 
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. | |
|  | 
rick25s
join:2003-01-18
Newport, NH
 ·Verizon VoiceWing
| Re: She will get it. I doubt she is paying any legal fees.
She could have settled for the standard $1500-$3000. Lawyers charge at least $175/hour. How many hours do you think are involved in this? A lot more than $3000 worth.
This has pro bono written all over it. And in my experience, the only people that get pro bono are the people that don't deserve it. | |
| | | 
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: She will get it. $175/hr??
For an IP attorney try 2-3x that figure, minimum. No way this lady can afford it. But, it's good advertising for her attorney of he's doing it pro bono. | |
| | | 
cableties
Premium
join:2005-01-27 | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 She lied. Under oath. Hang her! Hang her high!  | |
| | Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
| 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. | |
| | | jester121
join:2003-08-09
Lake Zurich, IL | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 I know dude, this is worse than $375 speeding tickets, or $5000 DUI fines.
It's almost like they're trying to send a message with such exhorbitant fines!
 | |
| | | | Ikarasu
join:2004-01-09
Port Coquitlam, BC
·ITalkBB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by jester121  :I know dude, this is worse than $375 speeding tickets, or $5000 DUI fines. It's almost like they're trying to send a message with such exhorbitant fines! Message received. Drunk driving = less riskier than downloading an mp3! | |
| | | | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Don't you realize the difference? When you drive under the influence you can kill someone. But when you share out copyrighted works without the copyright owners' permission, you're *INFRINGING COPYRIGHT!!!!* That's much, much worse than simply killing people. Isn't it?
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
| | | | | rahvin112
join:2002-05-24
Sandy, UT
|  Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000
Our prisons are full of people with a medical problem while we are releasing violent prisoners because of overcrowding. After justifying that it's quite easy to accept that someone should have to pay 2 million dollars for making available 2 dozen songs for download (with the only provable download being by an employee of the copyright owner).
When you have to bend logic to support as much injustice as our current legal system exhibits a single mom on welfare getting bent over by companies that make billions it's not a big deal to some apparently. | |
| | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by rahvin112 : After justifying that it's quite easy to accept that someone should have to pay 2 million dollars for making available 2 dozen songs for download (with the only provable download being by an employee of the copyright owner). I didn't see where in the statute it specifices who the downloader needs to be for distribution. Oh wait, maybe because it's not in there.
This is real simple. Don't want to get in trouble? Then don't break the law. Don't like the law, then get it changed. Can't get it changed and you still want to break the law? Go ahead, but don't get all whiny when you get nailed for it.
Again, it's really simple. | |
| | | | | | | 
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by Goober :This is real simple. Don't want to get in trouble? Then don't break the law. Don't like the law, then get it changed. Can't get it changed and you still want to break the law? Go ahead, but don't get all whiny when you get nailed for it. Again, it's really simple. That's exactly what we are trying to do. For a long time people scoffed at women voting in elections. Before that, we had people that scoffed at slaves being freed or even voting. Today we have people that scoff at downloading music as though it was 1920 all over again.
If a teenager lifted some tic-tacs from the grocery store and thus was taken to court to pay a million dollars in damages, everyone would be crying foul. The exact same thing goes on with online music. There are *real* people out there making a lot of money off of piracy with bootlegs cds and what not. Yet it seems for all the waste of money and time spent in court, the best we can do is convict dead people, elderly, kids, and non-technical moms.
Show me a story where "John Doe convicted in multi-million dollar cd piracy racket" and I'll cheer for the law. But when the headline is "panic mom now owes millions for a couple of dozen songs that may or may not have been shared by anyone" speaks to the legal problems and mantra of this society in general.
You want people to buy your music? Quit pissing off everyone with these insane lawsuits and ludicrous judgments. No one wonder everyone wants to "stick it to the man" or RIAA/MPAA in this case. The system is broken and the only way to bring it to attention is to challenge the system.
'Nothing ventured, nothing gained.'
--
Fight Insight Ready (Was NebuAD) and the like:
Click Here to pollute their data | |
| | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
2 edits | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 There are criminal copyright busts all the time. Mostly in foreign countries, like China and India where for some reason those countries decide to do the lawful thing instead of getting bribed by the criminals.
This stuff is civil copyright law. Again, the laws are clear. You aren't the copyright holder? Then make sure you know what you're doing when it comes to downloading and/or distributing. Not sure? Then don't do it.
And until the laws are changed, expect to get nailed for unlawful behavior.
So exactly who are the "we" and what is it that the "we" are trying to do?
Edit: And seriously, you're comparing some cheap-ass downloader unhappy about not getting to infringe copyrights on par with human rights violations? | |
| | | 
salut123
@lausd.net | American only seem to care if their guns and cheap beer is take away and then they will revolt... the rest who cares. Is sad what this country has come up to. | |
| | | | 
jimbo48
join:2000-11-17
Hayward, CA
·AT&T DSL Service
·EarthLink
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 Sure seems that way. We have to endure the justice of the American courts that can send a person to prison for smoking some dope for 20 years, let child molesters and rapists go with a reduced sentence for "good behaviour" bankrupt Joe Public then bail out Financial institutions that fleeced Americans. There is no money to be made in criminal acts but civil acts can generate money for lawyers and the plaintiffs (if they win) This is all a deep pockets venture and the RIAA is out to dig into anyone's pocketbook as deep as they can with the help of the "courts" and some good(if not too ethical) civil lawyers. The lawyers get paid, the RIAA gets a lot of money the judge gets his/her salary paid. Everyone wins except the loser. There is a level of justice that money can buy in America, just ask RIAA. God help the poor man because without money justice and the courts turn a blind eye and a deaf ear. Over generalizing maybe; opinion definitely.
No downloaded song is worth the kind of money per song being talked about here. America, where you are guilty until you have enough money spent to prove you are innocent. | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Vampirefo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-11
Huntington, WV
·Comcast
2 edits | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 Such bs as riaa is easy enough to stop, it just takes getting people involved, no matter what they law says, the law is decided by the jury, if riaa comes to your town get on the jury, or get a friend on the jury.
I haven't heard of any riaa cases in my area, if i do i will do my part to see they lose, if enough people get involved in their own towns the riaa will just fade away.
the riaa simply can't afford to lose each and every case, but we as the people, eg jury can make them lose each and every time.
I look forward to seeing the riaa come to my town, and losing. I will jump at the chance to get on the jury.
--
Best Regards
Vampirefo
| |
| | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 Yeah, and the attorney will jump at using his peremptory challenge on you. You'll never get seated. | |
| | | | | | |
Vampirefo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-11
Huntington, WV
·Comcast
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by Goober :Yeah, and the attorney will jump at using his peremptory challenge on you. You'll never get seated. LOL sure I will be seated, no doubt in my mind, I will tell the attorney anything he wants to hear, just to get put on the jury. The jury is true power and is proof one person can make a difference.
I been on a jury before, they are easy enough to get on most people just want to get out of jury duty, don't want to be bothered not thinking that they could in fact make a difference.
If one doesn't believe the law or punishment is just get on a jury and fix stuff. This women would have paid no more than $24 period, had i been on the jury, i would have pushed for nothing, but would have gave in after hours and hours of deliberation, for $24
Not one dime more or i would have just hung the jury, end of story, people simply use your head get out there get on these jurors and end this bs million dollars for 24 songs bs.
the only reason this woman was charged so much is because riaa supports got on the jury, rather than be to busy, they found the time, all we have to do is fight back get on the jury, we only need one folks on the jury.
If you believe the riaa and or the verdict in this case was to much fight back be on the next jury in your town against the riaa.
--
Best RegardsVampirefo | |
| | | | | | | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 LOL. You have it all figured out don't you? It's that easy.
Look, you have no clue how the selection process works, you have no idea what the attorney wants to hear and you have no idea what he's after.
A civil case doesn't have to be unanimous. You don't have the power by yourself to create a hung jury in the least bit.
You know, I can't even respond to all the rest of your points. I'm just laughing too hard at what I'm reading.
One final thought though. You having been on a jury before, therefore making you an expert in these matters is about the same thing as me saying that I've sat on a toilet before, which makes me a master plumber. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by Goober :You know, I can't even respond to all the rest of your points. I'm just laughing too hard at what I'm reading. One final thought though. You having been on a jury before, therefore making you an expert in these matters is about the same thing as me saying that I've sat on a toilet before, which makes me a master plumber. OMG that is hilarious.
--
My domain - Nightfall.net | |
| | | | | | | | dda
Premium
join:2003-12-29
Bolton, MA
| said by Vampirefo :LOL sure I will be seated, no doubt in my mind, I will tell the attorney anything he wants to hear, just to get put on the jury. One word: perjury. | |
| | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA
| I think 'stealing' music and the like should fall under petty theft or grand theft depending on how much was 'stolen'. It is mind boggling how stealing a song worth $1 (based on how much it is being sold for online or on a typical CD, not the actual cost to produce it) can result in a $80000 fine and stealing something like: a book, electronics, food, cigarettes, etc. will typical result in a fine less than $500.
I'm sick of this crap that makes the entertainment industry that looks like the center of the: world, universe, life, economy, and everything else under ths sun. I'm also sick of the MAFIAA being able to: operate the way that is does, strongly influence the government to sway to their side, sue with reckless abandon, make examples out of people, and more recently being able to push a so called 'treaty' (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement ) that appears to bypass the people. I thought the government representatives were suppose to work for the general population, not some select group of individuals that happen to have lots of money. Maybe the government needs to more change than the entertainment industry. | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 Considering she isn't innocent, why would you say that this case won't set a precedent for for other alleged copyright violations? | |
| | | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 said by GOLFnSUN :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 | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 You're right. Throw her in prison since she perjured herself | |
| | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Perhaps you need to go back and learn how to read, TK...
"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."
He did not say that she was innocent. He said that this case would not set a precedent on the RIAA's ability to shake down potentially innocent people in the future.
You really only see what you want, don't you?
cw | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 And this case was about "shaking down" a guilty person. Why would any case where the defendant is found guilty set a precedent against innocence? | |
| | | | Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
·Comcast
·Embarq
| If you review my comment I did not say that she was innocent. I do not believe in taking someones work product without compensating them. In my opinion she was not the brightest bulb in the string when she did not settle when the RIAA had so much evidence.
On the other hand there were many broadband subscribers that received demand letters from the RIAA, because the ISP's indifferent attitude, even though they were innocent of any copyright infringement. This case does not provide any legal precedence for those victims of the RIAA's machine gun justice. | |
| | | | | 
digitalfreak
join:2005-12-09
49533 | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 It's ok. TK is just re-directing again. | |
| | | | | |
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
·AT&T Midwest
·Site5.com
·Comcast
| said by GOLFnSUN :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 | |
| | 
baineschile
2600
Premium
join:2008-05-10
Sterling Heights, MI | 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. | |
| | |
See 9 replies to this post | |
| Kearnstd
Elf Wizard
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
| if P2P of music is stealing then it should be treated no different then shoplifting. and for a first offense the guilty party should only be liable for the retail value of what was "stolen" 23 uploads should only get the RIAA 23 dollars. since a track only has a value of a dollar.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports | |
| | |
Goober
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
1 edit | Re: A good compromise - she pays $18,000 The statute says nothing about stealing. It's infringement plain and simple. This stealing nonsense is bandied about because it's something the RIAA feels it can use to reach/scare people. A case would get thrown out if theft were alleged. The RIAA has never done that. No IP attorney would.
Therefore, damages for theft aren't valid here. It's copyright infringement and the statutes are clear as to what damages may be owed. | |
| |
Vampirefo
Premium,MVM
join:2000-12-11
Huntington, WV
·Comcast
| she shouldn't have to pay anything, but if she must pay she should pay exactly what the songs would have costs from a pay download site.
the only message being sent is because the riaa has money they can legally steal money from people. two wrongs don't make a right.
yeah she stole some songs so now the riaa wants to steal some money.
--
Best RegardsVampirefo | |
| 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? | |
| | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL
·Comcast
| 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! | |
| 
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!
| |
| | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| 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. | |
| 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). | |
| |
See 23 replies to this post | |
mrkevin
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.
Premium
join:2007-08-07
Aurora, ME
clubs: | Its also theft when you STEAL someone's wi-fi signal.
I will raise my hand...I have "used" someone's internet without their permission. does that make me a criminal? or liable for imagined damages? | |
| |
See 9 replies to this post | |
David
No,there is another.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-05-30
Granite City, IL
clubs: | I don't think the fine should be any greater than what amazon.com or apple Itunes sells them for.
That would be fair in my book. | |
| | 
DownTheShore
Tar and Feather Joe Lieberman
Premium
join:2003-12-02
Beautiful NJ
clubs:
1 edit | Bottom Line... ...is if I buy something, whether it's a CD or a bottle of ketchup or a magazine, it's mine to do with as I see fit. If I want to freely share it with one friend or 10,000 friends, then it is my prerogative to do so - or not. If I was charging a fee for the share, that would be a different story.
The media industry had not bothered to keep pace with technology, and now they are using Mafia tactics to try to make others pay for their ineptitude. Since the inception of CD's, customers have complained that the cost was too high. Did they listen? No. For years and years we were paying $20+ for CD's that cost pennies to produce, and for which the artists themselves received only pennies on the dollar. I bought those CD's; I've got hundreds and hundreds that I've bought over the years. I have contributed mightily to the RIAA's coffers - I have paid for their fine cars, their expensive lunches, their fancy clothes and homes.
What they fail to realize is that the time of the gravy train is over. By their continued unreasonably high prices, they helped to create the situation that now occurs; they slit their own throats. Instead of learning and changing their business model to reflect changing times and understand their customer base and work with it, they instead go after the smallest and weakest of their potential customers to "set an example" and "teach a lesson".
Just imagine the different situation that would have existed if, as soon as technology would have allowed it, the 99-cent download had been made available. People will pay for a single song - that's why 45-rpm records used to sell as much as they did: if you couldn't afford to buy the album (or you didn't think the rest of the songs on the album were worth the cost) you bought the single song that you liked. I buy single songs now, and if I like what I've bought, I will buy a downloadable album for under $10 on Amazon. That is a business model that works. But why didn't the music industry recognize the changes in the marketplace and institute that new business model sooner? Hiding behind copyright laws, resisting change and demonizing their customer base is not working. The genie is out of the bottle.
--
Patriotism is not waving a flag, it is living the ideals
Bush & Co. didn't keep us safe - 9/11 happend on their watch! | |
| 
tomkb
Premium
join:2000-11-15
Avon, OH
clubs: | bologna This lawsuit is worth $5 per song before lawyers get involved. | |
| 
linicx
Caveat Emptor
Premium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·CenturyLink
| This is insane A flat cost of $100 per song title and $500 per movie title plus mandatory court costs of $2000 will keep the lawyers out of court and RIAA happy. I don't want to pay three grand for a song with a 1930 copyright or a b/w movie. Most of those artists are deceased. .
, regardless if it is one song or 10.000 songs, is reasonable and realistic.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
| cpsycho
join:2008-06-03
Orangeville, ON
·Wightman Telecom
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| sampling? Was there ever anything brought up about sampling in this case? Unless she shared a "full" song and distributed the full file to a single person. This might be considered a legal sampling, would it not?
Technically the RIAA would have to pull every one into court who shared the same song to that individual and called it collusion with intent to distribute. | |
| | | |
|
|
Jammie Thomas Requests New Trial
·
Whether or not the RIAA accepts this settlement, in my opinion this case is irrelevant.
·