grydlok
join:2004-01-06
Richmond, VA | She will get it.
Once it's all said and done it will get reduced, but her legal fee will be more. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  A good compromise - she pays $18,000
I think Jammie Thomas should consider herself lucky if the damages are reduced to what her lawyer is asking for - $18,000. Especially since she had multiple opportunities to settle the case for much less than $18,000.
»news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-102805···1_3-0-20
If the award is changed, Thomas-Rasset argues she should pay the minimum damages of $18,000.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | She lied. Under oath. Hang her! Hang her high!  |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
 ·ITalkBB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to TKJunkMail
I think even 18,000 is a bit much.
they keep arguing that stealing music is the same as walking into a store and stealing a CD. Well... if I stole that CD, and loaned it out to friends, would I have to pay for their use too?
$80,000 per song. Lets say people bought these songs on Itunes... She's paying equal amounts to 80,000 sales... and this doesn't seem absurd to the judge/jury?
I don't think RIAA/MPAA is wrong for trying to prevent piracy, and if anyone was in their place (Pirates who hate RIAA even) they would too. What makes everyone hate them... is how they do it.
Bankrupting moms/dads, ruining lives of familys to set an example... it's scaring/bully tactics. People refer to RIAA/MPAA as Mafia...and this is the exact reason.
I'm glad Canada is a bit more fair on the issue. And I'm pretty sure no Canadian would accept any such punishment if they were threatened to be imposed... I don't see how Americans can sit back and be robbed/bullied like this. |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail
 Whether or not the RIAA accepts this settlement, in my opinion this case is irrelevant.
When this case is concluded it will not set a precedent as to whether or not the RIAA should be able to shake down an innocent broadband subscriber when their ISP has sent the RIAA the name and address of the wrong subscriber. To me this is the really important issue. The RIAA's Machine Gun Justice should be stopped.
I am aware from other comments that Jammie should have received sufficient notice to disable file sharing on her computer if she new how. Only Jammie can reveal why she did not. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
said by TKJunkMail  :I think Jammie Thomas should consider herself lucky if the damages are reduced to what her lawyer is asking for - $18,000. Especially since she had multiple opportunities to settle the case for much less than $18,000. » news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-102805···1_3-0-20 If the award is changed, Thomas-Rasset argues she should pay the minimum damages of $18,000. $18,000 is a bit much, but I think the penalty should be enough to make people think twice about copyright infringement. If you make it 10x the cost of a song on Itunes, it gets to be $180 for 18 songs shared. Maybe 100x the cost would be fair.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | reply to Mr Matt
Considering she isn't innocent, why would you say that this case won't set a precedent for for other alleged copyright violations? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Mr Matt
said by Mr Matt : RIAA should be able to shake down an innocent? broadband subscriber Innocent?? Don't make me laugh. She did it and 2 juries know she did it. She lied thru her teeth and tried to cover it up. And that is why the 2nd jury hammered her.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
rdmiller
join:2005-09-23
Richmond, VA | Stop digging!
This is her second whack at this apple: "Jammie Thomas was found liable in a 2007 trial for infringing 24 songs and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages."
What happens if she loses the third trial, a $1 billion fine? |
|
munson15
join:2008-02-19
Brooklyn, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
1 edit | RIAA: Corpo-fascism at its finest
The only thing I loathe more than an avaricious corporation is a bully, and the RIAA are both. Like every corporation, they spend billions per year sending their unctuous, scum-riddled lobbyists to Washington to buy our politicians so that they can circumvent our tax laws & constitution, and then they have the temerity to screech like freshly gelded mules whenever someone violates their "intellectual property" and "steals" from them. I guess stealing is only acceptable & legal when you can afford to bribe a senator or two.
If there's any justice in this universe, Jammie will get a new trial & win, while the corporate rapists who want to destroy her young life will all get cancer where the sun don't shine - rotten a-holes with rotten a-holes, in other words. Now that would be justice!
|
|
MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
| She's not arguing she's innocent any more!
And two separate juries found her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
So everyone who said she was an innocent victim should post their apologies now.
....
waiting
....
While I'm waiting, here's my analysis of what her lawyer is saying now:
"She did it, but the evidence should be thrown out."
"She did it, but the award is too high and should be reduced."
"She did it, but the law is unconstitutional."
I'm not qualified to discuss the first and third, but on the second one, people are comparing the award to the cost of buying the album/song. I think that's ridiculous. What she's being penalized for is not stealing works, but stealing AND DISTRIBUTING works. It's the distributing part that multiplies the harm thousands of time (no one really knows how many). |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to munson15
Re: RIAA: Corpo-fascism at its finest
said by munson15 :.... If there's an justice in this universe, Jammie will get a new trial & win,... unfortunately, I don't think she has any chance to win on the file sharing part, since the justice system (including jurors) just can't seem to see the difference between "making available" which is not a copyright violation and "distributing", which is a violation.
however, I hope she prevails on the excessive damages award, in which case her "fine" will be much, much lower. |
|
nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| reply to MyDogHsFleas
Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more!
I don't think they really proved the distributing part, since the only "distribution" was to mediasentry, as an authorized agent of the RIAA. per my post above, I just don't think the judge and jury know enough to realize the distinction. The RIAA never proved anyone other than mediasentry obtained a file from Thomas, so they have no idea if anyone else ever got anything thru her. |
|
Pv8man
join:2008-07-24
Hammond, IN
2 edits | reply to MyDogHsFleas
Oh yeah "Mydoghsfleas" ???
number 1. She was not intentionally distributing the songs, the program does that automatically.
number 2. So you think it's perfectly reasonable for them to decide how much damage they have done, without showing any proof???
Hey "Mydoghsfleas" ....I put a picture up for my avatar....
But you used your "avatar downloading program" and now it shared my picture to others....
You are illegally distributing my picture, and look at all the damage it has caused...
It does not matter that I don't have proof of damage...You owe me a few million bucks....because I say you caused damage
NOW PAY UP !!! or get a lawyer so we can make you pay more for trying to defend yourself and your families future. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to TKJunkMail
Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000
said by TKJunkMail :said by Mr Matt : RIAA should be able to shake down an innocent? broadband subscriber Innocent?? Don't make me laugh. She did it and 2 juries know she did it. She lied thru her teeth and tried to cover it up. And that is why the 2nd jury hammered her. Guilty or not, the punishment should fit the crime. There should be a cap on the damages.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net |
|
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | reply to TKJunkMail
She shouldnt have to paid a dime. This is the RIAA making an example of someone. We should all be suing the RIAA for selling us $19.99 8 track CDs for 10 years. |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to nasadude
Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more!
said by nasadude :I don't think they really proved the distributing part, since the only "distribution" was to mediasentry, as an authorized agent of the RIAA. per my post above, I just don't think the judge and jury know enough to realize the distinction. The RIAA never proved anyone other than mediasentry obtained a file from Thomas, so they have no idea if anyone else ever got anything thru her. All it takes is a single distribution. It doesn't have to be 10, 100, or 1,000. And there is nothing wrong with MediaSentry being the one it was distributed to. Copyright holders HAVE to enforce their copyrights (and trademarks) or they could be invalidated. So, in this case, since the penalty is $80,000 per song, tough shit. She knew what could happen if she decided to go to trial and lost.
Do I think $80,000 per song is excessive? Absolutely. But the penalty has to be high enough to deter any potential criminals. I really have a hard time feeling sorry for this lady when she's not even attempting to call out technicalities and is instead taking the "Who? Poor little ol' me?" defense ... which is going to allow the RIAA to set a precedent.
Don't be surprised if they start bumping up the "settlement" amounts going forward based on this judgement. You thought bankrupting a college kid was bad? Sorry Charlie, this is business. |
|
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| reply to rdmiller
Re: Stop digging!
said by rdmiller :What happens if she loses the third trial, a $1 billion fine? Then she'll have to apply to congress for a bailout. I would like to see a secondary suit against the RIAA on behalf of the artists implicated here as to where their portion of this fine is?
--
BF69~~~Please stop suffocating gerbils! |
|
Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | reply to Matt
Re: She's not arguing she's innocent any more!
said by Matt :said by nasadude :I don't think they really proved the distributing part, since the only "distribution" was to mediasentry, as an authorized agent of the RIAA. per my post above, I just don't think the judge and jury know enough to realize the distinction. The RIAA never proved anyone other than mediasentry obtained a file from Thomas, so they have no idea if anyone else ever got anything thru her. All it takes is a single distribution. It doesn't have to be 10, 100, or 1,000. And there is nothing wrong with MediaSentry being the one it was distributed to. Copyright holders HAVE to enforce their copyrights (and trademarks) or they could be invalidated. So, in this case, since the penalty is $80,000 per song, tough shit. She knew what could happen if she decided to go to trial and lost. Do I think $80,000 per song is excessive? Absolutely. But the penalty has to be high enough to deter any potential criminals. I really have a hard time feeling sorry for this lady when she's not even attempting to call out technicalities and is instead taking the "Who? Poor little ol' me?" defense ... which is going to allow the RIAA to set a precedent. Don't be surprised if they start bumping up the "settlement" amounts going forward based on this judgement. You thought bankrupting a college kid was bad? Sorry Charlie, this is business. This is what is wrong with America these days 
I don't care if someone steals songs, a CD player from a store, or $10,000 from a bank (Given no one is hurt). Are these crimes really worth ruining someones whole life over?
You don't give the death penalty to jaywalkers. Why give one to file sharers? (Asking someone who probably gets $8 an hour to pay 1.2 Million dollars is pretty much a death penalty...).
Protecting your content is one thing, and yes, it should be done. Going 100 MPH in a 30 MPH zone is a $200-300 ticket... and you risk lives. sharing a song is an $18,000 fine, and the onlything that COULD be hurt, is future sales.
You don't see anything wrong with the way these punishments are?
There have been a lot of deaths over jaywalking/speeders. The onlything thats hurt when someone downloads a song, is the million dollar artists/billion dollar record labels lose a few bucks, instead of earing 100 million, they earn 99.99999 million.
[Edited to add:]
Why don't we charge $20K to people who jaywalk, deter some deaths? Because those with money are more important, and most people aren't stupid enough to fine such a huge amount for something so minor. |
|
