dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


view:
topics flat nest 
Comments on news posted 2013-03-20 08:43:53: Settling what has been an eight year saga at this point, the Supreme Court says they won't be hearing the infamous Jammie Thomas-Rasset case, meaning the $222,000 verdict levied against her for sharing twenty-four copyrighted songs (a punishment supp.. ..

page: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · next


FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't? More court cases to collect?


nitzan
Premium,VIP
join:2008-02-27
kudos:8

Cruel and unusual punishment.

And here I thought the Supreme Court was there to uphold the constitution. Turns out that's not the case when it's the constitution vs giant evil corporations. No one should have to have their lives ruined because of sharing a few songs.


XknightHawkX

join:2003-02-13
East Peoria, IL

I do believe the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court are Pro-RIAA and Pro-MPAA. If they refused to play the MAFIAA games then they wouldn't get all of the bribes they get. Oh wait they call them campaign contributions.



celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ
reply to FFH

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

said by FFH:

Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't? More court cases to collect?

She files bankruptcy and the judgement gets tossed. Granted, she will have the bankruptcy follow her for 7 years but will recover fairly quickly from it.


kontos
xyzzy

join:2001-10-04
West Henrietta, NY
reply to XknightHawkX

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

said by XknightHawkX:

I do believe the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court .. Oh wait they call them campaign contributions.

When is the last time you had a chance to vote in a DoJ or Supreme Court election?


PaulHikeS2

join:2003-03-06
Fitchburg, MA
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to XknightHawkX

said by XknightHawkX:

I do believe the Department of Justice and the Supreme Court are Pro-RIAA and Pro-MPAA. If they refused to play the MAFIAA games then they wouldn't get all of the bribes they get. Oh wait they call them campaign contributions.

As I'm sure most understand, the Supreme Court are not elected officials and don't receive campaign contributions. Nor are they beholden to the ideological dictates of the president who appointed them, as some of them have proven to be or have changed over time to be very different ideologically than their appointee.

I've also never seen anything even suggested, except by reactionaries on internet forums, regarding bribery of current Supreme Court justices.

I'm not, however, an expert in the inner workings of the Deparment of Justice, and would not be surprised if there is corruption there.
--
Jay: What the @#$% is the internet???


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to celeritypc

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

Yea, hope the musical enjoyment was worth it. DOWNLOAD LEGALLY



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
reply to PaulHikeS2

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

She broke the law ! Theres no mystery here.

quote:
he RIAA said that Thomas-Rasset had been caught downloading more than 1,700 songs -- it brought legal action on 24 of them.
Good for her.


Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

1 recommendation

Ridiculous

The cost of the verdict is ridiculously high, and only an idiot would defend it as is. And no, I don't illegally download anything, so I'm not biased towards the defendant.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games



vaxvms
ferroequine fan
Premium
join:2005-03-01
Wormtown
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to nitzan

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

said by nitzan:

And here I thought the Supreme Court was there to uphold the constitution.

Please elaborate on this statement. What part of the constitution is not being upheld?
--
The new Oldsmobiles are in early this year!

kerya666

join:2002-12-20
Valrico, FL

1 recommendation

reply to PaulHikeS2

said by PaulHikeS2:

With as much money as MAFIAA got I would be surprised that at least some SC don't get bribed.
Being SC judges does not guarantee for them to be always benevolent.
Especially lately SC has appeared to myself as much less pro individual freedoms / individuals and rather pro government / big corps.

It is delusional to even remotely think that $200k+ is a fair judgement.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Think these types of things exist for no reason?


So people should either a) Follow the rules and laws most of us obide by, or b) face the consequences when it blows up in your face. \


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Jamie Thomas

Although I think the fine is ways too high, she had the option to pay significantly less. And she didn't take it. She chose to gamble, thinking she could beat them and she didn't. Welcome to the legal system. It was pretty foolish to not take the settlement.



Duramax08
To The Moon
Premium
join:2008-08-03
San Antonio, TX

Shes lucky

"Thomas-Rasset has maintained that one of her children was responsible for the illegal downloads from her computer. The RIAA said that Thomas-Rasset had been caught downloading more than 1,700 songs -- it brought legal action on 24 of them."

Damn thats alot of songs. She should of just listened to the radio
--
»mc-buildville.enjin.com/


Dodge
Premium
join:2002-11-27

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

Since this picture was attached to a copyrighted work, it can therefore be considered part of said work. You have reproduced it without any consent from anyone, please send a check for $250,000 to MPAA and report to the nearest FBI office to be transported to a federal prison for 5 years.

Furthermore, DSLR should shutdown immediately for hosting the results of your illegal activity and all employees should also report to the FBI.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
reply to ITALIAN926

I will report myself to the MPAA, RIAA and FBI regarding this matter. Thank You.


houghe9

join:2008-02-27
Lexington Park, MD

1 edit
reply to ITALIAN926

please delete this.


houghe9

join:2008-02-27
Lexington Park, MD

short sighted

not hearing the case is incredibly short sighted and only contributes to the idea that the social contract that each citizen has with the united states of america is irrelevant.
i am not talking about guilt or innocence just the given idea that we tell our children that the system we all agree to is fair and when we have been wronged we have a forum to redress grievances. I tell my children as us citizens we have rights and if we are mistreated or wronged we have a system with laws that protect our rights to say that the emperor has no clothes on.

the supreme court is the final determination and as citizens of the united states we agree to that.

the system has failed all of us with regard to this case, it does not matter where you stand and what your opinion is, this is bad for all of us. this issue effects everyone and not hearing it leaves a whole segment of the population with the idea that it doesnt matter what is fair. it does not matter what is right and wrong because if it is wrong they wont be heard.

if they would have just heard the case and decided i could dismiss my opinion and agree to follow the decision. not hearing it makes me believe in my opinion and even more because the idea that the little person is important and the little person does matter is gone.

should it be legal for anyone to just send out mass letters with the threat that they will sue and demand money? this is not the only group to do this. who is protecting the rights of the little guy? who and where do we go to get justice?

“I worry about you and me, Judge Wilkins. I swear to God I do, ’cause if this country gets ruined… it’ll be ruined by people like you and me. This is a territory of unimportant people; most folks around here can’t even write their name. You and me… we’re the important people. Trouble is, there’s not enough of us important people to go around – we’re spread thin, so sometimes, important things get ignored or don’t get said. Like… take care of the little feller; see to it that he don’t get ignored or cheated or insulted; make sure that his dignity does not get trampled on. Now you’re feelin’ bad right now, and by God, you ought to… seein’ as what just happened to a decent man. Myrl Redding did not fail the law…the law failed Myrl.” -john goodman the jack bull

great movie and an incredible representation of what is happening to the united states.


coma9

join:2013-02-05
United State

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

said by ITALIAN926:

I will report myself to the MPAA, RIAA and FBI regarding this matter. Thank You.

Maybe you should have just followed the rules, that the rest of us obide by. I can't wait till it blows up in your face.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

Ive already reported myself to all three organizations, even provided a link. Dont fret. Now follow my lead and turn yourself in for the hundreds of songs and movies you acquired unlawfully.


Network Guy
Premium
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:2
reply to celeritypc

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

I don't think an administrative judgment can be dissolved into a chapter 7. More like this person will have a permanent wage garnishment for the rest of her fiscal life. And for 24 songs, that's fucked up.



DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ITALIAN926

This was in 2005.... the legal music download scene wasn't really well established, nor was the concept of "I really don't own the music I purchased on this CD" a generally accepted concept.

Not to drag this out, but the music industry has successfully changed public thought to believe it's better to lease monthly access to a wealth of music, store music files purchased online and have legal access to them as long as you remain a customer of "said" service (unless you knowingly download to back them up).

Boy, how times have changed...


pandora
Premium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:2
Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Comcast
·Future Nine Corp..
reply to nitzan

Re: Cruel and unusual punishment.

said by nitzan:

And here I thought the Supreme Court was there to uphold the constitution. Turns out that's not the case when it's the constitution vs giant evil corporations. No one should have to have their lives ruined because of sharing a few songs.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause, empowers the United States Congress:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

The above is in the Constitution, and pre-dates the Bill of Rights (which the anti-federalists insisted on). Thus copyright, patent, and trademark were considered part of our Constitution before the right of free expression, due process, to bear arms, or privacy.

The laws Congress has passed and Presidents have signed are ludicrous, but appear to be within their Constitutional authority.

This punishment is ludicrous imo.
--
Congress could mess up a one piece jigsaw puzzle.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to Kristopher

Re: Ridiculous

Maybe. But she was offered a much lower settlement, she refused. She thought she could play the legal system and waste the courts time. She got what she had coming.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
reply to DaSneaky1D

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

Napster was shut down in 2001, and legal means of downloading like Itunes were released and widespread shortly after.

Wow, Im getting all these songs for free !!

Now was her opinion " The best things in life are free" , "if its Free it for Me", or was it " if its too good to be true, it probably is"

1700 downloaded songs illegally, give me a break


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

You're the kind of person who tells Rosa Parks "Hope sitting in the front seat was worth it!" after she goes to jail.



Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

1 recommendation

reply to silbaco

Re: Ridiculous

I stand by my original post.

$5K was too much. People with endless supplies of money to power the court system should not be allowed to use it to destroy someone financially just to make a point.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

reply to axus

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

Yea well, Rosa Parks PAID HER FARE on that bus, this woman did not pay her FARE.



axiomatic

join:2006-08-23
Tomball, TX

messages

Ahhh yes... the "let's make an example of" method of punishment. It's worked so well over the years it's a wonder anyone breaks the rules anymore. Wait... it doesn't work at all and all that really happen's is someones life gets ruined and lawyers pockets get lined with money.

This should have been a "don't do this again" with a $1000 fine and Mrs. Thomas-Rasset would have learned her lesson just the same.

No what do we do, we waste the courts time/money for many years now when just like others posted... Mrs. Thomas-Rasset will claim bankrupt and move on with her life likely never paying a dime of this and in 7 year be back to normal.


DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1

The record companies should have to prove they suffered Financial hardship due to these losses. They should be forced to hand over all financial documents and personal fiances as well to show proof of lossed income and way of life.
Since Hollywood uses the analogy "One download equals one lost sale" they should have to prove that their was ever intent to buy with if there was no option to download.

I am all for allowing people to make money but when an Industry which has gold plated everything preys upon an average person with no money that's disgusting. the RIAA and MPAA have more money then they need and should be happy people are Enjoying their works even after their investment has been paid back any money made after the investment being paid back is considered excessive profit lol