|
Jammie Thomas hit with another gigantic P2P verdict
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 4 November, 2010
Jammie Thomas-Rasset must be kicking herself today.
Thomas-Rasset, the American woman who has been fighting the RIAA in court for the last four years over 24 unauthorized songs she downloaded and shared online, has lost again in court, with a jury finding her liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages.
That equals out to $62,500 per song she shared.
The RIAA was ecstatic ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Tristan_2
Member
|
4. November 2010 @ 23:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is Madness!!! 1.5 Million for 24 songs Thats BS man!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
5. November 2010 @ 00:04 |
Link to this message
|
|
This is just keep bouncing around between judges...even the best offer she has had so far (the 25K offer) was insanely high.
|
|
Mysttic
Senior Member
|
5. November 2010 @ 00:53 |
Link to this message
|
And how much was the jury paid for under the table by the RIAA, or what were they promised?
|
|
Fred44
Newbie
|
5. November 2010 @ 01:31 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Tristan_2:
This is Madness!!! 1.5 Million for 24 songs Thats BS man!
Madness? No. Pure sanity in the global corporatocracy. Individuals mean nothing. Only business greed matters.
|
Member
|
5. November 2010 @ 09:40 |
Link to this message
|
The jury must be in bed with the RIAA and their cronies, or are they just plain stupid.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
5. November 2010 @ 10:33 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think it would be better for her to prove that file sharing a song is actually worth the $62,000 in the first place.
and what is the song really worth as I think these were all old songs.
MS paid the rollins stones $45,000 so they had full copyright on 1 song.
If she appeals she could in turn force the court to make her a copyright holder for the total amount she is being forced to pay out on these songs.
To which she could in turn sue the record companies for selling her song that they haven't given her royalties to.
|
|
beanos66
Member
|
5. November 2010 @ 13:52 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think Ms Thomas' lawyers must be really bad if they can't get across the point to 3 jurys that these million $ awards are outrageous
|
Senior Member
|
5. November 2010 @ 17:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
She should sue the music producers for making crappy music in the first place
Oh, Im sorry... Did the middle of my sentence interrupt the beginning of yours?
|
|
discboy32
Newbie
|
9. November 2010 @ 23:42 |
Link to this message
|
I would like to know why the "RIAA" does not go after the BIG companies that target the users. For instance it is Sony who produces the dvd burners and the tens of millions of blank dvd media and also the software for burning everything. Why is Sony even in business ? (Reminds me of the Reagans(1980-88) war on drugs).They could not go after the large drug cartels in Columbia so they still are going after all the poor users out there. Why is Sony,HP,JVC,LG Electronics,Memorex,Philips,Consumer Electronics,TDK,Verbatim just to name a few (there are many more much larger corporations)out there still reaping in the huge profits while the average person is getting raped by good old Uncle Sam.
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. November 2010 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by beanos66:
I think Ms Thomas' lawyers must be really bad if they can't get across the point to 3 jurys that these million $ awards are outrageous
She actually had great lawyers. They gave the RIAA enough rope to hang themselves. They almost got the whole file share thrown out. They appealed by asking the RIAA lawyers to prove the file sharing was against the law. Although they blew all sorts of smoke they never went through with that and everything was on hold more than a year later the MN case wound up in a CA court probably near Hollywood. That judge basically said WTF and said she was guilty with out much of a hearing. There wasn't any jury. She hasn't paid a dime and will not until the fine becomes reasonable which it never will.
|
Newbie
1 product review
|
12. November 2010 @ 17:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Semperfipal:
The jury must be in bed with the RIAA and their cronies, or are they just plain stupid.
They may have been given instructions by the judge on how to vote, or they must be stupid.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
Mez
AfterDawn Addict
|
12. November 2010 @ 18:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
What jury? Only the first trial had a jury. I am not sure they came up the amount, just that she was guilty.
|
