Slashdot Mirror
Juror From RIAA Trial Speaks
Damon Tog notes a Wired blog posting featuring quotes from a juror who took part in the recent RIAA trial. Some excerpts: "She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars... Spoofing? We're thinking, "Oh my God, you got to be kidding."... She lied. There was no defense. Her defense sucked... I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naive. We're not that stupid up here. I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."
My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
And to think this same person creates all the trouble tickets when their computer isn't plugged in.
I'd rather the judge flip a coin.
I call heads.
Apparently you are lady, you put a judgement of 200K over a few songs.
She could have shoplifted the cds for a few hundred dollars in fines.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
This really was an open and shut case. There was very little doubt the woman was guilty, that's why the RIAA didn't drop the case. I think her hope was that the jury would see a bunch of rich record labels going after some poor ignorant middle aged woman, and the jury would say "fuck you" to the labels. The only gripe I have with this was the size of the award- $10K per song is pretty stiff.
From TFA: But Hegg said the jury in U.S. District Court in Duluth would have found her liable even if the plaintiffs had been required to establish that Kazaa users had actually downloaded the music.
/sarcasm The article made it sound like (imho) that the jury had already decided before all arguments had been heard.
"It would have been a lot harder to make the decision," he said. "Yes, we would have reached the same result."
I'm glad to see that jurors no longer need to hear evidence/proof and have their minds made up in advance.
Though the "IP address = person" argument is obviously pretty weak, more attention should be paid to the damages the law says is reasonable. 222,000 is in no way reasonable (~9k per song). Even if the jury gave her the minimum set by law(~700 iirc), it wouldn't be reasonable.
Well, yeah, she was pretty clearly guilty (e.g. wiping the hard drive after she got in trouble). That's not the issue. It's a question as to whether the ruinous damages were justified.
They weren't.
If your theory is different from practice, then your theory is wrong.
"That is a compromise, yes," said Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota. "We wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."
Sorry, $9,250 is ridiculous and doesn't send a message about anything other than the fact that, contrary to the comment of your fellow juror that you do in fact know what's going on in Duluth, you really don't know what the fuck is going on. You awarded money that was originally meant for people who were *SELLING* copyrighted songs, not "sharing" for free.
All of the Slashdotters who are holding up Jammie Thomas as some kind of martyr remind me of the African-Americans who embraced OJ Simpson as some symbol of racial injustice.
You guys have picked the wrong horse.
Two points here:
1) I can't imagine what a pathetic and aggressive loser you have to be to think that somebody should pay $3.6m as restitution for letting somebody copy 24 songs (even if you think they're guilty.)
2) It really sounds like they don't understand the difference between a defense lawyer saying "they didn't prove that this technically feasible activity didn't happen" and a woman who is actively claiming that this was the case.
I hope that the douchebags who pushed for $150k/song get hit by the RIAA because their kids installed some software without their knowledge, because only then will they realize how completely and totally fucking wrong they are.
In TFA, the juror says that they'd still have come to the same verdict if the RIAA had had to prove that somebody'd downloaded the files. TFA also says that the jury was shown that 3,000,000 people were on Kazaa while her hard drive was shared, but there's no mention of their showing that anybody actually took advantage of the offer. I'm sure that if there had been any proof the files were downloaded, it would have been produced in court, so that means that they have no such proof. And yet, the jury would have come to the same conclusion. Fair? Impartial? I don't think so.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
For what it's worth, I was recently picked to be on a jury in a (totally unrelated) criminal case, and the judge's instructions to us were very specific that it was our job as jury to decide what the facts of the case were, but that it was not our job to decide what the law said or whether the law was fair or not. I'd guess this jury received some similar instructions.
(I know that, historically, some juries have refused to find a defendant guilty when they thought the punishment excessive for the crime or didn't agree with the law. I'm just throwing this out there because I suspect it'll be relevant to some of the posts to follow.)
Jeebus, I need to move to Sweden.
Systemd: the PulseAudio of init systems
Hmm.. seems kind of silly to demand a jury and then try to make a highly technical defense. Juries are swayed by fantasy tale interpretations of events. "She did it" is all they are interested in. They're not interested whether or not the prosecution has sufficiently proven their case. It would seem that, for this kind of defense, you're better off waiving your right to a jury trial. The judge will be a lot more interested in your technical questioning of the evidence.
How we know is more important than what we know.
The jury decided the penalty, and it's plain ridiculous.
Let's assume we agree that the defendant was, as this juror said, an obvious liar, and guilty on all counts.
Should she really lose her house or retirement savings over this?
I'm personally against stealing copyrighted music. But this penalty is waaaaay out of proportion to the crime, IMHO.
If the article is to be believed, the evidence pointing to the defendant is pretty substantial. It wasn't only IP addresses and ISP logs. It was account names (a hint to all of you: don't use the same account name everywhere if you don't want to be identifiable across different environments) as well. At that level of clearly identifying the person, and with a description of the defendant also established as "computer literate" to the point that they knew exactly what they were getting into? I'd call them liable too.
Perhaps surprising to Slashdot, the members of the RIAA does indeed have the copyrights to the works in question.
Aside: if you don't agree with how the members of the RIAA operate, stop giving them your money. But that doesn't mean you get to download stuff off P2P; in the same way the GNU GPL enforces "no distribution" if they can't meet their combined obligations, neither do you get to download music (or movies, re members of the MPAA) just because you feel like it.
Doing the Right Thing should not be preempted by making a buck.
Don't break the law, and don't assume you can get away with it. She knew she was screwing some record labels out of money, so what? Everyone does it. Of course it happens everyday but it is still not acceptable, if people don't get paid, people don't work. End of story. What really did her in though was the lies. Look this guy might not be a kernal hacker but he seems reasonable, and that he got a firm grasp of the facts. He was willing to let her off with a slap on the wrist, but then she decided to tell blatant lie after blatant lie. Look, the RIAA is a lot more trustworthy that a woman who appears to be, in all frankness, a piece of white trash.
_____
Thank you.
It's sort of the perfect target for the RIAA. Somebody was caught and then stubbornly played dumb, ignoring the possible repercussions. The result is exactly what they wanted - big headlines to scare the general file-sharing public. The money reward is pocket change.
Meanwhile, will it really deter piracy? No. Does the punishment fit the crime? No. They can see all that money slipping away and there's not a thing they can do about it.
Obviously the RIAA's tactics are working, whether you believe they are good or evil (one vote here for evil). They are able to convince those who have never been on the internet about file sharing over KaZaA, which is an internet based protocol. She was guilty, looking at the evidence, but the trial does seem a bit questionable.
http://xkcd.com/301/
How can a fair justice system exist in such an environment? It is my understanding that medical hearings are heard by a competent jury. Shouldn't this be the same for crimes/matters involving non trivial technology? For the price assessed as damages for one song, I could probably hire someone to rob a music store, rip each cd, and return the disks to the local police station.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
I feel for her but i don't think she has a leg to stand on. If I was on the jury with my knowledge of the internet/ip address/kazaa, i could buy some of her defense about spoof. If she had a wireless router than that would have helped too. The fact that her kazaa name matched her aim and/or email address then that gave it away right there. If she was using kazaa lite and it showed up as the default username that it used, i probably wouldn't have ruled against her. Although even though I would have found her guilty, I probably would have held out on something like $10 per song in damages. Or better yet, $18 for a CD with 15 songs...so roughly $1 per song. I wouldn't award anymore to the RIAA. Speaking of, What would have happened if they couldn't agree on a price? I would been steadfast that I am not making a single mother pay $9000+ per song for something I can record off the radio.
"He said the RIAA established that Kazaa existed for the sole purpose of file sharing."
That's like saying the sole purpose of Internet Explorer is to browse the Web. The main problem here is that people have let the RIAA define the vocabulary by making "sharing" a bad word and using "pirates" to denigrate those who share files of any kind (without charging for downloads). However, don't we teach sharing as a good community value to children at an early age? The day this tide will turn is when people convince the media to start terming all of this as RIAA's "war against sharing" and then in cases like this, if the RIAA cannot prove that the person actually profited from sharing certain files, therefore demonstrating that they actually incurred some injury by not realizing a demonstrated revenue stream, juries will shrug.
The most disturbing part of these interviews was that the jurors said they would've reached the same conclusion regardless of whether a transfer had to take place to be infringement, especially since none of the case coverage mentioned the RIAA lawyers showing evidence that any transfers took place at all. They mainly focused on how file sharing is terrible for their cartel, estimates for its effect on their cartel as a whole, etc ... They never said anything like, "As a result of her making files available, N people downloaded the song for free, which translates to $D in lost sales". Absent any evidence that transfers took place, there was no way the jury could have found her guilty of infringement if the instruction was "Infringement only occurs when a transfer takes place".
The jury definitely had their minds made up well before their deliberations. They came to the right legal conclusion for the wrong reasons: they felt insulted.
"I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naive."
Way to disprove that by fining a stupid Kazaa user a quarter of a million dollars.
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
Well, I'm off to pay the RIAA the $2,368,000 I owe them. Let's hope they don't think a higher fine would be appropriate.
"I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here" implies that Duluth juries are stupid... just not *that* stupid.
Users... the only thing keeping 1st level support from being the bottom feeders.
Well I'm getting more and more thankful that i don't live in the US.
Quite apart from this kind of thing... there's the creationism and the growing influence of religious delusion, the successive govts taking away civil liberties, the media selling the govt lies to start wars- it all add up to a pretty sorry state of affairs.
The thing is that most of you don't think there is a problem at all, let alone seem to want to do anything about it. In this sense it can be argued that the consequences of your apathy/arrogance deserve to be shared by all of you.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... does not mean 2 million people downloading *her* songs.
The penalty was absurd, and frankly, I'm surprised there's anybody outside of the RIAA or that courtroom that would agree with it.
- sigs are for wimps.
The prosecutor decided to focus on just 20-24 songs for this case, although they had evidence that she distributed over 1,000. If they went for every song, even if she got the minimum ($250 per violation I believe), it would have been over 250,000 dollars. She actually ended up paying less because they went after a select few.
I'm not really surprised at the lengths /.ers are going through to try to justify her actions. Hasn't anyone noticed that a 12-person jury, from Minnesota, one of the most middle-of-the-road states, sided with the RIAA? Doesn't anybody seem to think that just maybe that indicates that the majority of people in the US aren't as antagonistic towards the RIAA as, say, the more vocal internet commentators?
And, I have to place the blame for the extreme fines on the defendant's head, as well. She knew what she did, lied, and now brazenly tries to claim she was framed and actually is innocent? Puhlease. She deserves that smackdown just for being so damn ignorant of the repercussions of what she was doing. If she had an ounce of common sense, she would have settled, shut the hell up, and gotten away with a few thousand dollars' fine. She fucked up and is trying to bluff her way out.
Hell, she could have salvaged something even after the trial by just, again, shutting the hell up, negotiating with the RIAA, and gotten her fine reduced to a few thousand dollars and agreed to do a few anti-piracy PSAs. But no, apparently she thinks she's going to get away with this. Fat chance, there. What does she think she's going to raise as substantive issue on appeal? That the jury was mean to her? That, in a civil trial, the burden of proof should be as high as it is in a criminal case? Sorry, she's fucked, and she deserves it.
Link
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
The obvious conclusion is that if you want to avoid bankruptcy, don't illegally share songs on Kazaa. I don't see what's so hard about that.
let's assume that the woman DID share the files.
OK, let's assume there were 50 to 100 total downloads.
100 downloads, at 0.99 cents a piece (let's be realistic here), equal = 100 dollars!
So, what's the basis to affirm that she should pay $222,000 for 24 songs? This is where the RIAA's case is illogical. They assume that the downloaders will distribute and that this will cause them many losses. But that's THE DOWNLOADERS' FAULT, not hers.
They're making her responsible for what EVERY DOWNLOADER DID. Instead of downloading from her they could have bought a CD (even pirated!) or downloaded from someone else.
And this is where "making available" doesn't equal massive infringement. The fines MUST BE PROPORTIONAL TO THE NUMBER OF DOWNLOADS.
My employer had disallowed this site from my workplace because it was a forum, and I fought and appealed for about a month to show that /. was wayyy above the typical forum that slandered, flamed, and he-said-she-saided. That the quote was left intact without asterisks will endanger that status.
I'm against censorship as much as the next guy... but, please! Shift-8 after the letter "f" please!
So what does that say about the world?
The USA vs European nations?
In any case don't let the door hit you on the ass on your way out.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Quit jabbering on the phone while driving. You are not that important.
I think the real lesson here is that you shouldn't lie to a jury. It sounds like the juror was pissed off that the defendant didn't respect them enough to tell the truth.
If you're going to get up and give testimony, don't tell obvious lies.
The jurors have been called away from their everyday lives to sit and listen to an argument between two parties they have no interest in. The least you can do is show them some respect.
If I was on that jury, I would have counted that as a big strike against the defendant as well.
IANAL, but I have served on several juries, both criminal and civil.
Its obvious from reading some of the jackass comments on here that most of you have a) never served on a jury, and b) have no concept of what a jury does.
Contrary to what a bunch of people here seem to think, a jury does NOT have the option of totally ignoring the law. A jury has only two choices...does the evidence support the plaintiff/prosecution (civil trial/criminal trial) by a preponderance of the evidence/beyond a reasonable doubt (again, civil trial/criminal trial), or does it not. It all boils down to those two choices, and only those two choices. A ruling of "she might have broken a law but the law sucks so we find in her favor/innocent" (again, civil/criminal) is not allowable in most states, and I'd be surprised if its allowable in any.
In the eyes of this jury, not only was she at fault, she blatantly lied to the jury (in their opinion). So not only did they agree with the prosecution that by a preponderance of the evidence she did violate copyright law, they whacked her for thinking they were stupid.
Had I been on this jury and been presented with the same evidence that we've seen in the press, I'd have voted for the plaintiffs also. I'm not sure I would have gone so high on the fine, but I for damned sure would not have let her off at the bottom of the scale either.
Not only was she stupid to not settle beforehand, she's stupid for appealing. What her boneheaded lawyer should now be doing is trying to find out if the record companies would settle for a smaller amount that they have reasonable amount of being able to collect. And maybe now she'll make sure she acquires her music legally, and does not make it available for mass distribution to others...but I doubt she's that smart.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
This case brings up more questions than it does answers, unfortunately. For one, it brings up long standing technical questions. First and foremost: Any computer security expert in the IT field knows not to trust IP addresses as a valid form of authentication. However, it is used in a lot of cases such as: Forum security, IRC security, and so forth. But this doesn't exclude the fact that when you accept a VPN connection you just don't automatically assume it's from who they say they are. So reasonably speaking in the IT field this is not a valid form of identification. We've built entire infrastructures around security and most of them aren't based on IP. However, on a fully controlled environment an IP address is a valid way to identify a person. That is, if you work as an IT administrator and you're seeing gay porn downloaded to a computer used by an executive, it's reasonable to assume that it's him who's doing it. The big question is: Should it have been let to slide because of this? True security experts know that you need more layers than just an IP address, but at the same time those of us who have used the internet for a long time can reasonably assume when a person is a person? In this case, it's unreasonable to assume that someone was "spoofing" her IP. She could have been part of a botnet, but this makes things more hairy. My solution to this: Release a bot to the internet that connections to p2p networks and distributes files. Make it a huge worm. Such cases like this could never go to trial and would grind the RIAA's arguments in the dust. Oh, and the reason why they were able to extort so much money--the RIAA approached it from a distribution end, not from a downloader end. If they approached it as saying she just "downloaded" the music, it's reasonable to assume the jury would have come up with a more realistic figure. But since it was approached from a standpoint that she was a distributor and not just a downloader, it becomes more expensive.
... [$]222,000 is in no way reasonable (~9k per song).
Penalties for copyright violations are deliberately draconian and have been since the beginning of the law.
The idea is apparently that:
- It's very hard to identify the violators (or even that a violation took place).
- So only a small fraction will be caught.
- If the penalties are comparable to the actual damage of the offense (a pittance), potential offenders may simply make take the chance - and be rewarded on the average by nearly-free copies.
- So the penalties are set high in proportion to this fraction.
- With high penalties the offenders' bet becomes a losing proposition, a low probability of a big hit. Paying for the content in the first place becomes cheap insurance.
- And with high penalties the copyright holders can make enough from the small fraction they do catch and convict to be "made whole" on their losses from the great mass they miss.
Of course there are problems with this. And the biggest one is with the standard of proof.
Civil law is about making things right. Two roughly equal parties with a dispute go to a court. The court decides which is more likely to be right ("preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt"). The one found to be in the wrong pays the amount needed to make things right. If the one found in the wrong was found to have known what was right and been wrong deliberately, that typically means he pays the wronged party three times the amount of correcting the harm, rather than just the amount.
- Draconian penalties to shift the expected outcome of a rule-breaker's bet is the stuff of criminal law, with its higher standard of proof.
- A person paying, not only for his own misdeeds, but for that of thousands of others, is hardly "setting right" the result of their own misbehavior.
- If the punishment is to be, not three times, but nine thousand times the cost of the alleged offense, how fair is it to use a "more likely than not" standard? If an innocent person is to be put at risk of paying nine thousand times the price of the stuff he allegedly obtained, shouldn't this require a "nine-thousand-to-one" standard to prove the case?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There can't be an effective law against redistributing other people's work. It is going to continue to be like speeding - 1 out of 1,000 or even 10,000 people gets a ticket. If you are unlucky, you get a ticket. This has no real effect on speeding because the other 9,999 people that got away with it continue to speed.
There is no respect for laws that cannot be enforced today. So, we might as well get used to it.
- Kazaa!?
Good grief. MP3s on Kazaa? thats old school.
- the jury said they would of found her guilty even if infringement...
Not really relevant to the discussion unless we know what their instructions were from the Judge. They decide on points of law as directed only. Generally in yes/no form.
- we decided on this amount...
Yes, thats a bit insane. I cannot imagine why the Judge would of directed them to decide on the penalties as well.
- went to trial..
Of course it did. The RIAA knew full well this was only going to go one way (the silly moo wiped her hard drive) so they were only too happy to see this as the first one in front of a Jury.
- the woman was silly.
Yup. And her defense team sucked ass as well.
There are more interesting and potentially more important legal cases coming up on this issue. I feel slightly sorry for the lady in question, but she clearly stupidly followed up some stupid advice and swapped a $xk fine for life changing bankruptcy. Ouch.
I'm thinking about something here.
Usually when you rip a CD, where does the software put it? In "my music", of course. That's the default for music - and most Joe users put their documents in guess where? "My documents"
And when you install kazaa, doesn't it automatically scan for music in "my music"? In fact, I think it scans "my documents", too!
She could easily have alleged ignorance of how the software worked, i.e. she ignored she was sharing it and was only using it for downloading.
Minnesota is full about as far left as you can get in the USA. They voted for 'Fritz and Tits' dontchaknow!
Granted it's only the cities that are full on moonbat nuts. But that's a large majority in the frozen tundra. Not sure how whacked out the folks in Duluth are.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Now I think that people from Duluth, Minnesota, are EXTREMELY naive, enough so to just take RIAA lawyers at their word. Whether she's guilty or not, you come off as a yokel with something to prove and an axe to grind against those 'uppity city folk'.
My question is, had there been a slashdotter on the Jury, would the verdict have been the same? Both in the reguard that the majority of us think this is BS, but also because we realize how all this software REALLY works, and can tell the Jurors how it really works?
I'm sure that as part of the Jury selection the #1 question was 'Are you skilled with computers?'. If you said yes you couldn't participate.
In Soviet Russia, the fines are... actually reasonable?
and feels they should be told how to live. Read his voting record.
Vote Democrat. It is the only way to tell the republican you won't stand for the kind of shit they have done to this country. Massive people leaving the party is the only way to get them to pay attention to the people.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Your employers net access policy isn't our problem.
Now get to work and quit slacking off on /.
BTW fuck, cunt, bitch, shit, vaginal blood fart...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
RTFA before you comment. The juror quoted was one Michael Hegg. Also, the fairness of a jury's awarding of damages is one of opinion, not intellect. See: punitive damages.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
in light of the 10 year anniversary of /. and a bunch of people completely pissed off at the RIAA agenda, someone could easily setup a paypal donation account or something of the sort and we could see if /. user base really cares about a woman who's life has been ruined by the RIAA. That would make sense, be easy, help someone who thousands of people find has received injustice, piss RIAA off, and perhaps grab headlines around the globe.
She may be guilty of sharing the songs, she may owe SOMETHING, but if so many people can plainly see the injustice, then how come no one helps another citizen? Corporations and government have already won, good game.
Copyright governs copying, not distribution. Distribution, or even sufficiently shown intent to distribute, is only used as _evidence_ of copyright infringement when it occurs, and should not be confused with the actual infringement itself (further, distribution magnifies potential damages that can be awarded). The copyright infringement happened when she copied the work in the first place for purposes that were themselves, in the end, not exempt from infringement (ie, putting it up for distribution on a public network, whether or not distribution actually occurred).
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It seems to me that her defense really did suck. I mean maybe I'm wrong, but it's pretty damned clear to me she had all her files shared on P2P. They even went through a stage of trying to prove that she'd ripped the music herself and hadn't downloaded them, thus obliterating any possibility in the minds of the jury that it was anyone else who shared those files. Any 'defense' involving 'spoofing', shared-IPs, hacked wireless networks etc might work in a criminal case, but for this, a civil case, there's more than a preponderance of evidence to say she's guilty of copyright infringement. Her defense trying all the angles to try to get her off the hook on technicalities for this really pissed off the jury by the sound of it.
It was pretty clear she was 'liable', in hindsight, defense might have been better off working on a 'Yeah maybe she shared the files, but hardly nobody downloaded them and come on, who hasn't made a mix tape or copied a friend's CD. Is that worth several grand per song?' defense.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
hey purposefully picked an amount that had absolutely no relationship, whatsoever, to the financial damages that may have been incurred. This was not a matter of law.
Please to be studying the law in further detail.
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
The defendant was from Brainerd. Brainerd is maybe 1/2 the population of Duluth. Uppity City Folk in Duluth come from the Twin Cities with 2-3 million population depending on where you draw the outer boundaries.
No, in point of fact the jury's job does indeed include deciding that the law makes no sense:
The point of a jury trial is to make sure that accused people are treated reasonably, by their peers, according to the sensibility of their community. Our country's committment to the people and our collective wisdom in living with each other is so strong that even after all the people-mediated processes produce a law, the people still aren't forced to coerce each other according to it, if we go through due process.
Even when applying the law, the jury is not bound by damages awards when it disagrees with their basis, formula, eligible incidents or net result.
The jury might not know either of those ways the system works, but that would be the fault of the defendant's lawyers, or maybe the judge. The system is a lot more flexible than that.
--
make install -not war
I think we can all see the problem here. Anyone in the US who hasn't been on the internet by 2008, well, they have no clue what the hell they're talking about. Also this guy calls her a "liar", while she was off by a year in terms of when she had the HD replaced, she had it replaced *before* the RIAA notified her and the guy who replaced it testified that it was really, honestly broken.
Apparently, there was only one juror who held out for reasonable damages (the $750 minimum) and the $9,250 per song was a compromise.
Naïve? No. Ignorant? Yes.
At least she plans to appeal.
They can recommend, but the judge sentences. This woman was an asshat, plain and simple.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
They can indeed determine if the law makes sense. Of course, the prosecution wouldn't want the jury to know that..,
(not thinking too too deeply about it)
Regardless of wether she's actually guilty, I think the details of this case prove that the jury system should be abolished. The whole concept of idealising a "trial by your peers" seems to revolve around forgetting a few very important things about human nature. Have a look at how people behave in real life. People are nasty. People are more or less programmed to think in terms of zero sum games. ("Your loss is my gain.") People like power, and they like to abuse it. People are self-righteous. People don't understand the whole concept of proof. People tend to ignore facts in the face of emotions. This is bad enough in itself, but this even applies to emotions that have nothing to with the case at all. Most people display such an utter lack of empathy that it's beyond any description. People have no sense of proportion. I could go on and on. The ability to professionally judge a case requires that you're a lot more rational than the average Joe to begin with and even then a thorough unlearning of all these natural instincts. Letting people fell judgement on their peers is essentially institutionalized lynching. It's an utterly barbaric practice which no civilised society would tolerate.
A jury can do anything they want. If there are "rules" against nullification, they can just make up some lame argument why they voted against the "government." I doubt your claim that there are rules against this kind of verdict because it is common to be charged with contempt of court if you tell the jury about nullification during a trial. (At least as a lawyer. If you, the defendant, is on the stand making a statement, I don't know if they can silence you.) Frankly, if I ever get on a jury, I simply will not convict anyone no matter what the charge. Call if payback.
Why does a married person have a "online dating" account?
Without a change to the constitution, it is still a force. Jury nullification is more or less a defacto thing. The jury has a right to vote as they see fit. Now in the case of a guilty conviction, that can be overturned, but in the case of an innocent verdict, jeopardy prevents anything from happening to that. So it doesn't matter if they jurors aren't supposed to do it, they can do it anyhow. They have the final say and there is no overriding them. Now things aren't quite the same in a civil case since appeals are possible, but in a criminal trial, jury nullification is just a function of the system. So long as double jeopardy remains law, it won't go away. A verdict of innocence precludes the charges form ever being brought again, regardless of the reason for the verdict. It is also likely to stay law, since it'd take a constitutional amendment to get rid of it.
It's almost funny the number of people here who have advocated jury nullification -- having the jury simply refuse to find a defendant guilty because they don't like the law. The other side of that coin, however, is that if you anger the jury, they may be more willing to find you guilty, and give you a heavy sentence. This is the legal equivalent of a Darwin Award, IMHO.
What I think most /.ers don't realize is: jury nullification is invisible. If someone sstates they don't think the evidence proves the crime, and consistently votes not guilty, they cannot be forced to change their vote, or state why the evidence is not sufficient. All they are required to do is vote, and maybe state why. And if the person doesn't fuck it up by bringing up a bunch of nullification bullshit and simply states they don't think the evidence proves there was a crime, absolutely nothing can be done.
This woman could have walked into a record store, pointed a gun at the clerk and taken cash out of the register, and have received a less damaging penalty.
Fuck you RIAA and fuck you Mr. Hegg. May you all burn in Hell while it's under my watch.
Message contains 1 attachment: spam.gif
That, aside from a change of laws, was the only thing that could have made her fate any different. I wouldn't trust in jury nullification, either. I want the laws to change.
of why not to put your fate in the hands of 12 people who are too stupid to get out of jury duty.
I truly feel for the lack of education in America these days.
I'd vote for Ron Paul if he wasn't a religious conservative (with accompanying baggage). I'm really hoping there will be a true libertarian on the ballot next time around, or at least a NOTA option.
In the meantime, how is he any worse than the other Republicans?
Seems to me that, just as with voting for a minor-party candidate, voting for Ron Paul in the primary is a way of telling the major parties:
- You guys have really lost it - and lost votes as a result.
- This is the direction to move in.
Seems to me that the Republican party is in the hands of a coalition of neocons and RINOs.
On the issues you're concerned about he's certainly no worse than the neocons and he's unlikely to have any significant effect on them, anyhow. Meanwhile he's a WHOLE LOT better on a lot of other issues, which ARE going to come up.
As for the RINOs, if one of 'em get the nomination he won't win the election. They're Democrats light. The fan base for that position will vote for the real thing over a fake.
Voting for Ron Paul in the primary, to shake up the system and demoaralize the leadership of the R party, seems like a more useful use of a primary vote than, say, picking between the Clinton machine and Obama. (Especially since, with the machine in full swing, it's likelty to steamroller the opposition.) But if you change your party affiliation now in preparation for such a vote, then something changes in the D race such that you think your vote would be better used there, you'll have up to a couple weeks before your own state's primary to switch it back.
Jury nullification turns courts into a popularity contest. I maintain the term is somewhat of a misnomer. They aren't nullifying a particular law (refusing to enforce it), they're nullifying the rule of law altogether.
... they're impossible to enforce (can't punish a juror, can't inquire how they decided, can't do much at all), so juries can do as they damn well please -- and nobody will even know.
... There's a firestorm going on down South (I'd look it up, but it's late) where some white students were offended by some black students, so they hung up nooses. Now as I call it, that's a death threat. What happened to these white students? The principal 'jury nullified' the rule against making threats, calling it a "prank" and reducing the school board-recommended expulsion to a few days' suspension.
Jury nullification is essentially the idea that the jury can ignore the entire proceeding, and just do whatever it wants. That's what the term *actually means*; it doesn't refer to only what you are saying (that it is a check to refuse to convict only). The jury is perfectly able to "nullify" the defense as well. All 'jury nullification' means is that while there are all sorts of complicated rules about what a jury is supposed to do
I'm honestly surprised. Didn't anyone ever have to read To Kill a Mockingbird in school? If that isn't a textbook example of jury nullification, then the term doesn't mean anything. The idea that a jury can just toss everything out -- bill of rights, checks and balances, a fair trial, all of it -- and do whatever it wants?
But even if it were restricted only to refusing to convict
Does THAT seem like a good idea? How about juries who convict black people for even minor infractions, but steadfastly refuse to convict anyone white for crimes committed against blacks? Or jews? Mexicans? Do I need to go on?
Personally, I thought the whole idea of a justice system was justice, and a kangaroo court is no court at all, whether the kangaroos are in the judge's seat or in the jury box.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In the article, it says that she did turn the hard drive over to the RIAA. That act is just stupid, as RIAA can plant there evidence there if they wanted to do so. Also, most computers on dial up and ADSL have dynamic ip, but as most here knows, that means the end user ip changes each time it is connected to the internet. That alone should have been able to cast the whole case in doubt. The jury is a case of people how have no understanding of computers or how the internet works.
RIAA should also be sued for tampering with the evidence by demanding that people hand over there hard drives for them to "inspect" them. By there own specials investigators, but RIAA doesn't have the right to do so. Since they are not a police force of any type.
That's like saying that I was being more reasonable because I decided to smack you upside the head rather than hit you with a hammer... in the testicles.
It doesn't mean it was reasonable, it just means they took what they thought they could win on. There's a point where an increased amount means nothing. Would you rather be a million dollars in debt or a billion? For a single mother, 250k and a million a likely just as ruinous and un-payable.
If she broke the law, and the evidence truly supported it, then this case would have been in criminal court, not civil court. Being liable by a preponderance of the evidence is hardly enough to say it really happened.
I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
I'm sorry, but giving her advice not to appeal shows that you are ignorant of many of the important aspects of the law surrounding this case that have been covered here. The most important point can be found in BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, INC., PETITIONER v. IRA GORE, Jr..
For those who don't want to read that case, it says that punitive damages grossly excess of the actual damage caused and lacking in reprehensibility are unconstitutional. SCOTUS calls a ratio of fine to actual damages of 500 to 1 "breathtaking" in that case. This case is more than an order of magnitude higher than that!
Appealing is about her only option of getting this absolutely bullshit reward thrown out, and hopefully the statutory minimum damages with it.
Reply in a manner that would, if it came from someone who lost family or a limb defending their rights, make one feel a might guilty. "I don't live there haha, shame on you for not devoting your life to the advance of your society at the expense of your personal life!" thinking is really getting annoying as hell. Not in the sense of the "Oh I really am apathetic," but more of the "bet his country has a WONDERFUL track record," nails-on-chalkboard hipocracy. Please, lecture the fine fundamentalist friendly americans of Slashdot more on what they should do. Letter writing? Voting? Personal consumer democracy? PACs? Lobbyists? Here's an idea, old people vote a lot, so lets use our second ammendment rights take up arms and kill off all the grayhairs so everyone else has to vote! Bet you have a copy of V for Vendetta sitting in your dvd player tray right now and your idea of fixing democracy involves at least one person whose name is "neo".
yawn, and the most famous applications of jury nullification were juries refusing to convict slaves who had escaped and thus would be forced back into slavery (AS THE LAW REQUIRED AND DEMANDED, THERE IS NO LEE-WAY HERE).
but yeah, slavery was the law, what the fuck were those assholes thinking, letting slaves go free. fucking unamerican shitholes.
newsflash you fucking sheep, sometimes unjust laws are passed, and the populace is left with the option of either convicting a person unjustly, or rebelling against the law. deal with the dissonance or stop spouting nonsense. damn i'm sad i moved to america sometimes.
THE JUSTICE SYSTEM CAN BECOME CORRUPTED, THIS WAS PREDICTED BY YOUR FOUNDERS. IT'S ASSHOLES LIKE YOU WHO LET IT HAPPEN AND EVEN ENCOURAGE SUPPORTING IT.
a) That it was a different hard drive. Maybe the shared folder didn't exist on the drive she turned over? But wouldn't her assertion that she was spoofed have made any dent in the credibility of the so called expert witnesses presented by the RIAA?
b) There are enough loopholes that you could prove that she didn't have the monitored IP address since almost all broadband ISP's do two things. First your IP address cycles regularly. Second the logs only go back for so many days. So the proof is hard to come by.
c) The number of open wireless networks near me is astounding. Were I to share files I'd most definitely be using someone elses network and not mine. Therefore spoofing made easy.
Attorneys aren't the brightest bulbs to begin with. In RI Attorney Brian Cuynha cannot sue the foam manufacturers in re the Station Fire because he forgot to notify them that he was filing suit against them. There is an electronic filing system and he doesn't know how to use it.
And jurors, were I to be dragged into court on an RIAA charge I'd want a true jury of my peers. My peers being I.T. people who know the difference.
If the RIAA cared about her at all they wouldn't have tried to go for a per mp3 infringement ruling. They could have argued it was just one,or gone for some other measure. Note that the RIAA did not actually want this court case, but since she wanted it, well, they decided to slap her down hard.
They did try to be nice, in their warped world view, by asking for their original small fine that is piddling in the face of this court ordered fine. I wonder at her intelligence to be honest, she was caught stealing, whatever the nature. They said uploading, but she downloaded too, both aren't especially wise. The best course of action would have been to admit it, pay the small settlement amount and move on. She did bring this upon herself.
I am distressed more by the way the government appeared to applaud the destruction of her life in this manner.
What do you think of the common belief that "juries are made of people too stupid to get out of jury duty"? Wouldn't such a state really make jury nullification a dangerous thing, at least until we could somehow improve the quality of juries?
Are you the blonde this joke is about?
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
Duluth == Stupid.
threadeds blog
Sure the woman probably did it. But $200,000 sure? Depends on how much she makes but $7,000 total would have been more appropriate and a realistic message balanced with the slight possibility she didn't do it.
That quote couldn't possibly have been more targeted as an insult and challenge to hackers. I expect they are already at work figuring out how frame thousands of people, luring the RIAA into going after them only to make a mockery of juries by coming out anonymously afterwards with proof that they hacked that persons computer. Sure no one would believe them the first time but after 50 or 100 people... after it got on dateline or 20/20... imagine the websites with the identities and pictures of the stupid people that don't think malicious hackers exist. Imagine them getting hacked themselves and framed...
I don't have the numbers to hand but it would be interesting, given that this case repeatedly quoted the number of files online, to do a calculation:>br> Work out industry profits 5 years ago. Work it out today. Difference could be argued to be loss from downloaders (more likely just that most new stuff is pretty dire though). Now divide that by the number of files available as quoted by the case. bet it isn't $9K per file or anything close.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
the RIAA doesn't actually care about music piracy. What they care about is making money. It just happens that music piracy stands in the way of that goal.
I disagree. Music piracy gives them a legal handle to make a LOT more money than they would have made trying to flog records. Sales are trending down, piracy is edging up. Thus, if you make piracy payable - profits go up..
This is the primary fallacy of P2P. It gives them STILL a way to make money from ripping you off. They really don't care if you bleed slowly through inflated CD prices or rapidly to the point of loss of life through taking you to court. The latter is probably preferred by now because their business model is shot.
Yeah, it's a great country..
"He said the RIAA established that Kazaa existed for the sole purpose of file sharing." Wow, really? Next you'll tell me that FTP is for the sole purpose of transferring files over a protocol.
-BMojo
She never made a copy outside her network if nobody asked for one, so no copying was made under US copyright laws.
The last time I was on Jury duty, (and I hope never again) ,the jury consisted mainly of retirees and the chairman had trouble remembering what day of the week it was. However, the most frustrating part of it all was prior to selection they asked specific questions, for example " Do you believe a person is guilty because the police arrest them?" which a "Yes" answer got you kicked off - after saying "no" in the courtroom - one the first arguments used was "The police would not have arrested him if he had not been guilty". Never again will I be on a jury if I can help it. I think you are better off without a jury unless you have something like a "race" card to play that can win over some of the jury. I know they say a jury of your peers but you really only get a limited number of choices and if all of those are individuals with limitations you are in for some serious trouble.
>>>please remove "nospam" from email address
I swear to god, it's shit like this that makes me angry it's illegal to set people on fire. Seriously. Some people are just so heinously STUPID that they need GRIEVOUS PHYSICAL HARM to befall them. ARRGH!
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
I can't believe how many people are crying about "the jury ruining her life", or how she should only be responsible for the value of a few albums, or the fact that she's a single mother.
Are we all such victims now that we've forgotten the very concept of personal responsibility?
No-one's ruining this woman's life but herself. She cavalierly helped herself to something she didn't pay anything for, and then made it available for anyone else to do the same. That act certainly denied the record companies a considerably greater sum of money than the value of each copy of each song that she obtained for herself.
You hate the RIAA, and justly so... they're manipulative, money-grubbing dirtbags with an ethical deficiency so marked that they make Vader look like Ghandi. They twist the facts (every song downloaded equals an actual lost sale? What bullshit!) and abuse our legal processes; what's not to hate?
Their case focuses on something incredibly important, though... that it's not ok to just keep helping yourself to something you haven't paid for. I don't give a damn if "everyone's doing it". You know right from wrong. You must surely understand that there ain't no such thing as a free lunch, but you justify it with any number of excuses, all the while abdicating your own responsibility to yourself.
If you're listening to music, and you enjoy doing so, you should be remunerating those individuals who made it happen, as surely as you're remunerated for your efforts in the workplace. Any justification around that is a complete cop-out.
She broke that code. The law supports punishment for that. She lied about what she did, and bore the brunt of that. That she's a single mom? Meaningless. That she's going to go broke over it all?
Sounds like karma to me.
The point is that it's way beyond unfair to punish a few people for what is socially acceptable behaviour for many. Copyright laws are the Prohibition of the 21st Century.
the punishment is life in prison in the sexual offenders ward of a male prison. Would you then say "Well, that's the law, she should go"?
No, you don't have any option to say the punishment should NOT be that, since that's the punishment the law says, so your only option is to send her to prison to be serially gang-raped for *potentially* sharing songs or say she's not guilty.
And she was guilty of "making available" which isn't a copyright infringement anyway, so the law shouldn't apply. If the RIAA want a law like that, they should pay for it like they did all the others.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 39 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
I think I'm going to sign up "Michael Hegg" for all kinds of internet email accounts, etc. It's true there is no such think as a "spoofed" account.
Posted by: Michael Hegg | Oct 9, 2007 1:08:10 PM
Wow, the one time I speak the truth instead of trying to be funny and I get modded Flamebait. Awesome! :D
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
> If we accept people being dishonest in court, we have no justice system, and no rule of law.
I thought we in general accepted that the defendant could lie, without any additional punishment. Unlike other witnesses.
At least for a criminal case.
The key line: "I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here."
She was from out of town.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
What seems to be lost in these discussions (and in most legal proceedings) is a proper description/definition of what the law suit is about. This case has never addressed what the RIAA "property" was that was alleged to be infringed. The RIAA owns the "copyright" to "what"? To the "performance of the work", "the actual melody", "the arrangement of the melody", "the performers", etc... you get the picture! OR, does the RIAA own the actual media of distrbution: the CD. In short, is this about licensed intellectual property or media. It must be pointed out that the RIAA does NOT sell (or make available) the intellectual property on the media used in most file sharing: MP3. A simple checksum and/or file size comparison can confirm that an MP3 is not the same entity as the CD. The RIAA will NOT replace the CD or make alternate formats available so one has to assume that they are selling "media" NOT "content". If they were selling "content" then they would be obligated to support media replacement and reformatting. The problem is that they want it both ways. Without having a concise description/definition of what they are "distributing" we have no basis with which to decide (or argue) right or wrong.
While I agree with that statement in principle as it pertains to truly democratic nations, I can no longer agree with it in practice as it pertains to the United States of American as I no longer believe that citizens have any real choice at the ballot box when it comes to many important issues. Both the Republican and Democrats are owned by corporations. They primarily choose to differentiate themselves on "wedge" social, environmental and foreign policy issues (and when one party or the other happens to come to power, not much in the way of the "wedge" issues that were campaigned upon ends up truly changing ... see the 2006 Congressional elections and Iraq).
As far as I'm concerned they are two sides of the same coin. I read somewhere that the majority of Americans consider themselves fiscally conservative but socially liberal. That's how I'd describe myself. Where is the party that represents us?
The government requires proof "beyond a reasonable doubt" for even the shortest prison sentence or smallest fine. But it only requires "preponderance of evidence" (51% or more) to use its power to ruin your life with debt due to a civil suit.
>So when someone threatens you with a law suit but offers to settle for a much lower amount, you should always settle.
No, but when you are stupid enough to log into P2P file sharing networks with a COMMON NICKNAME you used elsewhere for years, and do so over a hard-wired network, and get caught in the act, then maybe you ought to consider settling.
She received horrible legal advice to try and take this to court.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
There's a $750 minimum?? WTF? Where did that come from? Is that for anything? It seems pretty lucrative.
Ok, this post is copyright me.
Now I just wait until somebody copies it without my permission. That's a minimum $750 bucks, dude! Hand it over.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
...put your money where you mouth is. Send her some money. Help her pay her fine.
You bitch about the injustice from the sidelines knowing (in many cases) that you've done the same thing yourselves. Put up or shut up. "It's not fair!" is a childish rant.
- real hackers don't have sigs -
So all this time /.'ers state that Copyright infringement isn't theft. Then you go on to talk about 25 tracks being worth $1 per track! You have got to be kidding. We aren't talking about theft and therefore the subsequent value. We are talking about willful copyright infringement and defendant who openly lied on the stand.
They didn't fine her based on $25 worth of file sharing, they fined her on 25 counts of copyright infringement. What is it you don't understand? It doesn't matter if the source material being infringed on was $1 or $100 per in piece. It is the nature of willful infringement that she was fined on. She had total and flippant dis-regard for someone else's efforts.
You guys are WAY out of touch with reality.
From all the mistakes this woman has made:
Didn't settle out of court
Didn't tell the truth, or lie convincingly
Didn't hire the right attorney or provide the right defence
Doesn't anyone else here feel they've set us up the bomb?
With recent court failures, they've been looking to strike fear back into people. Was she working with/for them?
---
When music is outlawed, only outlaws will have music.
After all.......do you want your fate in the hands of 12 people who were not smart enough to get out of jury duty in the first place??
Seems less risky and cheaper! Music sucks nowadays anyway... and like we saw a few days ago, listening to radio can make you get sued (even 60% of time in radio being filled with ads).
So say we all
Whats up with all the Duluth haters? I have read a couple of +5 comments about how Duluth is filled with dumb people. I grew up there so I might be biased but just because one jury of 12 people(?) where excessive everyone from that town is dumb? Man I guess because the 3 people you have met from Chicago where nice everyone there must be nice. Good sample size there.
3 years in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and felony conviction that will make it extremely difficult for these guys to ever get a decent job again?
Honestly, most people would be honored if someone thought that their thesis or their father's painting was worth copying. (Obviously plagiarism is another issue, almost everyone would object to someone else claiming the painting or the paper was their own). If you cherish your father's painting, why would you be offended that someone else liked his painting too? The only possible harm from such things is economic, since you probably could have sold a copy of your painting/paper.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I would just like to point out that my peers are technically literate and know a little something about justice (and jury nullification).
I am not actually guaranteed a trial by my "peers," but rather by the lowest common denominator of whatever turns up in a completely random sample. Anyone who is intelligent enough to think critically about the situation will be the first pass of the opposing lawyer.
The idea is nice in theory, but falls down in practice.
Aside: this is a fine example of how one person's stupidity makes her dangerous to those around her. Choosing ignorance for bliss is not simply a self-indulgent lifestyle preference, it is also directly harmful to others. I don't look down on stupid people because I am arrogant, but because they are a threat to me.
I don't think he's advocating extreme penalties for the losers- just extreme penalties for the liars (which may or may not be the losers, for instance giving the winner a $1 judgment because they clearly lied about too many details). In general, Juries tend to be less sympathetic towards defendants who are obviously lying about what they did. If this woman had gone to court and said "Yes, I downloaded 20 songs, but the penalties the RIAA wants are ridiculous" she would not have received the fine she did.
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
the Judge (making available is NOT a copyright offense)
The RIAA lawyers (spurious claims galore in the past, the misstatement about legal precedent with "making available")
The expert witness for the RIAA (not valid witness, so perjury - lying to the court)
That there jail is going to fill right up...
The RIAA was created SPECIFICALLY as a single place the labels can have to deal with contract and copyright issues.
They do not make money from music creation or distribution, per se. They make money from the contract and legal side.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can always get 12 clueless idiots. Or 12 with a vengeance.
Sounds like they got at least one this time.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
+1,000,000, DEAD ON!
Absolutely, juries answer to no one and it's one of the most vital pillars of the Republic! The jury in this case was lacking, but the power is there.
The judge instructs them of the range of penalties should they find her liable. Her defense was poor so they had little choice but to do so. The per-infringement penalty handed down was actually on the low end. It can go up to $150k per offense. It's the law that is ridiculous.
Quite a bit has changed in the past 200 years. Judges have whittled away that power as much as possible so that now a judge can override a jury verdict on a point of law and if a judge learns that a juror is deciding based on his disagreement with the law and not the facts of the case, he can dismiss the juror.
"The concept is contrary to the intent of the Constitution and its framers. "
Copyright was a huge issue. A few people wanted copyright to be forever. Others didn't want it at all.
Copyright cause huge problems in Britain. The goal of the copyright in the constitution was to strike balance.
Which is way out of balance. People have recognized for hundreds of years that someone who writes a story, should be able to control who can distribute it for a limited time.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Google United States v. Renfroe. Renfroe was a lawyer who went to jail for arguing jury nullification. Also look up Laura Kriho.
Get your facts right. She lied about the date her HD was repaired. It was *after* she had received notice she was being charged with copyright infringement. It was actions like this that likely led to the *huge* penalty. She clearly had no respect for truth, honesty, decency or the intelligence of the court and jury system. Her attorney also misrepresented her. NO WAY she should've gone to court. The RIAA couldn't have hoped for a better defendand to put in the headlines with a staggering judgment. They were almost guaranteed a staggering judgement - which is why they chose to take her to court first.
until it is played.
You can't perform an MP3 by copying it. The public display of copies is meant to go for those items that are viewed in their use (picture art, movies, statues and so on). You can't see a digital copy and there's no expressive content in the track title.
If it were a problem, then the store could not have copies of the CD on their shelves, since they do not hold the copyrights...
the tradition of jury nullification says otherwise.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
...which has existed, with it's juries, for centuries before the Founding Fathers and the US Constitution, even for that matter before America was discovered.
Not that I disagree with your points otherwise mind.
>wiping the hard drive after she got in trouble
... Unless you picture her as intentionally sabotaging her own computer before sending it to Best Buy. Or assume the Geek-squad guy was lying as well.
Sorry, not so.
Try again for your obvious evidence of guilt, please.
RIAA has the legal authority to recover losses. With the DMCA ... RIAA of the CSA (Corporatist [it ain't capitalism] States of America) has the same legal authority that the CSA IRS has to recover losses (the unpaid) and then significantly and punitively fine anyone evading paying IPR fees (via purchase).
... just flat-out poor (in every sence of the word) segment of society. If you are mid-class, the CSA will assist you into a suitably poor environment with higher taxes.
I suspect, eventually the RIAA will attempt issuing arrest warrants for criminal cases, which will promote correctional facility privatization by populating private CSA-prisons for kiddie/granny citizen criminals. This is as smart as the WAR-ON-DRUGS, making large segments of our CSA culture criminals is always a good thing for prophet-profits and an energized totally speculative market.
I am putting in a buy on stock for companies in the CSA privatized-prison business. Keeping the poor criminal element in jail is good for controlling an unruly, uneducated
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I understand Jammie's strategy here--she has little to lose and no deep pockets. She is prideful and broke.
The woman lost a civil trial. She has a judgement against her.
The winner gets to work through the system to try to collect the judgement. The RIAA might be like Goldman is to Simpson, looking for Rolexes where none exist. And they might have to be like that for decades. And this woman looks like a saint being persecuted by a troubled industry.
Since we did away with debtor's prisons, people earning $36,000/year get to work out really good payment terms--maybe she pays like $1000/year for 220 years. Or the RIAA gets ask the court to lien her house, if she has one. Maybe they will garnish her wages, and how will that look?
I don't believe anyone should send a penny to pay this judgement. It would be wiser to set up a scholarship fund to put her kids through school, so that the RIAA can't get a nickel of satisfaction. You financial angels could buy a house, stock it with gear and furniture, and lease it to her for 99 years.
The RIAA will have this PR burden for a very long time. And that could prove to be a very tough bone to chew!
(I bet that the RIAA settles with Ms. Thomas privately, and uses their victory to put fear in other persons who have much deeper pockets.)
"A right is something granted to you by some entity."
... that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable right ..." Jefferson's argument is that people were given their rights by Whoever created the universe, so no Earthly power can take them away, and furthermore, the issue isn't even up for debate. It's "self-evident," axiomatic. If we can't agree on this, then we can't agree on anything. Even better, Government serves at the pleasure of the People, and we can cancel it at any time. Really, the Declaration of Independence is one of the great documents of human thought, and it belongs to you.
Um, no. A PRIVILEGE is something granted to you by some entity. A RIGHT is something that no one can take away from you. If someone can take your rights away from you, then you aren't free. Go back and reread Rousseau et al, the guys Jefferson was basically quoting when he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
"We hold these truths to be self evident
The Bill of Rights doesn't hold the same rhetorical power, but it's a kick-ass laundry list. "Here are the rights we think are important. These aren't you're only rights, but these are the real show-stoppers that are so big, we want to put them on paper. However, just because we didn't write it down doesn't mean you don't have other rights. The paper's not long enough for that. Your rights were given to you by whoever set the Big Bang in motion. Absolutely no one can take them away from you."
It terrifies me to find someone who might be an American citizen who doesn't carry these ideas in their bones. These ideas are why we keep obnoxiously blaring "We're the greatest country on Earth," not our wealth or military power. We're supposed to be the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave." We don't look to anyone to "give" us our Rights. We were born with them, and will keep them through Death and maybe even beyond.
Jury Nullification is the Whole Idea behind having Juries. When the King trumped up charges and made up his own private little laws against good men, only the Juries had the power to fight George III and set them free, despite what any law or Judge said. Giving twelve ordinary people the power to decide on what's Right and ignore unjust laws was the whole idea in the first place. Go back and reread "the Federalist Papers," "Common Sense," and the rest of the Founding Documents. Do schools not teach Civics anymore, or have we thrown our beautiful Legacy and Birthright away for "Number-Two-Pencil-No-Child-Left-Unscrewed" bullshit?
Dear God, the idea that someone has to "give" us our Rights...
He put his boots up on the table and made a face. "The sig," he smirked. "You can waste your life in search of the sig."
Wow... They were willing to find her liable of something they have NO PROOF she did! Imagine getting convicted of murder simply because you owned a gun, without any proof of anyone even being shot! This just boggles the mind. They are instructed to only find her liable if the plaintiffs can establish that Kazaa users had actually downloaded the music, the plaintiffs failed to do that, and they would still be willing to find her liable. Astonishing...
Being a computer expert, and from what I've read of his expert report, I almost doubt he knows what a wireless router is, let alone how to tell if one was used to access Kazaa. I agree though that having the same username on Kazaa is incriminating, unless she can show that she was deliberately framed.
The jury was convinced that she was "a person who robs or commits illegal violence at sea or on the shores of the sea"? We need to stop using inflammatory rhetoric when describing copyright violation. Copyright violation is no more "theft" than running a red light is "theft". Artificial laws were created by man to extend a temporary monopoly the the original authors of creative works. I am not for the abolition of copyright, but its restriction. I think good does come from granting the original authors the sole right to profit from their works, but they need to be able to figure out a way to make money by doing something that others cannot do themselves for free. With regards to intellectual "property", I refer you to the writings of John Locke:
One final quote from the juror:
You should have kept your mouth shut, retard.
So, we have a cartel which has consistently engaged in collusion and price-fixing bribing legislators to create laws that turn copyright, which is a short-term monopoly granted to incentivise art, into a lucrative monopoly on the distribution of popular music.
What part of this isn't corruption, again?
The hypocrisy of our government and corporate America is astounding. We hear constant cries about how all forms of non-economic damages from pain and suffering to punitive damages are ruining America and making it hard to do business. One of the jurors is "sending a message" to music pirates. I wonder if this same juror is for "tort reform" which would prevent jurors from sending manufactures of knowingly sell effective products that kill people a message. But when it comes to music piracy, 9000 times economic damages is some how appropriate. I wish I could get 9000x economic damages every time someone harmed me. Maybe if I hire some lobbyists, I can get Congress to help me out on this one.
Has anyone thought that maybe this was all "set up" by the RIAA in order to set precedence over this type of case? I mean really, look at the facts. A normal person would settle if they knew that they were guilty without a doubt. This case was over whelmingly in the favor of the RIAA. So you pay someone off and have them lie about what they really did, to the press. When it goes to trial and the truth comes out the RIAA gets the precedence that they probably wanted to establish. Not that anyone can but maybe checking offshore accounts or her personal bank account may be interesting. Is there a way to see if she actually ever pays the RIAA? I personally find it hard to believe that someone would actually want to go to court on such a flimsy defense. I agree in uphold copyright law, but I too think the fine is outlandish. The RIAA should have to prove what the damages were so the jury can fine accordingly.
-S
The RIAA's "making available" argument is novel (meaning new, unproven, untested, not reliable, subject to overturn on appeal). If she had setteled, she would HAVE to pay some damages. She went to trial hoping the judge would toss the "making available" argument.. she completed the trial in the hopes that an appelate court will overturn this error.
What is apparently clear (as opposed to just clear - it looks obvious by may not be) is that she ran kazaa and had 24 songs in her share folder. This is not a violation of the copyright law. If she gave those songs to a friend while retaining a copy.. that might violate copyright law. If she sold the same song to her friend, that would violate copyright law.
What will happen now - 1) she will request that the court repair its error. 2) the court will refuse. 3) she will appeal the court's LEGAL decision that "making available" violates copyright law (without evidence of actual transfer or sale). 4) the case WILL be reviewed by an appelate court, and MAY be overturned.
After that the case may get appealed up the chain to the SCOTUS. But anything past the move to appeal is conjecture.
This woman very well may prevail in the end, she may not have to pay anything at all.
-GiH
Expert testimony from an RIAA witness also showed that a wireless router was not used, casting doubt on her defense that a hacker lurking outside her apartment window with a laptop might have framed her, he said.
I never download music. It is always a hacker lurking outside of my apartment window.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
If you the juror were found guilty of and required to pay $220k for this very same offense, would YOU feel that you'd been fairly penalized? Or would you feel that you'd been buggered but good by that jury of your peers?
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
She was fined $9250 for each song, instead of $750/song plus punitive damages. And shouldn't she have been charged with obstruction of justice and perjury instead?
(assuming they don't try to lie which they almost certainly won't)
In before 80 year old grandmothers who don't have a computer...
Based on your comments, can we assume you're from Duluth?
Her hard drive went bad. The Best Buy "Geek Squad" member that testified said that the old drive was in fact bad. Everyone testified that this occurred prior to the RIAA sending her a letter, meaning this incident was in no way affected by the lawsuit. Hard drives go bad, if you have one long enough it will eventually go bad. I had a computer that had both hard drives go bad within a month of each other.
She said she ripped those songs from CDs herself. The plaintiff's "expert" said the timestamps on the files made that impossible. An in-court demonstration proved it was possible (15-20 seconds between songs, 40 seconds or so between CDs) and the plaintiff's attorney lied about how long both demonstrations took. Also, the expert saying they must have been copied from another hard drive makes no sense because straight file copying wouldn't produce an extra delay between CDs. Files are files, the only explanation for a longer time is that the CD drive had to be opened and the CD physically replaced. So the evidence shows that she did in fact rip those songs from CD and didn't download them from the internet.
This reminds me of my own jury duty. The questions some jurors ask almost blow my mind, like they haven't been listening at all and didn't understand a thing. Apparently this was the perfect storm of numbskull jury selection. Maybe it's something to do with Duluth? I hope the RIAA sends letters to this guy because his kids and wife are downloading music...
She had her hard drive replaced due to mechanical failure outside her control before the RIAA ever sent her a letter. The only thing she "lied" about was she said the wrong dates by accident in her deposition. Do you remember when you replaced that flat tire on your bike? Was it three or four years ago?
She didn't obstruct the police, this is a civil trial and not a criminal investigation. She didn't lie about anything to my knowledge, in fact the plaintiff's attorneys lied in open court about the length of time the demonstrations took (reporter at the trial and defense attorney both timed CD rips within 1 second of each other under 2:20 and plaintiff's attorney said it was over 3 and a half minutes), and the plaintiff's expert lied also on the stand saying it was impossible to rip songs that fast (15-20 seconds between songs). If he knew anything about computers and CD ripping, he should have known that the only explanation for an extra gap between albums (40 sec?) is that CDs were being physically swapped, that makes no sense if copying from a hard drive since there is no delay for switching directories in a massive file copy. Also, a hard drive copy would probably be at least 10 or 20 times faster than the 300kb/s I calculate for a 15-20 second gap between 5mb mp3 files.
I think that the defendant should be prosecuted for perjury and thrown in jail regardless of the fact of whether or not said defendant is actually guilty/liable for copyright infringement.
/. about it, and I stand by it still.
HOWEVER, I think that the RIAA should ALSO be prosecuted for perjury wrt. a previous case it was in regarding AOL or something? I made a previous post on another issue on
I'm definitely not pro RIAA in any sense. But letting someone, corporation/individual/partnership/WHATEVER get away even a little bit with lying in court opens a GIANT can of worms that will let the roaches REALLY come out. Without some sort of incentive to be required to tell the truth, who would be afraid of lying? Certainly not the RIAA or any other "bad guy/oppressor" types.
The courts would be FILLED with greedy companies looking to cash in on getting away with perjury/evidence cooking.
The justice system needs to crack down on such frauds. Sooner, rather than later. If some otherwise "hapless victim of a greedy company" gets caught lying, no mercy should be shown, because otherwise one of the bad guys would be, quite literally, happy to follow suit. If I were a DA, I'd be more apt to go after big companies first, but I definitely wouldn't turn a blind eye to "lie fry" either.
Just imagine if MICROSOFT were to get away with it next...
A second juror, Lisa Reinke, gave an interview: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071010/ap_on_hi_te/downloading_music_juror_2&printer=1 Among the quotes was this gem: "You go too low, it's not going to stop the illegal downloading of music," she said. "People are going to think, 'I could do this, I could go through federal court and get off cheap.'" Guess what, Reinke? The case was about uploading (you know, Making Available?), not downloading. Pay attention next time.
I agree about that, although I don't know if she said that is what happened or if they just laid out the possibility. The plaintiff's expert didn't seem to know a whole lot about the internet in his deposition, or he made several misleading statements.
You started it :)
Does this mean that I am guilty of the same crime should I place a cd in plane view in my house and then leave the door open?
What if I rip a cd onto my computer and someone finds a way via the internet to log in through a flaw in security and takes the music files?
How about if I share it on my intranet with iTunes and someone finds a way to copy it outside of my intranet? What if it were done by means of an unpatched security problem with my WiFi?
Do they have to prove intent to distribute or is it just enough to have made it available intentionally or not?
What if I make it hard to get but really want some one to copy it? Is this actually a thought crime?
Thoughts anyone? Careful what you think.Be as you would have the world become.
Where exactly was it reported that she had the drive repaired AFTER she received notice? Since she had a BestBuy employee brought in to report on the drive's state I find it pretty unlikely that she didn't also expect that he would be asked about the DATE that the repair was done and attempted to lie about it. I believe she was confused as to the date but saw nothing to point to it being after he had been informed of th einvestigation.
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org