Yes and no.

If you are a big time file sharer, uploading lots of files for people to steal, your odds go way up. But they also pick average joes, small time downloaders, for the very purpose of trying to make an example.

But yes, of the millions and millions of people doing it, only thousands of them are being sued. However, if you are one of the unlucky ones who gets sued, it is going to cost you.

My success rate in defending the little guy against big business is about 99%. I can go up against these big guns, and on a shoe string defense budget, win almost every time. I don't publicize this much because I don't want to be swamped these kinds of cases, but damn, I'm good.

But my success rate in defending music thieves? Zero. Granted, I only defended one such case. That was enough for me to see there was nothing to be done. The record company had all its evidence, all its ducks lined up in a row, and was not going to compromise, budge, or be persuaded. It is all about making an example, and they are treating it as if their livelihood depends on it --- because it does. So no amount of maneuvering, posturing, putting them to their burden of proof, nothing that a defense lawyer would normally do did any good. Sure, we had a defense. Did they give a shit? No. Insist on going to trial? Fine, they'll show up with all their lawyers. Like I said, they're just not messing around. They don't care what it costs, and they don't care if they'll never collect a dime. They are making examples. Man, that just sucks, to have someone trying to make an example out of you. It makes it very difficult to negotiate.

Now, I am talking about people who are guilty. If you are innocent, tyou have some kind of innocent explanation, that's another matter, those cases can be defended, though they are extremely aggressive even in those cases. Take, for example, the lady whose child was doing all the downloading. The record company didn't care. They still came after the mom.

Anyhow, your chances of getting sued may be slim, but if you do get sued, you're hosed. It's your choice. You play, you take your chances.

‘Insane’ file-sharing verdict could challenge law’s constitutionality

Posted By Muriel Kane On June 19, 2009 @ 9:02 pm In

In the first file-sharing case to go to trial in the United States, a Minnesota jury has [1] ruled that a 32 year old woman must pay the music industry $1.92 million dollars for illegally making 24 songs available for sharing from her hard drive.

The woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, had originally been accused of uploading 1700 songs to Kazaa. An earlier verdict of $220,000 was [2] overturned because of a faulty jury instruction, with the judge [3] describing even that lower amount as “unprecedented and oppressive.”

After today’s ruling, Thomas-Rasset called the damages “ridiculous” and said she had no means of paying them. A representative of the Recording Industry Association of America said the music companies were willing to settle for a much smaller amount, which based on past cases might still be in the tens of thousands of dollars.

A blog entry at technology news site ZDNet, however, [4] describes the verdict as “insane” and suggests that it “could prove [the] RIAA’s downfall.”

Lawyer and tech writer Richard Koman points out several serious problems with the amount of the verdict. For example, the law used in the case normally prescribes damages of $750 to $30,000 per infringement. The judgement against Thomas-Rasset comes out to $80,000 per song — an amount which is considered appropriate only when there has been “willful” infringement, which would seem to mean a crime committed for profit or out of a desire to do deliberate harm.

Koman says he also spoke with Ray Beckerman of the blog Recording Industry v. the People. Beckerman has been following the case closely and has no doubt that it could serve as a test cast to challenge the constitutionality of the law. He told Koman, “Courts have repeatedly held that statutory damages can be more than actual damages but only by two or three times.”

An [2] analysis by the Electronic Freedom Foundation goes more deeply into the constitutional issues. It notes that “recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. … If the record industry lawyers urged the jury to ’send a message’ to the millions of other American file-sharers out there, they may have crossed the constitutional line.”

At his own blog, Beckerman [5] points out that in this case, the statutory damages are 228,571 times as much as the actual damages of $0.35 per song. “it is clear from reports I am seeing that this verdict is making the US an international laughingstock,” he states, “providing great fuel to those inclined to laugh in their beer at the US justice system. When will the courts do something to stop this madness?”

URLs in this post:
[1] ruled: news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/h...8108589.stm
[2] overturned: www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...labels-awarde
[3] describing: www.eff.org/deeplinks/20...al-implores-c
[4] describes: government.zdnet.com/
[5] points out: recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

rawstory.com/08/news/200...tutionality/

Y'all's responses are highly charged with emotion and devoid of comprehension of the law.

Corporate abuse? How? It was the jury who went nuts with the verdict, as juries sometimes do. The corporations committed no abuse, they were just trying to defend their property rights, keeping in mind that their industry is dying because of this kind of theft.

When juries return huge damages awards against big corporations, you applaud, but when the same court systems are used by the corporations to protect their property interests, you scream foul. It's called the rule of law, not the rule of liberal, okay?

Willful infringement of copyrights carries potentially large statutory damages, and this law applies equally regardless of who is the infringer and who is the copyright holder. If a giant corporation was infringing on the copyright of a little guy, the law would apply exactly the same.

Having said all that, this particular award does raise some constitutional issues, because the amount seems excessive, but bear in mind, that same rule about excessive awards will also be used to cut back giant verdicts against big corporations.

Anyhow, the woman stole property, and her actions, combined with the actions of millions of other little internet thieves, are destroying an entire industry. The award may be excessive, but the law does not provide for just a slap on the wrist. The jury has the discretion to pop her, big time. Her complaint that she can't pay? Irrelevant.