|
DOJ calls Jammie Thomas' $1.92 million file sharing fine constitutional
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 15 August, 2009
Last September, Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas was convicted of sharing 24 unauthorized tracks via P2P and was told to pay the RIAA $220,000 in damages. Thomas was granted a retrial however, and the case went to verdict again in June.
Thomas was found to have "committed willful violation" of the copyrights on all 24 songs and the jury awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
17. August 2009 @ 13:41 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by emugamer:
I wonder if they released the titles of the songs she shared. Maybe those artists can get together with Jamie and appeal. Were they well established pop stars? If there's enough of them, why can't they pool their money together to at least reduce the amount, and then maybe spearhead a fundraiser for music lovers everywhere and other artists to help cover the cost. That would make a statement that it's wrong to destroy someones life over something so minor. The DOJ wants to make an example of this individual woman, why can't the artists step up and show how ridiculous this is and make a public outcry to Congress?
The DOJ are stating that award for damages was unconstitutional how can you be having a go at them, it wasn't the DOJ who made the award it was a Jury filled with RIAA paid retards :) As for the artists and song titles they were released including such hits as Shania Twain "more than a woman" so hardly huge hahaha
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
17. August 2009 @ 14:15 |
Link to this message
|
Serialluv, you miss-read the title or something. The damage WERE, not were NOT constitutional.
Why would the DOJ filled with media mafia lawyers go against their 'brothers'.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
17. August 2009 @ 14:40 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by emugamer:
I wonder if they released the titles of the songs she shared. Maybe those artists can get together with Jamie and appeal. Were they well established pop stars? If there's enough of them, why can't they pool their money together to at least reduce the amount, and then maybe spearhead a fundraiser for music lovers everywhere and other artists to help cover the cost. That would make a statement that it's wrong to destroy someones life over something so minor. The DOJ wants to make an example of this individual woman, why can't the artists step up and show how ridiculous this is and make a public outcry to Congress?
The DOJ are stating that award for damages was unconstitutional how can you be having a go at them, it wasn't the DOJ who made the award it was a Jury filled with RIAA paid retards :) As for the artists and song titles they were released including such hits as Shania Twain "more than a woman" so hardly huge hahaha
The article clearly states that the DOJ found it constitutional.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
17. August 2009 @ 16:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
Holy crap sorry peeps, yes I completely misread the whole thing, I swear to god I thought it said unconstitutional, hmm what was I on when I read that ha.
Please note I retract all my previous statements and say BAST**DS!!!!
|
Member
|
18. August 2009 @ 12:09 |
Link to this message
|
The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
18. August 2009 @ 16:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mystic:
The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed
Or utilise better routes then P2P and torrents, dead distribution far too open to abuse by the RIAA and all other such entities, direct links and file hosting only :) If you're going to do it, be smart enough not to get caught.
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
18. August 2009 @ 17:10 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Serialluv:
Originally posted by mystic:
The idea that some one will get caught has always been on the minds of those who download .. its more of the same russian rulette, and once someone gets fined everyone thinks its unfair... well lets break it down did she download and share those file ..saddly yes when she went to cort was an offer made to pay restatution or midagate damages no if the offer to pay 1.00 per song as if she downloaded from lets say Itunes then her lawyer could show good faith because the songs were on itunes ok lets say she offered to pay 100.00 per song then her lawyer could have file unfair price gouging bye the RIAA. so since she was court ordered to pay then she has to unless she can have it over turned bye a higher court... and as long as she has the opion she should keep spending the cash to try because if she dosn't well she'll have to pay her fine.... now for those who want to try something kewl put an FM transmiter for a ipod ($15.00) hook it to your radio and record the songs to anything that picks up a radio signal andd records to mp3 formate ( i own a IStation) and wow free music from the radio and its not like downloading because it dosn't leave an ip address....... class dismissed
Or utilise better routes then P2P and torrents, dead distribution far too open to abuse by the RIAA and all other such entities, direct links and file hosting only :) If you're going to do it, be smart enough not to get caught.
yea... limewire isn't exactly the best route...
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. August 2009 @ 07:46 |
Link to this message
|
I do not think persons think that she shouldn't be punished, well, maybe they are quite a few that think that way. What is the outragious part is the fine for something that is quazilegale. It is like giving the death penitaly to jay-wakers.
Do you REALLY think you should be fined 2 million dollars for having a P2P system on your computer? With 24 files she really hadn't used it much. The problem was she was sharing 24/7 till they got her because she is a moron.
She was using Kazaa which is worse than Limewire because it runs in the backround any time your computer is on (no way to turn it off while you are using the computer).
|
|
Tarsellis
Member
|
20. August 2009 @ 16:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
When will the dumbed down, doped up American populace learn that it's up to them to stand up to this. Jury's have a legal right and obligation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The jury system was put into place to keep the government from abusing it's legislative powers to oppress it's citizenry. Judges might (HAH will and DO lie to you about your powers and responsibilities, but a jury has the right to vote not guilty if they disagree with the law or possible/probable punishments. Check out www.fija.org for some info on this.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
20. August 2009 @ 20:07 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Tarsellis:
When will the dumbed down, doped up American populace learn that it's up to them to stand up to this. Jury's have a legal right and obligation to prevent this sort of thing from happening. The jury system was put into place to keep the government from abusing it's legislative powers to oppress it's citizenry. Judges might (HAH will and DO lie to you about your powers and responsibilities, but a jury has the right to vote not guilty if they disagree with the law or possible/probable punishments. Check out www.fija.org for some info on this.
Erm hello?!!?!? Have you not heard of jury screening?!?!?!?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Tarsellis
Member
|
21. August 2009 @ 14:20 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Erm hello?!!?!? Have you not heard of jury screening?!?!?!?
I know, that's how Doctor Phil made his money and got famous, he wrote the book on how to select a jury based on the verdict you want. Unfortunately, far too many americans are far too stupid, thus jury screening works, and it's too late for us to change anything now without mobs and probably pitchforks.
|
