 | | Heh And this is why even the RIAA was surprised by the verdict rendered by the jury, and were noncommittal to pursuing the penalty judgment. | |
|
| | Knowledge is power Honestly, she should've just settled in the first place just to be done with it. On the other hand, who knows what can come out of these things when you try and fight it. Some win, some lose. | |
|
 |  DataDocMy avatar looks like me, if I was 2D.Premium
join:2000-05-14
Greenville, NC | Re: Knowledge is power What if she really is innocent? Still settle? Maybe she couldn't afford even that "low" figure.
--
Every Kurt has his Courtney. You need a Yoko to do it right.
| |
|
| | Reviews:
 ·Cox HSI
 ·World Lynx
| Re: Knowledge is power said by DataDoc:What if she really is innocent? Still settle? Maybe she couldn't afford even that "low" figure. No kidding....$3000 (isn't that the typical settlement amount?) might be peanuts for folks out on the coasts, but in this area that is a big chunk of change. More than a couple of months salary for a LOT of folks.... | |
|
| | | I disagree.I would not give the RIAA or their stooge labels or their ignorant artists who sign with them even a penny............
I would boycott them their labels and their bands.we do not need these corporate leeches.
i am a musician and have played rock music since 1972.
i give all my music away to those who have no cash and all at 320k mp3.
www.bigmeathammer.com go to my archives page.
SUPPORT INDEPENDENT ART NOT CORPORATE !!! | |
|
| | Dumb Jury The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . | |
|
|  GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
2 edits | Re: Dumb Jury said by BigMac777:The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same description seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. | |
|
| | | | Re: Dumb Jury said by Goober:said by BigMac777:The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same desciption seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. Indeed. If her appeal is accepted, expect all eyes to be on this case because it would have extreme ramifications for all civil court cases and judgments made within them, both past, present, and future - that is, if retroactivity comes into play. If she wins, it could open the flood gates for a whole new set of appeals to occur, not that that is a bad thing. Reform of the judicial system is definitely needed. Of course, if she wins, expect an immediate appeal to a higher court. | |
|
| | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: Dumb Jury I'm looking forward to this. I think the penalty was severe as well and I'd like to see some carve outs in the statute.
For now, though, the law is the law. | |
|
| | | | said by Goober:said by BigMac777:The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same desciption seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. Is this the same judge who sued a dry cleaner for $65 millions for losing his pant? This is within his rights to sue as well. | |
|
| | | | Yes. Unfortunately, they didn't even award the RIAA the maximum fine. That would be $150,000 per song or (for the 24 songs Thomas was charged for) $3.6 million. Of course, the smallest amount is $750 which would have come to $18,000.
Still, I think an appropriate fine level would be 10 times the market value of the song. Digital downloads cost, on average, 99 cents each. So Thomas' 24 songs would cost her $9.90 each, or $237.60. I'm not going to hold my breath that copyright law will see more rational fines, though.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| Reviews:
·Hargray Cable
| said by BigMac777:The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Maybe they weren't so stupid. Make the judgment so high that it is ridiculous then you know it will be shot down.
Some times things aren't what they seem. | |
|
|  Grail KnightQui audet adipisciturPremium
join:2003-05-31
Valhalla
kudos:6
·Time Warner Cable
1 edit | quote:
Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA .
So the jury is made up of lawyers?
So the RIAA is crooked and the other side is innocent?
Ya okay.
Edit* Removed OT comment.
--
"Facts not FUD!" | |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | How Many Times Did she distribute those 24 songs? Redistributing a copyrighted work without authorization one time is not that same as redistributing a thousand times. | |
|
| GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: How Many Times Show me where in the statute there's a differentiation. Also, while you're at it, show me where distribution is even required at all. Simply willfull downloading an unauthorized copy is copyright violation subject to the enhanced penalty. | |
|
| |  GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL | Re: How Many Times said by Goober:Show me where in the statute there's a differentiation. Also, while you're at it, show me where distribution is even required at all. Simply willfull downloading an unauthorized copy is copyright violation subject to the enhanced penalty. Well now you're forcing me to have to go back and re-read it. Because frankly I do believe distribution was indeed the kicker and always has been.
I believe it's been shown before that downloads aren't where they have a case but in uploading, which satisfies the distribution side of the statute.
Weekend project....
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
| | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
1 edit | Re: How Many Times It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: How Many Times said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. If I recall correctly, this case was focused on merely if she downloaded it. The first case was proving whether or not she made the files available. | |
|
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: How Many Times said by PapaMidnight:If I recall correctly, this case was focused on merely if she downloaded it. The first case was proving whether or not she made the files available. Not that it's Gospel, but the NYT article stated posting (i.e. distribution) for others to download.
The federal jury in Minneapolis said the woman, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, of Brainerd, should pay $80,000 for each of the 24 songs that were posted on the site so others could download them. Emphasis mine. | |
|
| | | | GlobalMindDomino Dude, POWER Systems GuyPremium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL
1 edit | said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation....I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. Well it isn't just a DSLR/pirate belief, that much is for sure. But I think alot of why that is the simple fact that so much of the discussions have regarded sharing the files. That's your distribution right there, which is most assuredly a violation.
Then there's the discussions on whether P2P itself is illegal, which as a technology it isn't, but how it's being used is another matter. I suppose the equal question would be if you are in posession of a bootleg concert CD, is that copyright infringement. Applying the same standard, it is, not that you'd likely be sued for it, while the vendors have been.
Going after the folks uploading/sharing is where you get to stopping it from happening. If there's no content to download then the downloads stop.
Looking at the OP directly though, the award, I suspect the industry is looking at those uploads to say well the number of times it was downloaded by others = lost sales, and thus deserves penalties per track to match what those claimed losses are. The jury apparently agreed and went with the larger award, no matter how flawed that calculation is.
For me, I don't file share so personally I don't really care, but I am interested in how this plays out overall.
--
TheGlobalMind.com / Speed costs money. How fast do you want to go? / Trust the instinct to the end, though you can render no reason. - Ralph Waldo Emerson / Free market capitalism is the best path to prosperity. | |
|
| | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: How Many Times Let's just say that DSLR is a particularly outspoken bastion of belief that downloading isn't infringement. I've heard all the arguments and none of them make sense. At least none of the ones that I've heard on here would I ever put in front of a judge.
The vendors will get hit with criminal copyright infringement. As for the single person bootlegging the concert, yeah it's a copyright violation. But, regardless of how much the RIAA is hated, they don't hire stupid attorneys and they really do want to prevent the unauthorized spreading of the works. Suing a downloader only doesn't make sense and it's too hard to enforce. Why bother.
Statutory damages don't necessarily need a clalculation. | |
|
| | | | | |  KoolMoeAw ManPremium
join:2001-02-14
Annapolis, MD | Re: How Many Times I tend to agree downloading is infringement. However, I may choose to ignore that infringement if I bought the album (so talking MP3s here) elsewhere.
Personally, I don't think I should have to pay again for the CDs I accumulated over the years. I already gave the artists/RIAA money for the music. They change media and I should pay again? I know precedent is against me here, but that's the limit of the physical medium. I don't believe that precedent applies with a digital medium.
So I don't download songs I don't already own. I may download songs I do already have. Now, I've already ripped my CDs, so no real NEED to download the songs/albums....but I feel I'd be in the right to do so.
How's that argument? 
KM
--
Don't Lie - Be Kind - Realize your Potential | |
|
| | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: How Many Times I'm not sure the RIAA would buy it as a reasonable defense. But, I think you'd have a fairly good fair use argument. That being said, I just don't see even the RIAA actually coming after you for downloading content you already own on CD. I suppose it could happen, but very unlikely. | |
|
| | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. This was not prosecuted as a crime, it was tried as a civil tort. While it could have been prosecuted as a crime, the standard of proof is higher, and, in this particular case, I doubt if an AG would have touched it with a ten foot pole.
OTOH, downloading, whether prosecuted as a crime, or tried as a tort, would have to be proved. The attorneys for the complainants (formerly called 'plaintiffs') did not just try to prove downloading; their case actually hinged on the distribution angle. That was far easier to prove, especially to the standard of a civil tort.
I agree that it is a mistake to assume that downloading isn't illegal. However, if you want to prove damages, it is much easier to tackle the distribution of the work than the downloading of the work.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Re: How Many Times Wrong laniguage on my part. Crime should have read as violation.
I understand the law. I understand the nuances. All I'm saying is that downloading is as much a copyright violation as is distributing. Distributing is just a lot easier to enforce. | |
|
| | | |  BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. i put out a MASSIVE "hold the fu*k on" on that one.
if downloading is a crime, then they would have to sue the entire population of EVERY country in the world.
because when you listen to a "demo" track off any network you are downloading a copy that is deleted after you listen to it, but here's the kicker, that data is stored on your system till it is overwritten by new data.
so yea, saying that downloading (copyrighted or not) is illegal then the internet and every server on it, can be viewed as an enabler of "illegal copies", hell even how a computer works as a whole can be considered the same.
for the short version, American law makers seem to be FUCKING RETARDS when it comes to something they most likely know nothing about and listen to lobby groups. | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: How Many Times And how can downloading/streaming be a crime if recording songs playing on a radio or using a DVD recorder/VCR isn't? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: How Many Times Because both of those are things that are illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute. Catching a downloader requires viewing all of the ISP's log files (won't happen anytime soon). Catching someone recording songs off the radio/DVD/etc requires a level of hardware control that the industry just doesn't have. Not that they're not trying. All the "close the analog hole" talk, for instance. However, at some point the data will have to be converted back to sound and then it can be recorded. It's technically illegal, but you'll never see anyone prosecuted for it. (Unless they share it out of course.)
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4 | Are you being serious????
You get in trouble for UNAUTHORIZED making/distribution of copies. Jeezuz, a demo by its very nature is authorized.
C'mon people. All of you may not be lawyers, but I assume that you still have a somewhat functional/rational brain. | |
|
| | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by BonezX:said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. i put out a MASSIVE "hold the fu*k on" on that one. if downloading is a crime, then they would have to sue the entire population of EVERY country in the world. Is it a crime to discharge a firearm? If so, then they'd have to arrest every U.S. citizen who ever discharged a firearm. If not then they can't arrest anyone for discharging a firearm beside a road or in the direction of a house.
As with discharging a firearm, downloading is context dependent. It may be legal, to download, or it may be illegal to download; consider the context of the situation.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
| | | | | | BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: How Many Times said by NormanS:said by BonezX:said by Goober:It's a very DSLR/pirate belief that downloading isn't a violation. During a morning radio show (WLUP Chicago), even the woman's attorney stated that downloading is also a crime that may be similarly penalized. In the present case they decided not to go that route. I don't think the RIAA really cares about that as much since it's harder to enforce and distinctly less damaging. i put out a MASSIVE "hold the fu*k on" on that one. if downloading is a crime, then they would have to sue the entire population of EVERY country in the world. Is it a crime to discharge a firearm? If so, then they'd have to arrest every U.S. citizen who ever discharged a firearm. If not then they can't arrest anyone for discharging a firearm beside a road or in the direction of a house. As with discharging a firearm, downloading is context dependent. It may be legal, to download, or it may be illegal to download; consider the context of the situation. here's some context for you.
copyright infringement is willful distribution of copyrighted works without the owners consent.
think about how that is worded. | |
|
| | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
3 edits | Re: How Many Times Incomplete.
§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
-------------------
Quote the statute. Don't pull things out of your dark nether regions. | |
|
| | | | | | | | BonezXBasement DwellerPremium
join:2004-04-13
Canada | Re: How Many Times said by Goober:Incomplete. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; ------------------- Quote the statute. Don't pull things out of your dark nether regions. nothing in there of acquiring an "illegal" duplicate of a specific work.
only distribution.
don't just quote the statutes, read how they are written.
and if people downloading and uploading is such a problem, i don't see them shutting down bootleggers on the front page. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: How Many Times When you download an unauthorized copy, you're reproducing it without the consent of the copyright holder. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
3 edits | said by BonezX:said by Goober:Incomplete. § 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; (2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work; (3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending; ------------------- Quote the statute. Don't pull things out of your dark nether regions. nothing in there of acquiring an "illegal" duplicate of a specific work. only distribution. don't just quote the statutes, read how they are written. and if people downloading and uploading is such a problem, i don't see them shutting down bootleggers on the front page. Seriously, you can't be as dense as you seem.
Let me give you a summary of the statute in plain English, since obviously you're having a hard time digesting the language:
The owner of copyright has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize the reproduction of the copyrighted work in copies.
Did you get it? Read it a couple of times.
edit: I just noticed you're from Canada. Your laws are a bit different in regards to music downloads. Maybe that's why your arguments don't make sense when discussing the matter relative to the US. Then again, your interpretation of the statute is pretty clueless as well, so maybe that's not the issue. Maybe you should just plead that you're Canadian and gracefully exit an argument in which your positions are untenable. | |
|
| | | | | | | NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4
1 edit | {Not sure what to make of this}  | |
|
| | | | | Actually, downloads aren't typically prosecuted because of the difficulty. To catch someone sharing music on a P2P program, you just use that program's built-in functionality to see who is sharing what files. There is no such functionality for seeing who is downloading files. To catch that, you would need the ISPs to turn over all of their logs and comb through them for evidence. This would require a degree of cooperation that the RIAA doesn't have with the ISPs. To say nothing of the privacy violations of looking at what everyone is doing just to catch a few downloaders. So the RIAA focuses on catching uploaders (despite media mis-reporting of them as downloaders) with the theory that taking out the uploaders will drive away downloaders.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
| | |
| | | GooberPremium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
kudos:4
3 edits | Re: How Many Times No, we're not both correct.
You do not have to distribute to be liable for copyright infringement. Even a single instance of copyright infringement is liable.
There is no differentiation between a thousand or one instance. Sure, the jury may decide to adjust damages numbers as they see fit, but the statute itself does not differentiate.
Edit: I dont know. Maybe we are in heated agreement. I'm just not getting your point I think. | |
|
| | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | Re: How Many Times I never stated that copyright infringement only occurs with distribution And yes, I agree that a single instance of copyright infringement is liable. My point (apparently a poorly made one) was that if the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff with a seemingly large award, that they accounted for the number of distribution infringements instead of the mere 24 duplication infringements. The statute does make a distinction between duplication and distribution. | |
|
 Logan 5Enjoying the CataclysmPremium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
Austin, TX
kudos:7
·Comcast
2 edits | Good Luck Jammie I'm rooting for you 'Cuz this time, you're REALLY gonna need it if you expect to walk away unscathed from this one....
Oh, and I hope that this time around your legal team is more intelligent & competent then the one you had at your last trial.... | |
|
1 edit | give it up girl you lost Stop stealing headlines. You lost. Now fall to the ground and beg for their forgiveness (or at least the original settlement demand of several thousand dollars).
Better yet, give up all technology and find some kind of religion because you need divine intervention to get you out of this mess. | |
|
Mr Matt
join:2008-01-29
Eustis, FL
kudos:1 |  Was she ignorant or dishonest.
 Did the jury deem her guilty because of the hard drive crash? Apparently the RIAA could not prove that music files were uploaded. | |
|
|  Romney2012Defeat Obama 2012-Chg we can believe inPremium
join:2002-03-03
USA
kudos:4 | Re: Was she ignorant or dishonest. said by Mr Matt: Did the jury deem her guilty because of the hard drive crash? Apparently the RIAA could not prove that music files were uploaded. Actually they did prove it. Their contractor copied them from her drive themselves. Now you can make all kind of claims that if they uploaded from her it doesn't count. But the law says it does count.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
|
| | | | Re: Was she ignorant or dishonest. In more ways than one, she buried herself deeper every second she was on the stand. | |
|
| | Andy S
join:2009-05-14
Stockbridge, GA | So "their" contractor broke the Law to prove she was breaking the law?
Sounds the old prosecute the hooker not the the "john" trap.
I tend to believe that songs played over the airwaves for free and not used in a commercial enterprise should be shareable to advertise the artist. They tend to make the bulk of their income from concerts and trinkets.
Sorry but when Metallica filed suit against Napster that was the last time Lars and James ever saw another red cent of my money. I bought the Black Album 3 times on CD before we could copy them and had writable cd's. Not to mention the multiples of Cassette tapes and scratched vinyl. The record companies are just leaches on the face of the music "business". Another thing capitalism has ruined. | |
|
| | |  ThespisI'm not an actor, but I play one on TV.Premium
join:2004-08-03
Keller, TX | Re: Was she ignorant or dishonest. said by Andy S: The record companies are just leaches on the face of the music "business". Another thing capitalism has ruined. It's another thing greed has ruined. Capitalism is a system of economics that can't cause harm on its own. Greed is a human emotion that can drive people to do stupid things. Not the same thing at all... | |
|
| NormanSPremium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:4 Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| said by Mr Matt: Did the jury deem her guilty because of the hard drive crash? Apparently the RIAA could not prove that music files were uploaded. They did not deem Thomas "guilty" of anything. A "guilty" verdict is only returned in criminal cases. The jury deemed her responsible for nearly two million dollars worth of "injury" to the wronged parties, who brought suit against her for relief of that injury.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum | |
|
K PattersonPremium,MVM
join:2006-03-12
Columbus, OH
kudos:1 | What ere the jurors thinking? We may learn. The parties have been given permission to contact the jurors. | |
|
| | | Re: What ere the jurors thinking? She lied, Juries as a rule don't like liars and they punished her. The RIAA absolutely hammered her on her lies in the first trial and the verdict shows that. Hopefully the outrageous verdict will get the constitutionality of these massive copyright damages (enacted in the days when they were used against mass scale counter-fitters and the number of sales could never be verified) overruled.
Statutory damages of this scale make sense when you are taking action against someone making duplicate CD's and selling them as you can never verify the sales and they were deliberately trying to make money selling someone elses product. These damages make no sense when dealing with someone sharing tracks with their friends for no cost. Actual damages should apply, or at most 9x actual damages (the limit established by the supreme court in punitive damage awards in other cases). I personally think she's guilty, if she wasn't it wouldn't have been her log in name, it would have been something her kids made up. But that doesn't mean I think she owes anyone 2 million dollars for lieing in the initial trial depositions. | |
|
| | How About Bankruptcy? If the court eventually rules (even after the legal battle) she has to pay the $1.9 million, couldn't she just file for bankruptcy? I'm not an expert on the subject but I believe bankruptcy would discharge any kind of judgements? | |
|
| | | Re: How About Bankruptcy? said by CocoaVanilla:If the court eventually rules (even after the legal battle) she has to pay the $1.9 million, couldn't she just file for bankruptcy? I'm not an expert on the subject but I believe bankruptcy would discharge any kind of judgements? Not that simple anymore. | |
|
| | | I honestly don't know but I have always understood that you can't hide from civil court judgments like this with bankruptcy. It's one of the financial "debts" that can't be adjudicated by a bankruptcy court (even before the recent changes to bankruptcy law), although the court could assign a payment schedule, even if it was only $1 a month. I believe it has something to do with a civil verdict not being considered a debt in the normal legal sense. As there was no consideration exchanged for the "debt" the civil judgement is in a different category. | |
|
| | jp10558Premium
join:2005-06-24
Willseyville, NY | Re: How About Bankruptcy? Yea, but she works on an indian reservation. Good luck getting them to garnish her wages - that'll likely be another huge battle, to get, what, maybe $50 a month? | |
|
 runnoftPremium
join:2003-10-14
Deerfield, IL
kudos:1
·Comcast
| Good luck with this I'd donate myself to her legal bills for appeal if she was a more sympathetic character. There's a reason the jury socked it to her: they found her less likable than even the RIAA, and you have to work hard to achieve that degree of personality dysfunction. | |
|
| | Double Standard? I would have to ask if the ARTIST got 80K from the recording company for there song?
LOL, I think i know the answer..:) | |
|
 cabanaDepartment of AdjustmentsAssistant
join:2000-07-07
New York, NY |  (topic offline) If it were me
This entire topic was removed, either temporarily, or permanently.
stated reason was: | |
|
|
| | | Re: My thought That was about my thoughts too, though I use 10x the market price just because it's a nice, round number. Interestingly, they initially had her sharing 1,700 files but decided to only pursue 24 of them. Assuming they would be able to convict her of all 1,700 at the 10x rate, she would get fined $16,830. That would be a huge financial hit, but wouldn't mean lifelong bankruptcy. She would just set up a payment plan and would need to tighten her belt during the payoff period. A nearly $2 million fine means she needs to declare bankruptcy and the RIAA won't see any money. Meanwhile, she might lose her house/car/etc over a 24 song civil penalty.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause | |
|
approval from:
CanadianIron 
|  she likes music
But her intent was not to infringe copyright, but to listen to the music.
So she should be fined according to her intent. | |
|
| fiberguyMy views are my own.Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3 | Re: she likes music said by kommoncense :
Jammie Thomas no doubt downloaded the songs in question.
But her intent was not to infringe copyright, but to listen to the music.
So she should be fined according to her intent.
Its not about the downloading, from my understanding, rather, the uploading. | |
|
 TzaleProud Libertarian ConservativePremium
join:2004-01-06
NYC Metro |  TOM!?!
| |
|
 Link LoggerPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
Calgary, AB
kudos:3
·Shaw
| Wrong Poster Child If I was trying to go for changes to the law or attitude towards 'fair use' or file sharing or whatever, I sure the heck wouldn't use this woman for my poster child as she is likely going to end up making file sharing a capitol offense worthy of the death penalty. I mean really everyone should be telling her give it up already and find a case that might actually stand a chance in court or in front of a jury, as this woman just seems to bring her own shovel to court to dig a deeper hole for herself. Perhaps there is a new job opening for patron saint of lost causes that she is going for or something, but really its time to come up with a new poster child as this one is damaging the cause.
Blake
--
Vendor: Author of Link Logger which is a traffic analysis and firewall logging tool | |
|
 linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State
·Cass Communicati..
·CenturyLink
| The whole idea is ridiculous For argument sake, let's assume the 24 songs are from two CDs. In the real world the worth is about $25 each retail. That's $50 plus tax. The 1.9M isn't punitive anything. RIAA is wanting her to pay their lawyer fees when they could have settled the whole thing in civil court for less than a $1000 and still made a profit.
It is about media attention. Dinging at the problem a 50 buck per song fine per person will stop the P2P quicker than the million dollar angst. I don't know anyone I want to share $5000 worth of records with - not even my children.
--
Mac: No windows, No Gates, Apple inside | |
|
|
|
·
·