|
Jammie Thomas loses case to RIAA
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 18 June, 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, which has gone to verdict today.
Thomas was found to have "committed willful violation" of the copyrights on the 24 songs and the jury has this time awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Coyote42
Newbie
|
19. June 2009 @ 09:27 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by gnovak1:
I read where she was offered a settlement of $3,500 and turned it down. Maybe she should've taken it. When it comes to those money hungry RIAA bastards, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. It's hard to beat those guys especially with these dumb laws.
Plus i cant see where downloading only 24 songs killed the industry so much as to warrent this rediculous amount. What about the millions of people now downloading illegal music every day??
There are alot of patterns the RIAA follow. The $3500 is their initial offer, basically to scare college kids out of their lunch money. As for this ridiculous amount, blame the legal system for allowing fines and charges meant for BUSINESSES to be applied to individual PEOPLE. These laws were made to keep other artists and record companies from selling their competitions material. But when applied to a person, with limited money and little to no legal resources it tends to be a very one sided fight. Being that the law was meant to punish those making profit, I can't see how any of these lawsuits are even remotely relevant to the law.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 09:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
|
|
BobL
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 10:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
What kind of "break" did she get? If they charged her the $150,000 per song istead of the "cut rate" $80,000 per song, she'll never be able to repay either. They could have fined her 50 trillion and it's all the same.
|
|
BobL
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 10:46 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!
|
|
beanos66
Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 11:09 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by korgoth3:
serves her right that filthy music sharer. Lucky we have the riaa or people like her might be living in our communities, or even teaching our children.
This is a Troll, I have seen many trolls in my time and this is one.
Woooshh... right over your head
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!
I have no doubt this will go to appeal the story for those that can't read is charges for sharing ie uploading not downloading at, the rough price of 79 cents per track she would have had to upload each track 10000 times, no way this is bollocks. She will never end up paying that money!!!
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:00 |
Link to this message
|
|
Can corporations be sued for willful arrogance? I guess if you have a few mil to toss at a lawsuit.
The only thing corporate should have an absolute iron tight grip on is profit, if it aint making profit there's little they can do, copy right was never about absolute distribution backed by infinite copy right.
Any copy right to last more than 10 years only damages society...
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:13 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
The only way she will not have to pay that amount is to work out an agreement with RIAA I have been there and done it. Otherwise its all over.
Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!
I have no doubt this will go to appeal the story for those that can't read is charges for sharing ie uploading not downloading at, the rough price of 79 cents per track she would have had to upload each track 10000 times, no way this is bollocks. She will never end up paying that money!!!
|
Newbie
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:16 |
Link to this message
|
This whole thing was nothing more than a major joke from day one of the second trial. First the judge refused to allow the fact that the RIAA's disgraced PI firm, MediaSentry, illegally acquired the information, as well as the fact that they were not licensed as Private Investigators in the state of Minnesota. He got around that one by saying it (the investigation) was conducted from outside the state therefore the wiretapping wasn't illegal.
He then disallowed her expert witness from testifying to what was done by MediaSentry, instead telling him to focus on certain parts of his testimony and nothing more. After doing this he allowed all the so called "evidence" collected by MediaSentry, which had been thrown out by every other court it was tried to be introduced in, and even allowed their so called expert, Dr. Jacobson, who's testimony was shown to be faulty and erroneous to add another item to his testimony, that being the fact that he had discovered a date sticker on her new hard drive, that was dated [b]after[b] she said she put a new one in due to the old one being dead. They even called a Geek Squad Technician from Best Buy, who had installed the new drive and the judge allowed this. Instead of tossing out the whole damn thing as improper. When Jammie called Dr. Jacobson a fraud, she was rebuked for impinging the "reputation of an upstanding scientist"!!
The guy is a phony, he, himself, admitted he couldn't tell what was on the hard drive after he examined it.
No matter what Thomas said she was going to be railroaded by this group of crooks anyway as they had her so mixed up that she didn't know what she was saying.
The RIAA is touting that this is a real victory for copy right owners everywhere, and that too is a load of bullshit. The only ones making any money here are the RIAA schills.
|
Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
$80,000 per song? Even at $1 per song, I highly doubt the song was shared by Jaimie to 79,999 people...
|
Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:22 |
Link to this message
|
Who was the judge and what does his bank account look like first this is outrageous and then we have the nice people from that state that are considered our peers anyone look on their computers? well there should be a list of their names and their ip providers should be forced to look at their bandwidth usage... the fact is if its available from i tunes for .99 cents then that's the most they should be able to get for the repayment think of how long this person will have to work to repay this ... can you file bankruptcy after a fine like this.. or is it off to deters prison? and when will some judge rule in favor of the cost again if its sold for .99 cents then an established price for the music is set bye the recording industry....
|
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:25 |
Link to this message
|
|
There is no crime here and frankly never can be as long as its not for profit, the civil penaliteis need a hard cap unless it can be proven that profit was made directly off the items in question.
We need a simple standardized fine, 10 cent per item plus 50$ or a simple 250$ fine per court case and limit lawyer fees to about 100$ onto of it.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2009 @ 14:37
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
I feel like throwing up. To think that a jury could actually find this as just is crazy.
|
|
MightyOne
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:43 |
Link to this message
|
|
If it were me charged with this fine, I wouldn't pay a dime. I would however give up my life and go on a killing spree and bring down those responsible for this conviction. Destroy me unfairly....and i'll destroy YOU.
Time to fight the fight and do what it takes.
|
|
IguanaC64
Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
Heh...yeah...cruel and unusual punishment. 24 songs = life in debt to a handful of record companies. It's also kind of sad that people feel like she should have just took it up the rear instead of standing up for herself. Maybe it was the "safest" and "easiest" path to take, but that doesn't make it the right path.
Seriously...debtor slaves in ancient Greece were treated more humanely than this. You only had to work 5 years max to someone you owed money to. This kind of award would take many lifetimes to pay for the average person.
Her first recourse would be to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidate. With that kind of award Chapter 13 isn't even worth it.
Honestly, if I was her I would find a way to move out of the US and live a low key life in another country...and never pay a cent to those fvckers.
|
Senior Member
3 product reviews
|
19. June 2009 @ 14:55 |
Link to this message
|
|
This disgusts me immensely...
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 15:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by IguanaC64:
Heh...yeah...cruel and unusual punishment. 24 songs = life in debt to a handful of record companies. It's also kind of sad that people feel like she should have just took it up the rear instead of standing up for herself. Maybe it was the "safest" and "easiest" path to take, but that doesn't make it the right path.
Seriously...debtor slaves in ancient Greece were treated more humanely than this. You only had to work 5 years max to someone you owed money to. This kind of award would take many lifetimes to pay for the average person.
Her first recourse would be to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidate. With that kind of award Chapter 13 isn't even worth it.
Honestly, if I was her I would find a way to move out of the US and live a low key life in another country...and never pay a cent to those fvckers.
Federal judgments can not be dismissed under bankruptcy laws if I am not mistaken and for the amount they want chapter 13 would be well worth it if allowed under federal law.
|
|
Thonor
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 15:02 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.
Actually, it makes sense. If you read the whole post - 1 song download = $1 on iTunes. So $80,000 damages = 80,000 lost song downloads.
I think the calculations are fine. It just goes to show that the damages here are insane.
She'll appeal.
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 15:17 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.
Actually, it makes sense. If you read the whole post - 1 song download = $1 on iTunes. So $80,000 damages = 80,000 lost song downloads.
I think the calculations are fine. It just goes to show that the damages here are insane.
She'll appeal.
I agree the amount is insane, but in my case we appealed the 6 million judgment and were denied so the same would happen to her.
I was lucky that Playboy asked for a lesser amount via my attorney after the appeal we settled for the lesser amount I am not sure if RIAA would be that kind.
Federal cases are totally different than a state civil law suite, the feds once the juror hands down the verdict it is usually in stone unless an attorney screwed up. Fed case are so much more dangerous and hard to defend.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 19. June 2009 @ 15:19
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
19. June 2009 @ 15:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
I smell a Jammie Thomas bankruptcy filing. You can't get blood from a turnip. It is a shame that our legal system is so corrupt, this judge ought to be taken out and buried in a hole somewhere.
|
Senior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 17:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
o___o wtffff. Not my normal choice of words, however nothing could be more appropriate.
|
|
joe777
Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 17:39 |
Link to this message
|
I think we should all have nasty virus's at hand when your ordered to give up your pc for inspection. That way, no-one will ever find anything. To hell with these data destroyer progs, just virus it up with the stroke of a hot-key.
Now apart from the avid linux user, who said virus's are a bad thing:P
But seriously I think the HDD carry-on has had a major part to play in this farce. If she had run the guttman(I think thats what its called)wipe, then it would have been just as obvious as a HDD swap. But a virus infection would have sealed the deal for her I think, and she would have walked.
|
|
Serialluv
Junior Member
|
19. June 2009 @ 17:57 |
Link to this message
|
|
Better than that is it not illegal in the states as it is here in the UK to break an encryption on someone's HDD??? if the wiretap was illeagl surely taht makes it a felonym regardless of what state she was tried in??? As I'm in no way a US citizen or legal expert I'm asking these questions before people start....
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
windsong
Member
1 product review
|
20. June 2009 @ 16:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
