not grow on trees!

George, Oakland, CA

I hope they throw the book at this lady. Put her away , deep away for a long long time and she will get the ieda. And so will many others . They could not have crammed anymore sobb story into this article. Poor native american , down and out , in the middle of no where with children . Please grow up and admitt what you did was wrong and take your punishment like an adult.

DJ Canestaro, San Jose, USA/Ca

The RIAA is just slapping claims against the wall and seeing what will stick. Of course most people will settle rather than fight. Do you honestly believe this 30 year old woman made 1702 songs available for download from such disparate bands as Opeth and Janet Jackson? No, of course not. The RIAA inflated the claim to increase the amount of the settlement they could ask for. Their investigative techniques have never been scrutinized by the courts. I believe they should be because I believe they lie. Good for her for taking them on and making them prove their claims against her. More should do the same.

Cami, Austin, TX

If I purchase 100 CD's and record them on to my iPod and then give away or even sell the CD's, who is at fault or who committed a criminal act. I see little if any difference between doing this and down loading songs from a file sharing system.

mbeeler, columbus, Ohio

I buy CD's that I know have value i.e. those I am familier with and which offer a good package. This limits me, however if free down loads were made available I would experiment more. Surely the record companys need to grow up and recognise that they would get more sales of interesting artists if they loosened their shackles on the music industry. The industry is trying to protect a dying protectionist industry that pumps out 'safe' music for tweleve year olds, reminisent of the Ludites. Someone out there in industry recognise that where others see a threat there is in fact an oportunity!

Mad Marky, Brighton, UK

I download music that I've already paid for.

I don't buy new music because I refuse to support people RIAA who sue 12 year-old girls. They can rot.

If I hear some really good new music, I might break my rule and pay for it. So far, I haven't been tempted.

PR, USA,

Well maybe if they didn't charge $500 dollars for each CD and if stores were more accessible then I would buy some more CDs. The only music stores near where I live don't even sell half the music I want. iTunes doesn't even have most of the good music made back in the day, so how can I get a single song that I want? Buy the $25 CD to listen to 1 song? Music today sucks anyway, so if somebody has 1 or 2 good songs, it's not even worth it to buy the entire album. Make good music, or reasonable prices, and put more stores that sell CDs in the area, get those stores to sell more music, get more ways to get just 1 song, then maybe I'll stop downloading.

Dave, Boston,

I used to download other means but have since switched to buying songs off of iTunes. It's easy and sounds great but whereas I used to be able to buy a CD and play it on any player I now am stuck buying a song and only can play it on one or maybe two computers, ipods or other MP3 player and can't even burn it to a CD to play. What's the point in paying full price if you can't use it as you would a CD, but buying a CD includes a whole bunch of other crappy songs that suck but are thrown in as filler? I'll buy the songs worth the money and to heck with the other crap artists make.

Kory, Alexandria, USA/VA

Want to give money back to the band? Go see them in concert. That's what they do best isn't it?

I've stopped paying for music, and will continue along with millions of others to download music for free. I've got into great bands simply from getting their stuff off the net, from people sharing their favorite stuff with me, and if I like the bands I discover enough, I feel compelled to go see them play live, where I give money back to them and their crew by buying a ticket. I suggest you all do the same. I don't feel I'm cheating the band, and I'm using the power of technology to my own advantage. Am I wrong? I certainly don't think so.

R, Glasgow, UK

I am one of those people that bought the vinyl, the cassette and after holding out for a while bought them again on CD. Now if I buy a CD I play it once on the computer and never play the CD again. I have gotten copies burned for me that on occasion have been good enough for me to give the burned CD to someone and I would go and buy the actual product. The record companies treat their customers like crap, they under pay the artist and now that people are taking matters into their own hands the companies are on the attack. Not too fond of iTunes either by the way.

johno, Hoboken, USA/NJ

In my view, a large part of the problem is the inexcusable habit these record companies have of signing bands that produce one good tune per 12 song album, and then expecting people to be happy about dropping $18 on a piece of $2 technology. There is no reason at all CDs should cost as much as they do; the tech to reproduce them is dirt cheap (about 60 cents to press a disc). I woldn't mind getting suckered into buying a whole album full of crap to get the one song I like if it didn't cost me nearly $20.

Tyler, Minneapolis, MN

When we were kids we used to tape stuff off the radio. The artists we learned about that way got us to buy their posters, their records, their button badges, their T-shirts and their concert tickets. i think I personally gave the Jam's record company over £200 just for their records and the CD's which replaced them alone.

I think I tend to agree with the idea that the business model has changed here. The public is used to radio, soundtracks and free music so just don't place a value on it. Remember that until recently humans never paid for a recorded piece of music. Musicians were paid to perform live.

The music industry has got the law on its side. But that doesnt mean its doing anything other than fighting a losing battle. They need to look at the paradigm. The money needs to be made in some other way. And stupid unenforceable laws change. George Michael and Sir Elton would both have been executed in less enlightened times.

David B, LARKHALL, UK

The RIAA has been promoting singles for far too long, which makes people less likely to buy an album. All they want to hear is that one single, so why would they pay $19 for one song. I ended up on this article after doing a news search for Opeth. They made it really easy for me to decide to purchase their latest album, because they offered a DVD audio mix to go along with it. That and they make albums rather than a collection of crappy singles for you to individually digest.

Billy, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

The music industry might well "suck," they might be greedy and incompetent - it is irrelevant to the question of theft. According to some of the arguments (well, protestations...) in comments here, I would be able to simply decide that your house was too big, and that you had too much money, and that you had not earned it, and just take some of it from you. Aha! But yes - that's socialism for you. "Fleece the rich!" where the rich are "someone with more than me..."

Nick, Seattle, USA

How many more examples do we need?
The world knows that the US 'justice' system is the best money can buy!

geoff, Carbost, Isle of Skye

The most amusing thing to me is the RIAA refuses to acknowledge that CD sales peaked out during the height of Napster downloads.

It was free advertising for the most part. Unfortunately they are completely blinded by their own greed.

The Grateful Dead made their fortune by turning a blind eye to piracy and accepting that everyone can make some money. People were selling T-shirts they made in the back of their band. No one cared.

Try to learn the lessons RIAA you are your own worst enemy.

Microsoft will be the next to fall due to their own completely unbridled greed, fear and loathing.

PSB, Saint Louis, USA/MO

If the artists would leave the fat cats behind and sell their work on the internet for $4, they receive more, we pay less, and the fat cats go broke. Let's get started!

Bigdog (Kyle), Las Vegas, Nv

If this music industry morons would have had any sense at all, they wold have bought Napster when this all started, charged, charged 10 cents a song and these kids would have made them all millionaires. They probrobly would've started downloading more and more.
Instead they want us to pay 99 cents (the same as if we went to the store) even though they use none of their raw materials, its my CD, burned on My computer, My Printer, useing My bandwidth, and my tiime, yet the want to charge the same $17 dollars for a disc that I MAKE. Greedy weasles, I hope they loose.....

G, Lanc,

I think the indivudual artist should offer their songs for a price through their own website. They can post all their songs and for a fee customers/music lovers can download the songs they like, AND the artist would benefit directly from those sales rather then the record and distribution companies making all the profits.

Madge, Fountain Valley, U.S. California

We are professional musicians and an independent label. We have just taken out a mortgage on our house to finance the latest CD. We only make $2 per CD we sell. Why does this woman want the legal right to steal from us, as each CD that is downloaded is stealing $2 from us?

Hugh Philliips, montreal, Canada

Thanks, Buddy Lee, for pointing out the legal flaws in the RIAA's scheme of prosecution - or should that be persecution?

Ms. Thomas may or may not be guilty of copyright infringement, (so many comments shared so far assume her guilt - really, people! Accusation does not equal guilt! That's why we have a judicial system in the first place!) but if this is a criminal offense how is it that the RIAA is able to invade her privacy to gather the evidence to sue her? Was there a warrant? Were the authorities involved in any way? Would the RIAA be able to enter her home to search for a burned CD? Look in her car to find an iPod? Of course not.

I admit I don't know exactly how the RIAA has collected evidence; the article only says that their methods are imprecise. Can anyone point me to an article that explains how they gather their information? Who knows, she may have a case that their evidence is inadmissible because they 'stole' the information from her computer or ISP in retaliation.

Jen G., Seattle, WA, USA

Hmm, let's review. Throw prayer and God out of our schools, then expect honesty and morals to stay. Promote trash, charge ridiculous prices for it and then expect to have it come back to you? I DON"T THINK SO!

Eric, Watseka, IL

The music industry has wallowed in greed for years, even decades -- I know, I've worked in both retail and production. I used to work at Tower Records. Russ Soloman, founder fought a huge battle with the labels when blank cassettes came out. Just like now, the industry and Quincy Jones would scream that blank tape would rob musicians and kill the recording industry. But what we had discovered by actually knowing the customer was that someone who loved music so much that would take their time to not only record albums, but create their own mixes of songs invariably bought more music to create even more special tapes for themselves, family and friends. More importantly, we saw that customers like that were 100% behind their favorite artists and would spend extra if presented with new material. Face it -- the music industry used an outdated business model to perpetrate enormous yet temporary profits. Revolution is here. Long live Radiohead!

Larry, Los Angeles, USA

File sharing is illeagl, if you do not understand that then get a lawyer to read a copyright statement to you and explain it slowly. For that reason I do not do file sharing, however I also will rarely buy a CD.
That said, the music industry has indirectly brought this on themselves, I simply refuse to buy a CD with only one maybe 2 songs that are getting any airplay and or are worth listening too at the current CD prices. I grew up in the days of Album Rock, you paid $6.00 to $8.00 bucks per album and most of the music on each one was good.
If they wanted to energize CD sales they would go back to offering a good product for a fair price, then only idiots would waste the time required to download then burn their own.
But no, they will continue to offer crap, pay lawyers, pay to develop the next version of copy right software, and in general throw money away left and right when they could be making money hand over fist. Sad, Sad, Sad.

Junk Collecter, Dallas, Texas

Here in the 4077th, we still groove to the beat sounds of that hep cat Sinatra.. Dig daddy, he lays down the coolest platters known to man. I believe that this coolest, acest, most swinging
star ever is bound for the stratosphere! And when he lands on Mars he'll have those little green dudes swining their hips to that mad sound!!

This is the time frame that most of the recording industry is living in.. they think it's still the 1950's.. obviously paying artists TEN CENTS per cd sold.. And jacking the prices up as much as possible..

Lets see.. blank cd...01 to .05 cents each.. Artist gets .10 cents each.. RIAA is right THE ARTISTS ARE GETTING RIPPED OFF.. BY THEM. Greedy bunch of crooks.. I cant wait for them to go out of business.. maybe they can get jobs selling Ham and Pork chops on Sunset Strip.

Col. Sherman, Seoul, South Korea

Despite being 50, I actually do buy CDs. I usually get them from used CD stores or online. I have never downloaded music off the internet.

I can afford to pay for what I like -- and guess what, the recording industry is ignoring me, an honest paying customer, in favor courting thieves. Every hip-hop album they make is one that I'll never buy. And Sting can't even get played on the radio anymore! Jeez, the industry is getting what it deserves. Luckily, now all my favorite artists are retiring and I can buy their whole career's greatest hits for $8 to $13 depending on how recent their latest hit was.

Most of my friends use mp3 players and have $20/month for all you can listen services. These services can easily afford to make deals with artists directly. Why should they pay high prices to rapacios dinosaurs -- er I mean, the RIAA?

Lowell Boggs, Lewisville, TX

Record companies have been screwing their artists and the consumer since they began. It's about time for them to feel it, they have no control and can do nothing to stop file sharing. Support the artist! see a show, buy an MP3 directly from them.

Roger, LA, CA

It's also about the quality of the music! You can record anything off the radio, but who would really want to buy it or listen to it with some DJ yapping over the top while the first few bars are drowned out. CDs and internet files, while some versions are lower quality, they're still generally better quality than a cassette could ever record off the radio. Incidentally, people used to pirate music on cassette tapes and they were prosecuted if found. But the loss there was considerably less to what they are now. Billions of dollars are lost! These are industries people! Just like the car industry! Someone made an example of GM suing someone for giving their car away. That's lame! The difference is only 1 person can drive your car, but millions can be emailed files and download songs for free.
It costs time and money and hours of practice to make music!
Playing music is not all about fun and games! It is very hard work! It ain't Money for Nuthin'! That's for sure!

George, Oakland, CA

She must be a democrat. Always looking for a free handout.

Jose, Newark, USA

I'm 40 something and I don't buy music anymore. If I was 20 something and really wanted a copy of whatever turned me on I wouldn't pay for it either. Sorry recording companies, but you've been bypassed by the same technology that once brought millions into your coffers. I'm one of those people who paid for your music on vinyl, then paid for that SAME music on cassette, and then paid for that SAME music on CD. I stopped paying long ago. Burned thrice, never again.

Ross, Lander, WY/USA

Say goodbye to the recording industry. The people who are hurt by this are not the Artists who make most of there money on tour, but the suits who produce nothing. It's the record executives turn to feel the bite of modern technology. Much like the industrial worker who is replaced by a robot, the Record executive has been made redundant by technology. With protools and the internet a record company really has little to offer a musician.

Paul C. Walker, LINCOLN, Rhode Island

She knew what she was doing was illegal. These people play dumb and so many of you are incredibly naive and suck it up. When I used Kazaa I knew what I was doing was wrong and there was a risk of getting caught. No one is being "bullied", it is AGAINST THE LAW to file share copyrighted material, PERIOD!! You might as well claim you are being bullied for that speeding ticket because the city makes too much money. The "music giants" charge what the market will bear, just as I do for the products my company makes. It's called capitalism. Over the last 10-12 years, my companies products have risen 50% in price while CD prices have dropped 50% over the same time span because of illegal file sharing. How can you possibly blame them for going after the perpetrators. I know I would.

Dave B, Huntington Beach, CA

The music 'biz' has been to the detriment of the art since they began. It's long past time for artist to take the buisness part of selling their work in their own hands and force these corporate syncophants to go peddle fabricated 'boy bands' to play on Emptyvee or something.

Mauricio, Ely, USA

Those people with iPods who try and claim that they only use CD's that they have purchased are OK had better check again.

You will find that under the record companies licence they forbid any form of copying or duplication.

When you place your CD into the computer and convert the music into MP3 format your are duplicating it. When you transfer it to your mp3 player you are then making a copy.

So in fact under the RIAA's own rules you have committed two acts of piracy and so would be liable for the same fines as this woman.

Gary, UK,

I do not think the quality (or lack of) of the current music scene has anything to do with this case. If the music sucks why would you even download it for free?

I buy the music I like. I guess I am still under the delusion that the artists do get some kind of compensation for every album sold. The way I look at it is if they created music that will entertain me for hours on end, then I will happily pay them for thier efforts.

I do look forward to the day when i can go and buy the music directly from the artist and give them the majority of the profits, instead of some suits in a building.

Until that day comes, will continue to buy music where I am forced to and refrain from downlaoding music for free.

Joe, Stamford, CT

are we paying for the music or the media? years ago we were forced to buy the same song over again when they switched from vinyl to cd. it seems the artist/recording industry should start looking to the media (memorex, maxell, dell, ibm, mac, etc.) for compensation. eventually the downloaders still have to pay for something (blank cd's, ipods, software, etc.) to listen to the music.

dd, houston, tx

Sorry GB, Sofia, Bulgaria what you do is also illegal you may not copy a music file off a cd that also breaks the copyright

DA, aberdeen, UK

Interesting debate, the real problem with copyright laws is that they have never been properly enforced, which gives people a false impression of what they represent.

It was never legal to make and distribute copies from CD, LP or cassette, it was just that it was pretty difficult to trace an offender and normally one guy would only copy his CDs for a couple of dozen close friends so they didn't lose too much revenue.

Now with file sharing one guy can "lend" his music to hundreds of thousands of other people and it might be easier to trace who did it. The music business can't afford to overlook the scale of the share so they have to take some action.

I do agreed with David Masu. If I purchased the right to view a movie when I bought the VCR my license should still be good if I want it on DVD or Bluray or whatever. I should be able to pay a reduced "upgrade fee" which just covers the price of the new media (I guess a couple of dollars for a blank DVD).

Bob, Reading,

I use to file share...now the computer that has the software on it is AWOL. I think 50% of the music out there is cRAP and would never pay for it. In fact, most RAP or HIP-HOP will be irrelevent in a few years anyways.

I think what will happen is what RADIOHEAD is doing. TO me, that is the best model for bands. With today's home recording software, a band can pretty much produce a album for under $5,000.

I have come out of many stores and there are guys (RAPPERS) hocking there CD. I have to give them credit for doing it!.

I wish the RIAA would put there money to good use and find a fair model that works for everyone.

Mister S, Bay Area, USA

Every American should applaud Ms. Thomas for standing up to this kind of heavy handed intimidation.

Is there justice in threatening a single mom with bankruptcy so that overpaid musicians and record executives can have their private jets and mansions?

John, Setauket, NY

Goodbye record industry, music belongs to the people again.

No one will miss you.

The writing's on the wall.

k, cedar rapids,

James from Albany....well said....
thanks for your service to our country! I can never repay you!

grap, Bloomington, Indiana

Ever music download from the internet has been paid
for , there is a RIAA tax placed on ever CD and DVD that is paid to the entertainment industries just for that purpose. If you want to talk about stealing, ever time I burn my pictures to a CD I pay that tax, burn you home work you pay the tax and on and on. RIAA has turned ever copyright holder into parasites by using (off shore) money from special interest to extend copyright to life plus 70 years. This means copyright holders will not contribute anything to the common good of this country in your life time. The RIAA is just getting a dose of what it's been passing out. The downfall of the RIAA would most likely give birth to a much better system for all and take the power from the hands of a few.

kc, amarillo, texas

Let's not mix up the intent of this. First, file sharing is the exchange of data set up and constructed with a specific intent. What is being talked about here is music being formatted INTO files. Let us say I have Office 2007. Copyrighted Microsoft. I make that available. THIS is file sharing violation. Because Office 2007 was created and copyrighted for use for office procedure. Now, a CD of Britney Spears. The music is engramed similar in nature to an old albumn record. The music is then translated and composed into a file format. At this point, this is no longer music, nor is it a file. Its a complilation of data put into a file. It takes a seperate decoder such as an MP3 player, IPOD, etc etc, to reinterpret the data into music.
If ANYONE should be at fault, it should be those companies selling encoder and decoder products, NOT THE CITIZENS. Even Microsoft (wma). Companies like Kazaa and others of course should be blamed as well. BUT NOT the users.

Erik M, Virginia Beach, USA

I'll admit, I've downloaded music. Music I couldn't find anywhere to order. I've ordered old albums that come from JApan because the big music companies don't produce those albums.

What they should do is monitor what people like. Second, pricing. it is so cheap to make CDs now. The marketing for them sucks.

What's interesting, they didn't have a problem with recording when CDs weren't around. I remember taping songs from the radio, from friend's albums, and other cassettes. The only difference now is the quality in the recording is better.

What's happening here is the music companies got greedy when folks went out and replaced their collections. There mistook this sale surge as the norm and when sales eventually declined, they started blaming the internet.

Staci, Miami,

Music is outrageously over-priced. I stopped buying years ago, because I not prepared to lose the better part of a $20 bill for a single CD. The Music industry would solve all of its problems through radical repricing. Price CDs at no more than five bucks, and I'd be buying stacks of them. So would most people who pirate, because there are still huge advantages to owning the CD over simply having it as a dowload file.

I don't illegally download music. I've switched to internet radio and my local library. There was a time when I was a huge consumer of vinyl albums. But the music industry lost me as a consumer and a lot of people when they switched to a format (CD) that should have allowed them to dramatically lower prices, but instead they greedily and foolishly kept them artificially high.

Walter, columbus, OH

Sarah from Manchester,

I love the way you think. I completely agree with your perspective, and am tired of seeing a woman's reproductive status implicated in unrelated news stories.

I appreciate your comment.

Ariel, New York,

"File sharing is stealing"??? Really?? I didn't think sharing was stealing? Boy have I got a lot to learn. So by the "File sharing is stealing" theory I am to assume that when I buy (and take ownership of ) an item that I can't share that item with anyone? Wow...
Intellectual property? What is that? When a musician creates the music it is their property. When they sell that property they no longer own it. Seems simple enough to me.

grap, Bloomington, Indiana

I'm a 77 year old greatgrandfather WW II, and Nam vet who has programmed and operated computers sense the huge main frames in the sixtees. I bought all my grandchildren a complete computer system when 2 gigs was state of the art. I shared and copied music when there was nothing but reel ,and 8 tracks and later cassets. When file sharing became available, we all started doing it until this RIAA got into the act. We got rid of our sharing programs, deleted many questionable songs but kept the ones I bought and paid for. I can cut a cd or dvd and give it the any of my 19 grands or greatgrands but of course they really do not want the stuff I have. I pay for what I get hand once it is mine, I can do anything I want with it otherwise when I give one of my old cars to one of the grands, General Motors should be able to sue me because they didnt buy their new car. That is what the RIAA is saying. Looks like they want all hand-me-downs gifts and the like to be controlled by them.

James, Albany, US/GA

Dennis, this is James from California. You are right - there is too much formula made product being fed to us - let's see who makes it and who doesn't.

James Morfton, Lakeside, CA USA

It has now become evident that broadband Internet made the record industry an obsolete business model. However, evil will remain and up-to-date always modern phenomenon, that can only be weakened with truth and education.

Mark Jensen, Dallas, TX, USA

If anyone else went into the music industries computer and checked their files they would be put into prison, why shouldn't they be punished for doing something that is totally illegal.

The music industry are terrorists under the definition of the law.

lee mc, pdx,

Hey wake up folks, anyone who thinks they can justify the stealing of copyrighted content is just kidding themselves.

Wake up, grow up and go buy the damn music.

Boo Hoo, the record companies charge too much, Wah Wah, the music stinks anyways, everyone else is doing it, blah blah blah.

Mark, Winterport, ME

Times they are a changin'.
From 78s to 45s to 33s to 8 tracks to cassettes to CDs to mp3 downloaded from the internet. Did I miss anything?
I look forward to the day when all artists have finished their contracts with these leaches but not renew them and then just market their wares on the internet independently. Then the A&R people will not decide who makes it big; the listeners will!

Dennis, Newport News,

The most interesting music is FREE. Download dot com and dozens of other sites have music from awful to genius from people all over the world. If you want to listen to the same crap everyone else does, you dont' have to buy it. Just turn on the radio.

Indy music lover, Oklahoma,

What's the difference between recording off the radio to a cassette and then making copies and passing them out and downloading a song from someone else? Not much IMO. The fact that Prince and Radiohead are giving their music away for FREE speaks volumes. I don't pay for music, period.

As for the RIAA-this woman should be applauded for refusing to bow down to their extortion. I'll be watching for the outcome.

Music Lover, Eastern Shore, USA

If the music companies position is based on the user owning a licence to listen to a piece of music, rather than any tangible ownership, where to those consumers who have paid for the same product on vinyl, cassette, DVD, minidisc and in some extremely tragic cases, 8-Track, apply for a refund?
Likewise, the same movie on video, laserdisc, DVD, 5.1 surround, director's cut and various special editions are each charged at full price (normally at the laughable exchange rate of 1USD to 1GBP).
The software vendors have embraced the concept of upgrade, and their claim to intellectual property ownership is very much clearer as well as fairer.

David Masu, Zürich,

What's the fact that she's a single mother got to do with any of this? Would you mention it in the headline if it was a man who had children? "Father fights US music giants"? I don't thinks so. I just don't get why even today, the reproductive choices of a woman has anything whatsoever with her court battle.

Sarah, Manchester,

Listen =

artists are ripped off. period.

Why do you think youre entitled to free (stolen) art?

l, la, ca

Good for Ms. Thomas...I hope she wins.

Johnny, Atlanta, GA, USA

I love all these "Oooo I buy all my music" comments. Where you buy your music isn't the issue here at all. The issue is, that if something is stolen from your home, you DO NOT have the right to go looking around the inside of all your neighbor's homes looking for it, let alone haul them into court because the a trail of your junk runs past the front of their house.... which is what this is. Listen all you self righteous jerks who have decided "she must be guilty, why else would they accuse her"... They can't just accuse you then come knocking on your door expecting a handout --- that's extortion --- which is what she's not going to let them get away with. If they say she's guilty, make them prove it. Good for her.

Buddy Lee, San Diego, CA

File sharing is not stealing. It is the modern way of listening to music. People living in the past think it is stealing because their simple minds cannot wrap around the idea of community property free of monetary constraints. Music will never require payment again.

Sorry musicians, your work has become the modern equivalent of background noise. You need to find a better way of making yourself relevant because your music isn't cutting it anymore. Quit resorting to the mafia to shove your crap down everyone's throats. Maybe then you will see how little we really care for you and your tripe.

Richard Martin, Tampa, Florida

I really hate the music industry's two faced approach to these kinds of issues. The area where I live is coated in illegal adverts, stuck on the side of people's houses on shops, on disused building etc. We have tried to get the companies responsible (i.e. the music companies) to clean them up and stop engaging in this illegal activity (criminal damage, consipracy to commit criminal damage, threatening behaviour etc) but they won't because it is cheaper than paying for advertising sites. Where is the difference between that and what the file 'sharers' are doing?

Mark, Cardiff,

With any piece of property the owner needs to ensure that it cannot be stolen. The record companies should use their million dollar profits to develop a system whereby their property cannot be illegally traded - alternatively they need to blitz the market with music at the price people want to pay, and then the problem wouldn't exist. The truth is the artist gets very little of the profit that is actually made from music sales - its the record company that makes the main share, and they don't want to see their profits go down - Lets face it they can't pay the artists any less than they are already paying!

Mark, Son Servera, Mallorca, ES

I spend a good proportion of my time explaining to my children why they should not download pirated music from the internet. It is theft, no matter who is doing it. Music is intellectual property and unfortunately music thieves lack both intellect and moral values.

I am an iPod user, and all my music has come from my CD collection. I cannot buy from iTunes where I live, so I buy CDs.

Life is very simple. If you cannot afford it, you cannot have it and you should not steal it. I believe that everyone should have the right to free health care, but not free music!

I do not see a problem with businesses making profits and protecting their markets in legal way they can - it is why they exist.

GB, Sofia, Bulgaria

What a sad commentary on our society today. File sharing is stealing, pure and simple.

Joe, Rocky River, Ohio

I can't really takes sides between a music industry that has overcharged ridiculously for its product and a bunch of people who want something for nothing and are prepared to steal to get it. what has being a single mother got to do with anything?

the people who lose out are the ones who want to be able to buy music for a realistic price honestly.

a plague on both their houses. if people want cheap music, they should stop buying cds or downloading until the record companies put the product on sale at a sensible price. sadly, this mass cooperation won't happen and we'll be stuck with a split between the thieves and those being ripped off for being honest.

jem, london, uk

I'm glad someone is finally standing up to the bullies. They have sued elders and others without regard to the truth. They don't care. They only care about money....period!

Suze, New Harmony, IN

America is larded with bullies. They don't frequent schoolyards or browbeat spouses, contrary to shonk 'Victim Hagvocates' who practice Judicial Terrorism against citizens who expose their lies.

America's bullies have an eye for intrigue but not the stomach for it. Meet the Record Industry Boardroom Brawlers. They use Judicial Terrorism against women alone. Brave!

In America, we're savoring the spectacle of record and radio thugs in their death throes. Brilliant entrepeneurs such as Prince give away CDs and reap rewards of full stadiums, as record and radio thugs stupidly shake down citizens like crack-challenged junkies.


Will this backfire, despite best efforts of their tuna-breathed courtesans with law degrees? Yes. Will they learn by it? No. They're unteachable. That's why the skindustry is in this mess.

Dr. Paul Vincent Zecchino
Manasota Key, Florida
03 October, 2007

PaulVincentZecchino, Englewood, USA FL

I have been a collector of pre-recorded tapes for many years and firmly believe the music died with the advent of those low sample rate CD's. The RIAA brought all this on themselves with the poor quality of those 16 bit CD's. RCA released ECS-1, a stereo tape in 1954 that blows away most of the crap I hear today. Even the CD re-issues of the great old master tapes are done by engineers who have absolutely no clue because of their pop music heritage. Their grandfathers made these great recordings and these children want to re-eq all of them to sound like hip hop. Take a look at the offerings on ebay and note the prices paid for recordings made when engineers really knew what they were doing. MP-3's and Ipods, what a sick joke!

John Watkins Jr., Richmond, Virginia

Major label record companies put out garbage music for the masses. It's an atrocity that they even charge money for some of it. But then again, anyone ignorant enough to use Kazaa, or even listen to talentless major label songs desreves to be sewed and or fined. The fine should actually reflect the downloaders intellegence quotient in unison with number of "dumb down the populous" tracks that they have downloaded.
People should should support indi music. More bands should follow in the footsteps of groups like Radiohead and offer their albums for download on the honor system, based on the merit of their talent, and not the flashiness of their videos, or if it's the hottest in the club. The RIAA is in for a real wake up call.

B Marshall, Boston, Massachusetts

Time's they are a changin. I'm so sick of the junk they put out now I love watching them go down in flames. Much of the "money making music" they market only degrades our society anyway. Perhaps this shakeup will place more of a talent value on songs and promote constructive creativity. Not that I'm anti-capitalist, on the other hand I'm quite the opposite. My point is that markets shift, things change, and these companies don't like that. They aren't going to have a choice, and this single mom is going to be one of the ones to change the tide. Way to go.

Shawn Mowry, San Diego, CA/ USA

Does the RIAA pay royalties to the developers of the Internet? Afterall they use Internet technology free of charge. Seems to me that they are stealing the rights to HTML coding and such every time they publish a web site.

jeff, Buffalo, NY

Good on this single mother !

The recorded music industry is finally being dumped and spat out by the same huge wave that it has been riding and reaping insanely huge profits for the last 40 ? years.

What about those genuinely talented musicians who have been similarly spat out by same wave ...viz those musicals which rely on recorded backing music and lip synching 'artists' etc.?

That it would all come to this was inevitable since Edison recorded '...Mary had a little lamb' - in fact probably when since humans started to show superior intelligence.

The Recorded Music industry just can't win this one - " what goes around comes around"

BigAl, Melbourne, Australia