|
Jammie Thomas-Rasset has massive file sharing penalty reduced
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 23 July, 2011
In 2006, Jammie Thomas-Rasset was sent a letter asking her to settle (for $3300) over alleged unauthorized file sharing of 24 tracks.
She refused and decided to take the case to court.
In 2007, Thomas-Rasset was found liable for $1.92 million in damages, but a retrial saw the fine dropped to $220,000. In 2010, however, a judge reduced the award to $54,000. The RIAA told Thomas-Rasset ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
Mr_Bill06
Member
|
23. July 2011 @ 23:42 |
Link to this message
|
|
I bet she has long since then wish she just ponied up the cash for the original $3300 fine. The whole music and movie industry is just nuts when they sue people, I think the 3k fine is still nuts but manageable to pay 54k not so much. They are always talking about loss I don't see much loss in the movie industry. The music industry is true they lose money but it's not from people stealing there music it's the bad music that does not sell. Even then I don't think there falling on hard times, there just being greedy obviously suing people for millions it's just sick.
|
|
Advertisement
|
  |
|
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 00:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2011 @ 01:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
They did care, in fact this case goes back to before he was elected.
|
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 02:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
You do realize that this very case started in 2006, during the first half of Bush's second term as president, yes?
|
|
scorpNZ
AfterDawn Addict
4 product reviews
|
24. July 2011 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
The RIAA would need a couple mill just to break even & that's just for the court cases..lol..
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2011 @ 04:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
If they win, they can make that money just by sending a bunch of copyright infringement letters demanding money to old people, single mothers, and laser printers...oh wait, they already do that!
|
|
numscull
Junior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 06:29 |
Link to this message
|
She can simply file bankruptcy when this is finally over. She is most likely broke and has no assets. The RIAA probably will never get a dime. The RIAA lawyers will get, or should I say have gotten, a wad....from the RIAA. Yes, Jamie could have paid $3000 and the case would have gone away years ago. But then again, the RIAA could have let the case die and saved themselves a bundle. The only winners here are the RIAA lawyers. I bet they are still pinching themselves that this cash cow landed in their laps.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
24. July 2011 @ 07:52 |
Link to this message
|
The RIAA thinks that they are winners, because they think that attacking ordinary people will discourage piracy...even if they don't get the fines, they figure people will stop pirating stuff just because they are afraid of a long legal battle (I believe this method is known as terrorism, but I might be wrong).
They also want to make a world where they can just send out threatening letters to everyone on earth, and wait for all the pirates (plus many innocent people) to send money in rather than face them in court. Again, I believe this is technically terrorism (using fear to control people).
So, we are spending trillions on fighting terrorism...and we know where the RIAA is located...time to fire up the drones!!!
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 10:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
WARNING!!! Conspiracy theorist! Take your nonsense to another, less intelligent place!
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 13:52 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
WARNING!!! Conspiracy theorist! Take your nonsense to another, less intelligent place!
well I didn't read people getting sued til 2010 so don't be a smartass
|
|
ZeusAV
Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
They're suing people now because they miss those record profits from the early 90s when people didn't have much of a choice but to buy the $15-20 CDs.
Plus the actual quality of music was better back then. Who wants to pay $15 for the over-commercialized garbage that comes out today?
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
24. July 2011 @ 14:06 |
Link to this message
|
A while back there was a book written by a guy named Art Linson called "A Pound of Flesh" about his time spent as a film producer. So my next few words aren't just tripe meant to fall from the sphincter, but to be taken from the horses mouth per se'...
In the book he explains that the movie industry has "NEVER" lost a dime on a movie or TV show since they started making entertainment for the masses. Through creative book keeping they make it appear that they loose millions daily when in fact it's quite the opposite. It's all a scam so as to avoid taxes, royalties and any other future proof payments that may occur to the fattened pockets of the "do something for nothing" moguls of the industry (and god love you if you say anything contrary to their system if you like your career).
$3300 is a lot of money & is extortion; not to mention an immediate admission of guilt just because the alphabet Nazis said so. Then to call them on their BS & have it pay into their pockets in dividends is just insult to injury.
I think one of these ambulance chasers should get off his fat a$$ & get a class action together & start suing the MPAA/RIAA for the little nasty gram campaign for "X" amount of $$$'s (which is extortion... hello!!! ILLEGAL!!!) & get the death penalty going on these guys like China did for the business guile king here recently.
Food for thought anyway...
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
24. July 2011 @ 15:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
xaznboitx, you are wrong as people were getting sued when bush & even clinton were presidents so don't blame obama.
|
|
dEwMe
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 17:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
Meh looking at her mode of dress and etc...I am guessing she's using legal aid and they'll never get a penny from her anyway..Prob couldn't scratch up the $3300 in the first place. Not that being poor is a bad thing. Just I would feel much worse if it were someone that was losing everything to lawyer's fees and etc. Not so hard to make a stand when you've got nothing to lose...
As always I could be wrong...
Just my $0.02,
dEwMe
|
|
plazma247
Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 17:47 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
Junior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 21:45 |
Link to this message
|
|
Keep up the fight!
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
24. July 2011 @ 23:44 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by leevaley:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
WARNING!!! Conspiracy theorist! Take your nonsense to another, less intelligent place!
well I didn't read people getting sued til 2010 so don't be a smartass
Then dont be a dumbass-the President has more Important things to do
You're stupid because the president also has something to do with this moron.
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
24. July 2011 @ 23:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
no he doesn't but then i am canadian.
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
25. July 2011 @ 03:55 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Mr_Bill06:
I bet she has long since then wish she just ponied up the cash for the original $3300 fine. The whole music and movie industry is just nuts when they sue people, I think the 3k fine is still nuts but manageable to pay 54k not so much. They are always talking about loss I don't see much loss in the movie industry. The music industry is true they lose money but it's not from people stealing there music it's the bad music that does not sell. Even then I don't think there falling on hard times, there just being greedy obviously suing people for millions it's just sick.
Originally posted by numscull:
She can simply file bankruptcy when this is finally over. She is most likely broke and has no assets. The RIAA probably will never get a dime. The RIAA lawyers will get, or should I say have gotten, a wad....from the RIAA. Yes, Jamie could have paid $3000 and the case would have gone away years ago. But then again, the RIAA could have let the case die and saved themselves a bundle. The only winners here are the RIAA lawyers. I bet they are still pinching themselves that this cash cow landed in their laps.
She is bankrupt has been since the first court case.
But filing for bankruptcy doesn't get you out of paying bills completely it's only reduces them if the other party agrees to you paying less of the bill.
If they don't then your bankrupt and still have to pay back the full amount, but it lets you pay back any amount you feel like because an arrangement has been made to hold the bill till it's paid off.
She pays in $1 a day to the bill just to piss off RIAA as the bill will die with her, though that probably won't happen and her kids will probably owe RIAA the rest, as any sort of will she has will go straight towards paying bills other wise the rest of the family can be chased down to pay the rest.
She's done the right thing but the laws haven't been fair to her nor the jury who hand out such large fines and I'd hazard to say probably been asked to hand out such large fines on the side.
|
|
numscull
Junior Member
|
25. July 2011 @ 06:03 |
Link to this message
|
xtago,
I am not a lawyer but, if I am not mistaken, she can
file bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in which her non-exempt possessions will be sold to satisfy the debt and any remaining debt is discharged. She can keep her house, car, clothes, furniture, essentials, etc. Of course the bankruptcy court will decide if she cannot pay her debts as a whole. If she files under Chapter 13 some payback system will be set by the court. Now whether down the road she wins the lottery or receives a huge inheritance, I am not sure if she has to turn that over to the RIAA. She probably can't keep any tax check, etc but at least she will not lose everything.
|
|
numscull
Junior Member
|
25. July 2011 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2011 @ 11:26
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
25. July 2011 @ 11:31 |
Link to this message
|
Having gone through bankruptcy some 25+ years ago, it went something like this... Chapter 7 is a full blown version of "nobody gets nothing". This of course is completely dependent upon the state that you live in & is void of federal obligations. I.e., you still have to pay student loans or veteran loans; those are signed in blood & you ain't getting out of those.
Then there is Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which is considered a reorganization of funds. Your credit stops for 7 years and you are forced to pay your debtors off over the next 7 years (including your federal ones). The problem with this option is that in some cases the debtors get a say in how this all gets to play out & it can get ugly REAL fast due to the fact that 'you' might go full Chapter 7 in that seven year window. You're not supposed to, but like most ultra rich, they find a loop-hole. So the debtors line up to try & get payed off first.
As far as the Chapter 7 is concerned, most states only allow for filer to keep items costing under $1000, those things considered disposable, that have depreciated bellow 33% their FMV or are 1 piece of transportation & primary domicile. Other than that, in a lot of cases the courts come in, grab what's left, sell it off & divvy it up to the debtors.
Filing taxes has no bearing on bankruptcy at all. Obviously, you didn't make any money.
Even if this lady wins the lottery, if she went bankrupt after the judgement & then won the lottery, the MPAA/RIAA can't touch a thing. It's a double jeopardy kind of thing (lame 'legal' analogy/example, but you might get the idea).
|
|
plazma247
Member
|
25. July 2011 @ 12:05 |
Link to this message
|
Copyright law has become perverse and the punishment completely detached from the crime in question.
But the more this goes on the more people notice it, instead of scaring people into stop doing its just creating public outcry over the way the accused is treated.
Im not a conspiracy theorist nor a revolutionary, but I find by observation that the world is changing and public option is changing and our generation is waking up to the fact we the great and unwashed masses can make a change and shape a future for the better.
Yes she broke copy right, make her pay a small fine and pay for the tracks in question at market rate or take them from her.
The same as not paying your car tax / import duty or anything else anyone would care to illustrate as comparative.
Im sure im not the only one who saw the proverbial water level drop as the tide went out, to now rise as the wave starts to wash ashore. The digital age has given us the ability to see the world beyond our physical reach, the world is not perfect it never will be as we are all human... But i see more and more people rally under a common and selfless goal and starting to cast away the teaching of grab what you can and screw the rest of them and reconsider the old phrase which I believe goes.
"divided we fall, united we stand"
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25. July 2011 @ 12:12
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
panchdara
Newbie
|
25. July 2011 @ 12:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Originally posted by leevaley:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
WARNING!!! Conspiracy theorist! Take your nonsense to another, less intelligent place!
well I didn't read people getting sued til 2010 so don't be a smartass
Then dont be a dumbass-the President has more Important things to do
You're stupid because the president also has something to do with this moron.
Yeah... start more wars!Originally posted by leevaley:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
Just notice how they care about people sharing and downloading stuff now ... I wonder why they didn't care when obama wasn't president.
WARNING!!! Conspiracy theorist! Take your nonsense to another, less intelligent place!
well I didn't read people getting sued til 2010 so don't be a smartass
Then dont be a dumbass-the President has more Important things to do
Yes he does dammit! There are lots more wars to start and fail at... lots more poverty in America to create and lots more people in the World to intimidate... the prez got mo betta things to du!
|
