dslreports logo
 story category
RIAA Wants Jamie-Rasset to Participate in Anti-Piracy Campaign
Infamous File Trader Offered Penalty Reduction...

Earlier this year the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of the now-infamous Jammie Thomas-Rasset, who was forced by the RIAA to pay $222,000 in damages for downloading just 24 songs. The refusal ended an eight year battle between the RIAA (who has since moved on from lawsuits, for now) and Thomas-Rasset, who was the first to stand up to the RIAA in court (albeit poorly).

In a new wrinkle to an old story, Wired points out that the RIAA stated they'd be willing to reduce Thomas-Rasset's penalty if the Native American mother agreed to participate in anti-piracy campaigns. Says the RIAA:
quote:
We continue to try to resolve this case in a reasonable way. In the past, for example, we have reached out to Ms. Thomas to settle the case in exchange for a contribution to a local music charity. We have communicated to Ms. Thomas that we would consider a variety of non-monetary settlement options, which is up to her to offer. We think this is a gesture of a good will and we’re doing what we can to resolve this case in a manner that works for everyone.
Given her disdain of the RIAA's past tactics Thomas-Rasset doesn't seem likely to cooperate, and appears to be exploring bankruptcy as her next option in the file sharing saga.
view:
topics flat nest 

fatpipe
join:2011-10-02
Austin, TX

fatpipe

Member

We Must Resist the Technocrats!

This poor woman is merely a victim of the RIAA. The true intentions behind this whole fiasco is the never-ending attempts of organizations like the RIAA to institute Draconian Control Methods onto the Internet and its Users.

A big F U to the RIAA and any other pathetic organization that tries to lock-down the Internet!

Next!

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by fatpipe:

This poor woman is merely a victim of the RIAA. The true intentions behind this whole fiasco is the never-ending attempts of organizations like the RIAA to institute Draconian Control Methods onto the Internet and its Users.

A big F U to the RIAA and any other pathetic organization that tries to lock-down the Internet!

Next!

The RIAA is just a tool, one of many. Expect a lot worse before this all ends.

Cabal
Premium Member
join:2007-01-21

Cabal

Premium Member

Sure

Her speaking fee is $222,000.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Sure

said by Cabal:

Her speaking fee is $222,000.

You know... I have several copyrights and some have been infringed on, but I'm just not ready to make it a capitol offense or hold a gun to someone's head to coerce them into saying things they don't want to say. RIAA and the government have ALWAYS been so over the top, it's just impossible to support their positions... UNLESS of course, you're a Reich Marshall.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Sure

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Cabal:

Her speaking fee is $222,000.

You know... I have several copyrights and some have been infringed on, but I'm just not ready....

As the sole rights holder YOU can choose to abandon them, but the RIAA did not choose to do that, in fact it can't, as it is contractually obligated to defend them during their (the rights) lifetime.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

1 edit

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: Sure

said by tshirt:

said by meeeeeeeeee:

said by Cabal:

Her speaking fee is $222,000.

You know... I have several copyrights and some have been infringed on, but I'm just not ready....

As the sole rights holder YOU can choose to abandon them, but the RIAA did not choose to do that, in fact it can't, as it is contractually obligated to defend them during their (the rights) lifetime.

Fine... they can have everyone they can prove a case against charged with shoplifting (petite larceny). Anything else is absurd.

By the way, I know with your condition, many strange things pop into your brain and come out your mouth, but I never said I abandoned my rights. I spoke to the offenders I learned of in an amicable, businesslike way and we came to an agreement that we both could live with. Two of the companies were start-ups that got the software from one of my clients as a favor because they really couldn't afford to pay for it. I spoke to them professionally, understood their plight and gave them a years grace AND gave them free support with several issues they encountered. I remembered what starting a new business was like...

Both companies thrived and today support their founders, employ people, bring revenue to my region and have given me a LOT of business over the years.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Sure

said by meeeeeeeeee:

Fine... they can have everyone they can prove a case against charged with shoplifting (petite larceny). Anything else is absurd.

BUT (as you love to point out) SHOPLIFTING is a different crime, having to do with taking physical goods without paying.
We want to charge people correctly, as part of a legal process, not a random charge to match your confused sense of legal/illegal.
tshirt

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Sure

This is not theft of service either.
it is COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT-- "the use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works, without permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator."

And in this case she distributed it further in addition to downloading.
Again charging the appropriate crime is part of the legal process, not just some made up "kinda close- almost the same" but a charge and penalty specific to her own actions.

I don't believe you understand the concept of civil, criminal or constitutional law, even though you rant about it frequently.
tshirt

tshirt to meeeeeeeeee

Premium Member

to meeeeeeeeee
said by meeeeeeeeee:

I spoke to the offenders I learned of in an amicable, businesslike way and we came to an agreement that we both could live with.

Then that and future business were your compensation. and YOU chose not to pursue them legally

The RIAA/MPAA obviously don't see any current or future advantage in most cases to letting downloaders continue to steal, it's their obligation to pursue any viable case.
They are a tool of the industry for just that purpose.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

1 recommendation

silbaco to fatpipe

Premium Member

to fatpipe
She is a victim of no one but herself. She committed the crime and was caught. She was given a chance to pay a much lower fine a long time ago before the RIAA decided to make an example of her, but she refused. Now they have her, but they are yet again giving her another opportunity to pay a lower fine and she is going to turn them down yet again. She has screwed around with the court system long enough and blamed everyone she can including her kids. She has no one to blame but herself and she deserves what she gets.

Omega
Premium Member
join:2002-07-30
Golden, CO

Omega

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by silbaco:

She is a victim of no one but herself. She committed the crime and was caught. She was given a chance to pay a much lower fine a long time ago before the RIAA decided to make an example of her, but she refused. Now they have her, but they are yet again giving her another opportunity to pay a lower fine and she is going to turn them down yet again. She has screwed around with the court system long enough and blamed everyone she can including her kids. She has no one to blame but herself and she deserves what she gets.

What crime? All she did was infringe copyright. A civil offense.

And you think that $222,000 is reasonable? You would get less of a punishment if you stole a physical CD from a music store (now THAT is a crime).

ps: If you have ever sang the Happy Birthday song, you too have infringed copyright. You should probably turn yourself in.
silbaco
Premium Member
join:2009-08-03
USA

silbaco

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

The settlement she was offered was very reasonable. She turned it down against all reason. Whatever she has to pay now is her fault and hers alone.

The happy birthday song is stupid. I don't know why anyone sings it.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by silbaco:

The settlement she was offered was very reasonable. She turned it down against all reason. Whatever she has to pay now is her fault and hers alone.

What was the settlement offer?
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by vpoko:

said by silbaco:

The settlement she was offered was very reasonable. She turned it down against all reason. Whatever she has to pay now is her fault and hers alone.

What was the settlement offer?

$5000 total. Offered before the first trial.

buzz_4_20
join:2003-09-20
Dover, NH

buzz_4_20

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

$5,000 is a lot of money for most people.

Just cause it's reasonable and seems low doesn't mean it can be done.

I like how if you can't come up with the money you're automatically refusing to pay...
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned) to Omega

Member

to Omega
said by Omega:

And you think that $222,000 is reasonable? You would get less of a punishment if you stole a physical CD from a music store (now THAT is a crime).

The $222,000 was NOT for downloading 24 songs. It was the SHARING of her songs which were downloaded thousands of times. Now yes even in that case $222K is excessive, but at least get the facts correct.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by 88615298:

$222K is excessive,

So you think $0.99 per download, and $2.5 million in collection costs would be better?
The point of the statutory penalty was to prevent abuse by the lawyers/RIAA agents from "running the meter" (delaying settlement to increase the fee)
given the time chasing her down and years in court the
$222k isn't even pennies on the dollar.
clone (banned)
join:2000-12-11
Portage, IN

clone (banned)

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

Exactly.

Just like a $5000 speeding ticket, you broke the law, you got caught, you pay the fucking costs. Oh, you don't wan't to pay $45,000 for the police cruiser that had to be purchased? $70,000 to pay the police officer for the year? $2.5 million for the Motorola digital radio system they used to call in your license plate? $50 for the gas in the cop's gas tank at the time of the incident? $250,000 to pay the judge who has to be there when you fight the ticket?

Just pay the $5000 for going 52 in a 45. You wouldn't want to have to be held liable for the $3 million in costs for the system that was set up to enforce laws, would you?

Oh, $5000 for a speeding ticket is ridiculous? Tough shit, right?

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

He MEANS well...just have to understand Mama dropped him on his head a lot when he was a youngin. She was a good Mama..but stuff happens.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt to clone

Premium Member

to clone
said by clone:

Exactly.

Just like a $5000 speeding ticket, you broke the law,

That would be criminal law which operates somewhat differently.
but the prosecution (which is the gov't and police on behalf of the citizens ie YOUR neighbors) absorbs much of that cost or at least amortizes it over the many cases and investigations.
and if you look at how fines are determined/accessed you will fined a certain amount got back to that police dept. if it was in a school or construction zones part of the "extra" fine goes back to those programs (which financed the extra patrols that caught you)
So being financially punished is part of your sentence, and when you laugh at how small the fine is, the next one costs more (along with insurance, and car financing and maybe your employer learns how socially irresponsible you are, and no longer needs your services)
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to tshirt

Member

to tshirt
said by tshirt:

given the time chasing her down and years in court the
$222k isn't even pennies on the dollar.

You work so hard to say credible stuff every now and then. But in a single paragraph you manage to flush it all down the toilet.

Or is that you can only do math the RIAA way?

»www.ted.com/talks/rob_re ··· pod.html

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

Do you have any idea what 8 years of legal fees private investigators and whatever else the RIAA threw at this case plus interest are LIKELY* like?

LIKELY* because I don't KNOW either but have seen billing from similar type actions, and it is VERY unlikely $222k was breakeven, one of the reasons they have changed tactics.
Yes you can Try to distract from THIS specific case, with the unrelated TED, but you are ignoring the basics. THIS case went to court, has ben reviewed and appealed and in the end the RIAA got and sustained a judgment for $222k.
You can swear up and down That YOU believe it was wrong, but it goes in the books as settled case law.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by tshirt:

but it goes in the books as settled case law.

How is the TED unrelated? The bottom line is, she's going to pay a whole lot for doing nothing other than downloading/sharing a few songs. It doesn't matter how much they spent. And it sure as hell doesn't matter if it's legal if it's so morally bankrupt.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by Kamus:

said by tshirt:

but it goes in the books as settled case law.

.....doing nothing other than downloading/sharing a few songs.


What else do you think this case was about?
You can't just say "I don't believe in that law, so it doesn't apply to me"
And yeah, being LEGAL is what the courts deal with, not moral or immoral.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus

Member

Re: We Must Resist the Technocrats!

said by tshirt:

And yeah, being LEGAL is what the courts deal with, not moral or immoral.

What I'm saying, is that this whole thing should have been dismissed right from the start.

This is just as stupid as what happened to these girls:

»www.youtube.com/watch?v= ··· UUH7ytUo


Of course at least they don't have to shell out 200k, but it's just as stupid.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

1 edit

tshirt

Premium Member

Sure it is stupid and it is criminal law "failure to get a require permit"
the police are supposed to use discretion, or the prosecutor is supposed to use discretion, and the court did use discretion.
Without more background it impossible to say why the first 2 failed the "no brainer" test.
However the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case was civil law based on a constitutional mandate permitting copyright holders/IP owners to protect and defend their property (like gun rights, without all the accidental/innocent deaths )
Rather than repeatedly violating the law, if you don't like it's current form, you could work to change it but that would take far more social and political organization/commitment then most pirates seem capable of fielding (and it way less work just to keep stealing, pirates aren't just cheap...they're lazy too.)
As I pointed out earlier, even if the copyright law was still life plus 14 years, or even just 14 years, most if not all the parties could still make a valid claim against her, so the "extended to 90 years plus" argument is totally busted too.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset shouldn't be your hero, she and legal team made your job of finding a legal "excuse" much more difficult, by pursuing a poorly thought out case through multiple courts leaving a legacy of rulings and settled case law behind.
Now a test case (if any) will have to cross the minefield of the case law in an attempt to challenge the basis.
She should have settled early on. and the "community" that raise money for her defense should have paid the fine for her, if they were smarter.

What I believe you really want to have NO copyright/IP protection, or at least not where it's inconvenient to YOU.
But that conflicts with the constitution which also provide/DEFINES gun rights and free speech, and civil liberties.
And you don't get to pick and choose.

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

She is a victim of no one but herself. She committed the crime and was caught. She was given a chance to pay a much lower fine a long time ago before the RIAA decided to make an example of her, but she refused. Now they have her, but they are yet again giving her another opportunity to pay a lower fine and she is going to turn them down yet again. She has screwed around with the court system long enough and blamed everyone she can including her kids. She has no one to blame but herself and she deserves what she gets.

Yawoll Mein Reich Marshall. The pig should have been SHOT for her insolence and crimes against the Rich! And might I add that you look exceedingly dashing in your jack boots and brown shirt today.

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko to silbaco

Premium Member

to silbaco
I'm not one to defend copyright infringement as being morally acceptable, but the penalty is not close to proportionate to the offense. She did do something wrong, and she deserved some consequences, but the consequences have to be reasonable given the infraction. It's why we don't execute people for jaywalking.
Kamus
join:2011-01-27
El Paso, TX

Kamus to silbaco

Member

to silbaco
said by silbaco:

She is a victim of no one but herself. She committed the crime and was caught. She was given a chance to pay a much lower fine a long time ago before the RIAA decided to make an example of her, but she refused. Now they have her, but they are yet again giving her another opportunity to pay a lower fine and she is going to turn them down yet again. She has screwed around with the court system long enough and blamed everyone she can including her kids. She has no one to blame but herself and she deserves what she gets.

GDIAF, get your priorities straight.
biochemistry
Premium Member
join:2003-05-09
92361

biochemistry

Premium Member

statement

What statement is she trying to make? That the punishment doesn't fit the crime or that there should be no punishment because there was no crime?

vpoko
Premium Member
join:2003-07-03
Boston, MA

vpoko

Premium Member

Re: statement

There actually was no crime and both sides agree on that. There was a civil tort. And the punishment does not fit.

FeedUp
@verizon.net

FeedUp

Anon

Violates the intent of the Constitution

Excessive penalities that force a person into bankruptcy is definitely a violation of the intent of the Constitution. The Supreme Court is a joke in they uphold socialized medicine, but allow individual rights to be trampled on.
88615298 (banned)
join:2004-07-28
West Tenness

88615298 (banned)

Member

Re: Violates the intent of the Constitution

Well the current copyright laws violate the US Constitution and the US Supreme Court and Congress don't care.

Article 1 Section 8

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;

I'm 100% sure if you asked the people that wrote this that by "limited times" they did not mean 95 years or 70 years after the the death of the creator( for non work-for-hire materials ). Especially when the copyright length at the time was 14 years. Ironically most of Disney's early stuff couldn't even have been made if current copyright laws( written by Disney ) existed then.

tshirt
Premium Member
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA

tshirt

Premium Member

Re: Violates the intent of the Constitution

But the artists who's work she mis-appropriated were/are still (mostly) alive so the constitutional restriction does not apply.
Nor does it in the vast majority of RIAA/MPAA internet distribution cases.

Twaddle
@sbcglobal.net

Twaddle

Anon

Again-Money talks

RIAA succeeded because there is a defined civil penalty for what was committed. The problem is thet there was a law in place. We can argue till the cows come home but until the law is changed and upheld the RIAA will continue to win in court.

SCOTUS refused to hear the case because of the way the case was presented to them on a constitutional basis by Jammie Thomas-Rasset's defense lawyer. There was no constitutional basis argument presented so no decision. That's not to say there isn't a constitutional issue, just that that issue wasn't part of the argument.
All that aside, it's a crying shame that America's court system punishes people much more severely for these types of crimes and not for the more violent crimes-there is no money to be made in crimes against people. Corporate America is making sure that they will be well protected from their deeds against the public because they can afford to buy the best legal protection, starting with the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of the United States, which are backed and protected by the combined forces of the Military Establishment.

IowaCowboy
Lost in the Supermarket
Premium Member
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA

IowaCowboy

Premium Member

Lucky she didn't go to jail

There are criminal penalties for copyright infringement as well.

Fortunately my music and video collection is 100 percent legally obtained.
67845017 (banned)
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL

67845017 (banned)

Member

Re: Lucky she didn't go to jail

said by IowaCowboy:

There are criminal penalties for copyright infringement as well.

Fortunately my music and video collection is 100 percent legally obtained.

This case wasn't even anywhere close to being suitable for a criminal copyright action. It's not luck that she didn't go to jail, it's that her actions didn't fall under criminal copyright.

fuziwuzi
Not born yesterday
Premium Member
join:2005-07-01
Palm Springs, CA

1 recommendation

fuziwuzi

Premium Member

Justice?

Yet the criminals sitting behind banker's desks, who completely wrecked the US economy and cost millions of jobs, don't even get a slap on the wrist and can laugh all the way to the bank, literally.

Octavean
MVM
join:2001-03-31
New York, NY

Octavean

MVM

It doesn't make much sense to me


The only reason I can think of to force a public statement or campaign is to get the individual to publicly debase themselves. To make an example of them. Most cases were settled out of court for a relatively small amount (to what they are asking for once proceedings start).

So its kind of a "this is what happens to you if you don't take the settlement deal". But why bother with that if their tactics have changed and migrated away from individual lawsuits?

Filing for bankruptcy gives them a hollow victory of sorts one would think and it seems like an easy way out. What they are asking per violation is still unreasonable IMO and with the way this seems to be going no one really seems to come out the winner.

This whole thing is so distasteful I don't know how anyone involved can maintain a positive public image.

I don't think anyone should be misappropriating or violating music / movie copyrights and I try to make that very clear to my kids. Still I don't think people should have to go through the legal equivalent of crucifixion if they do make such a heinous mistake.

•••

Steve B
Premium Member
join:2004-08-02
Auburn, WA

Steve B

Premium Member

Sounds just like a movie....

How many different movies are there where the "evil guys" know they can't win against the "good guys" and so they brainwash the good guy to do the evil guy's work.

Obviously there's no brainwashing happening in this case but, I think everyone can see the similarity here. LOL

meeeeeeeeee
join:2003-07-13
Newburgh, NY

meeeeeeeeee

Member

I'm sure

That if she could make a statement like "My life was ruined by a self-serving, corrupt government in league with a bunch of greedy millionaires all because I downloaded a few songs. Don't let it happen to you, fight this corruption to your dieing breath and bring back America." she would PAY to film it herself.

••••••••

En Enfer
This account has been compromised
join:2003-07-25
Montreal, QC

En Enfer

Member

Just like a Hollywood movie...

... pick someone random from the millions of americans who did EXACTLY the same or worse, expose that single person to the public and make him/her suffer just to make an example to others. That's the lawyers way of public/worldwide bullying.

Take a similar public case but replace the RIAA with the IRS. The world watching a nobody in the society having trouble with the IRS while bankers cashed in a production bonus after the Bush government bailed them out...

How is this tolerable?

Probitas
@teksavvy.com

Probitas

Anon

absurd is right

If they are so concerned about people getting proper compensation, they could have simply had her PAY (shocking I know) for the music she downloaded. I don't whether she was aware or not if whatever tool she used was sharing, so not sure about that. But the damages or so far above what could possibly have occurred, it's sickening. You try and sue and the system is set up to reduce your payback amount, so why is RIAA getting away with this insanity?