Slashdot Mirror
Jammie Appeals, Citing "Excessive" Damages
Peerless writes "Capitol v. Thomas defendant Jammie Thomas has officially appealed the RIAA's $222,000 copyright infringement award. She is seeking a retrial to determine the RIAA's actual damages, arguing that the jury's award was 'unconstitutionally excessive': 'Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate." In her motion, Thomas argues that the labels are contending that their actual damages are in the neighborhood of $20. Barring a new trial over the issue of damages, Thomas would like to see the reward knocked down three significant digits — from $222,000 to $151.20.'"
151.20 actually has more significant digits than 222,000. (Perhaps "orders of magnitude" was the term peerless wanted?)
But who cares, when you're coming up with a cutesy way of saying something, right? (Make sure to use the terms "north of" and "south of" when comparing numerical values.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
This may be the first intelligent thing this women has done in this case. I mean she was obviously guilty, lied in an attempt to cover it up, and miserably failed to prove anything to the contrary at trial.
This position on the other hand is very well reasoned. $200k+ is completely outrageous damages even assuming a large number of people downloaded the material she made available. Hopefully there will be a judgement against this damage award that will call attention to how excessively high the statutory damages are, and might even overturn that part of the law.
Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company "had not stopped to calculate."
If they include legal fees, and what they spend tracking down file sharers, it just might be more than she has to pay.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
"We will continue to defend our rights." Hello spokesman. Please define 'defend', 'our' and 'rights'. Attacking people is not defense, it is offense. Also, it looks more and more as though you are acting in the interest of the RIAA itself rather than the artists that it represents. As for 'rights', you have the right to exist as long as you add value.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
She is seeking a retrial to determine the RIAA's actual damage
Afterwards, they'll attempt an inquiry to determine the RIAA's major malfunction.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
Can someone please explain to a European, what this compulsive need to refer to the constitution in seemingly all matters relating to the law is all about?
I'll be the first one to agree that these damages are "ridiculously excessive" or "fabricated", but what does this have to do with the constitution? Is it just a cultural thing?
.: Max Romantschuk
IANAL but I don't think the motion for retrial is not the same as an appeal with the appeals courts. This is a motion with the presiding judge of the trial for him to set aside the results of the trial and order a retrial based on the jury award being more then ten times the actual losses to the RIAA. The RIAA of course will file a counter motion and the judge will decide, possibly after hearing arguements again from both sides. If the motion fails then her lawyer will appeal the case. If the motion succeeds then its possible that the RIAA might try to withdraw the case rather then risk setting a precedent of 70 cents a song damages.
Any real lawyers reading this please comment.
"222000." has six sig figs, whereas "151.20" only has five. "222000" has three. The period in the first number matters--and, in this case, putting that number at the end of your sentence actually changed the meaning of the number and, from there, your entire statement.
1. Fight the RIAA, go for the jury trial
::cough cough:: is against our Constitution in America.
2. Hold your ace close and play the first round to lose
3. ???
4. Less PROFIT for the RIAA!
And now we know that #3 is:
Appeal $220k reward on Constitutional grounds! BRILLIANT!
Seriously! There is at least one juror who has already opened his mouth to the press and said something to the effect of "the punishment is so high because we want to send a message that this is a bad thing to do... mmmmKay..." Which...
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
You are their friend if you think that people should just take their ridiculous settlement offer and leave it at that. IMHO, she shouldn't have bothered with saying she didn't do it and gone for the ridiculousness of the fine right away. But I can't fault her for having tried.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
The JURY pulled the figure out of their collective asses.
The plaintiffs do not set the damages that are awarded to themselves. The judge/jury does that.
The really disgusting part is when people demand that the industry accepts people using their products without any compensation going to the producer. They demand the consent of the victim. These people that have not produced anything, are not giving anything in exchange demand the product for free and the producer thanking them for looting. How much more perverse can it get?
Take their music if you must, but please, don't fall to the level of demanding their blessing for it.
It is just the basic set of laws that stand at the top of the law pyramid, these laws are what must be obeyed and nobody can infringe upon them, not by making new laws, not by new policy. Typically these foundation laws are far harder to change then regular law.
And if in holland a new policy or law goes against the "grondwet" (groundlaw) we refer to it exactly like an american refers to the constitution. For instance discriminatin, Artikel 1, "Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan."
Rough translation" All who are in The Netherlands, shall in equal circumstances be treated equally. Discrimination according to religion, philosophie, political leaning, race, sex or whatever else, is not allowed".
Whatever law is passed, it got to follow this first law. It cannot be changed (well not likely in dutch climate of coalition goverment that can barely agree on simple things) and it cannot be ignored and with the always hot issue of immigration it is constantly reffered to.
So it is not an american thing, most countries will have a similar system, and people who think they have their fundemental rights infringed will try to get their justice by pointing out these fundemental rights. The US constitution protects against unfairly harsh punishement, this woman thinks she received an unfairly harsh punishment so that is the law she refers too.
What else should she refer too?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
"most of the artists blow (britney spears)"
Well, then at least there is one way in which which she can make guys happy.
While I agree with her, this is a losing argument.
The courts, especially appellate courts, are not going to let her win on this.
Her problem is that she has a separation of powers problem with her argument.
The rules are pretty clear, the legislature gets to decide the penalty for a crime. If someone thinks the penalty is too severe the proper thing to do is take it up with the legislature.
Here the legislature allowed for much higher penalties than she is suffering.
The appellate court is not going to see an error of law here.
The correct decision (from the court's point of view) is:
"Yes, the law sucks. If we were in the legislature we'd vote to overturn it. But we don't sit in the legislature we sit as judges in the Judicial Branch and therefore we can only rule on whether the law is Constitutional, not whether it is a stupid law. And it is Constitutional."
Actually, the correct Latin is "vira" (it's one of those odd neuter words that look masculine at first glance) but as stated by another responder, the correct English is "viruses."
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
Imagine you are in the dark ages and you are summoned for not having paid tithe to the local church.
The church complains that not only they are entitled to it by divine right, but also that it's not fair you benefit from the innumerable and priceless services they provide to the community (such as hunting for heretics) without contributing what they ask for.
Knowing that the penalty may range from outrageous fines to beheading even (and especially) when confessing, what would you say when asked whether you did in fact pay your tithe?
Now replace "dark ages" with "ip dark ages".
The U.S. Constitution doesn't grant rights, the rights are "unalienable". The "Bill of Rights" portion of the Constitution prohibits the government from violating those rights.
Note how everything is expressed in negatives, i.e. "shall not be infringed".
She had her first chance to settle for $3000 - still a lot but a lot smaller than the $200k+ she now has to cough up.
Guess her first thought then was "I shouldn't have to pay $3,000 when I only uploaded it to 5 people." Still sounds reasonable to me.
Using openSUSE instead of Windows since 9th of October, 2007 and liking it.
I have a relative that was in law school, and she explained the RIAA's reasoning here.
They don't honestly intend to collect a quarter million dollars in damages. They were trying to make a statement with a giant exclamation point against music piracy, and that's where the figure comes in. Obviously now, they'll drop the price, out of the 'goodness of their hearts' (HA!!).
My issue with the RIAA is they should only be allowed to sue if they have a legitimate case. I do think the US judicial system needs to step in and prevent them from using the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion - either they HAVE a valid case, or they do not.
As far as pirating music goes, the answer is simple - don't do it, otherwise you're just giving record labels some means to try and earn revenue (via litigation). A better option that yields more results in the long run is to stop purchasing major record label discs outright. Every time you see a major record label album you want to purchase, just stop and think of all the asinine comments the various major record labels have made over the years. (You know - stuff like "if you rip your music onto your iPod, that's stealing".)
Better yet - think of the obnoxiously smug RIAA website. I find that visualization by itself will force me to put the CD back on the store shelf 99% of the time.
Be aware that there are some artists out there who actually realize that it's GOOD for them to get their music onto as many iPods as possible, and offer it for free download on sites like www.jamendo.com. There are alternatives out there. (www.last.fm also has a lot of freely downloadable music.)
It is made available.
Not copyright infringement.
A photocopier in a library has books nearby and a method for (profiting from) copyright infringement. Making it available.
However, there are possibilities that allow a copy to be made available and yet, WHEN TAKEN, these actions are not copyright infringement.
For study.
Excerpts.
Parody.
Are all allowed copies under copyright law. According to the RIAA, the copy being made of the MP3s by AllOfMP3 is in the US so they can prosecute under US law. But what if the copies were made in Canada? Sweden? Antigua (if they get to void US copyrights)? Until one copy is made without authorisation, no copyright infringement is made.
The reasoning from law that says just having it there is because of things like sculpture or paintings: you don't COPY them but they are still copyrighted. The mere act of looking at them is how you appreciate them. You can't see an MP3. You can see a file label, but that isn't copyrighted (and would be de minimis anyway). That section of law does not apply here. If it did, shops would be guilty if they had CD's on the shelves (making the artwork available, or making the copy available without compensation). No distribution is made when it's in a warehouse. No distribution is made when put on disk. Distribution is done when the file is copied.
You can copy the file, but it's just coded and not expressive. It is only expressive when played, but that is my POV and not necessarily correct.
Even if someone is as guilty as sin then they deserve justice and a "punishment" that is proportionate to the "crime" ( whether or not "crime", "punishment" or "guilty" are appropriate words in a copyright case, charging a private individual a six-figure sum sounds like a "punishment" to me). "Waive your right to a fair trial and pay us $2000 now, or enjoy your right to a trial and risk us taking your house" is not justice, it is a license to extort.
If a civil court feels that a defendant has lied, it should bring a criminal charge of perjury and let a criminal court decide the punishment. It should not be the place of a civil court to punish someone, without trial, for a criminal offence ramping up the so-called "damages".
If a civil court feels that a defendant has wasted their time and the plaintiff's money by fighting bringing a meritless case, they should add to the reasonable and audit-able damages, some or all of the reasonable and audit-able costs of the case (...bearing in mind that the defendant already has their own costs and that a large, corporate plaintiff may have lawyers on staff, and that its not unreasonable for the main beneficiaries of artificial laws like copyright to bear some of the cost of enforcement ). They should not leave it to a jury to pull some figure out of a hat and call it "damages".
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
Let's see... 24 songs with an average of 5 megabytes each song...
That's 24*5*1024*0.002 cents, which is 245.76 cents or US$2.46. What about that?
So say we all
it's a motion to set aside the verdict, which is quite different than an appeal.
An appeal is to a higher court.
This is a motion directed toward the trial court.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
The George Bush View:
No rights are irrevocable!
Ask me about repetitive DNA
Something like "inalienable rights of every man, granted by God". God gave you life and liberty and that is yours, not to be taken away. He didn't say "by the way, copyright are right in there". If he did, since he's still alive, the bible belongs to him, and there's a LOT of money owed in infringing his copyrights.
Copyrights exist for a legal fiction. The fiction is that ideas can be owned. They cannot. If you tell me something, you've lost control. Copyrights can be removed just by not persecuting them from the government. You can protect your house, your family and your goods. You can't protect your ideas without keeping them to yourself. So DON'T sing your song and see how much people value it.
Your fine is now $1,000,000, to one significant figure, so we'll accept any payment between $500,000 and $1,499,999.99. Is that better?
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
from the elements you quoted.
If 3% much more, 10% much less, you're looking at LESS being sold. Weighting isn't arguable, since it could be such as to make the 10% much less effectively 30% lower sales as the 3% to become equal to the 10% lower band.
Yes, the article summary used the term incorrectly, but no, 151.20 does not have more significant digits than 222,000 in this case. Both are exact numbers, are not rounded in any way, and so can be thought to have an inifinite number of significant digits.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Maybe her first thought should be been "I'm not the copyright owner of this material, so I probably shouldn't distribute it without permission", but that would also imply that she had any thoughts to begin with. She certainly doesn't seem to have many.
Unlike the European constitution, the US version is not written in legaleze. It's concise and accessible enough that people can understand it. So, they make use of it. They take advantage of it (in the good sense) because they can. They take advantage of it (in the bad sense) because it isn't precise.
In that case, it would make sense to appeal and hope for a miracle. Because sometimes courts do the unexpected ;-)
C - the footgun of programming languages
...someone called the MAFIAA and held them to account for their claims. Now we'll see what a lot of hot air these claims of "losses" really are - and a note to the sympathisers, perceived losses are not even that. If the music industry want me to buy their music instead of listening to my old stuff, maybe they should stop trying to foist the shit they do out over the radio and get some REAL fucking music going. Something I'm actually likely to go out and BUY because I LIKE IT. As it is, I only buy Indie and I download Indie/TF.
Operation Guillotine is in effect.
Although I'd prefer she pay 150 bones rather than 220K, I'm not so sure the $9,000/song are meant to represent actual damages from her conduct, rather, it's meant to deter her (as well as others) from engaging in such hideously vile conduct in the future! Hopefully some good will spring from all this, like the widespread realization that private peer to peer sharing is better (and safer) than "wild" p2p à la Limewire/Kazaa/eMule... I use GigaTribe, which is probably the best private p2p app out there right now: http://www.gigatribe.com/
I haven't seen anyone actually look at what the law says, but 17 U.S.C. 504 says that RIAA can get either actual damages and profits or statutory damages. Statutory damages would be capped at $150,000 "for all infringements involved in the action," but is set by the court apparently. I guess she might be right in her claim that while infringement was proven, actual damages weren't, and so the jury award must be reversed. It'll be interesting to see what happens there.
like a japanese cowboy, or a brother on skates.
Please spell correctly. demimalplacesarenotsignificantdigts? Come on, you're not exactly being subtle here.
is for CRIMINAL cases. Civil is for damages. If the RIAA/Capitol Records admit that the fine was to scare others, then they are admitting that they are in the wrong court.
For the longest time, I've thought that there should be two punishment scales for copyright infringement. Let's call the first "professional infringement." This would involve infringement with a profit motive. An example of this would be the people who sell copies of DVDs on street corners. These people would face the fines currently imposed for copyright infringement.
The second type would be "household infringement." This would involve infringement via a P2P network or other type that didn't involve attempts to make a profit. This type of infringement would take the number of files infringed, multiply them by the market cost per file, and then multiply that number by 100 (to get a "punishment" number that is worse than simply buying the songs outright).
In the case of Jammie Thomas, she was found guilty of infringing 24 songs. Since she wasn't attempting to make a profit, she would fall under household infringement and would be charged 24 * 0.99 (the cost of the songs on iTunes) * 100, or $2,376. This is more than the $150+ that she's looking for, yet a lot less than the $222,000 that she was originally fined for. A $2,000+ verdict isn't going to financially ruin most people, but it will also be enough of a significant amount for most people that it would serve as a deterrent against future incidents.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Photoshop is a good example.
This product is so expensive that I am willing to bet that 90% of copies are unlicensed.
Now, if I were a professional photographer, or graphic artist, I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to purchase a copy of Photoshop. (In fact, when I had access to a reasonably priced version, I did purchase it)
Ignoring music for a moment. This is a significant problem in the software industry. They have set the price so high that I'm certain that they expect, and potentially even encourage limited piracy to increase their market saturation.
In cases like that, can they even argue that there is a monetary loss? I suppose that is why set penalties are in place.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Zero is not automatically an insignificant figure. A zero to the left of the decimal point but to the right of a non-zero digit IS significant. Zero is only significant when it's either:
* To the left of the decimal point and there are no non-zero digits further left, or
* To the right of the decimal point and there are no non-zero digits further right.
In the real world you have been caught uploading files to 10 million of your closest friends on the P2P nets. Music that sells at $1 a track through iTunes. The $20 video, the $50 video game.
Broadband penetration in the U.S. is about 40%. The service costs $20 to $50 a month. The file sharer on any scale will have a mid-line system or better - with hundreds or thousands of gigabytes of storage.
To the civil jury you don't look like a senior on a starvation budget. You look like a petty thief and a liar, a white collar criminal who sees his free media fix as a middle class entitlement.
The civil jury isn't a traffic court, it doesn't issue fines payable to the state. That is not its job.
The civil jury compensates the injured party. It awards punitive damages when the public interest demands it.
It can be very comfortable awarding damages based on a rigorous statutory formula that treats the uploader as an unlicensed wholesaler whose total distribution has no known or knowable limits.
* To the left of the decimal point and there are no non-zero digits further left, or
* To the right of the decimal point and there are no non-zero digits further right.
No, whatever you've been taught, you can't make rules like that (besides which you've got the attempt wrong -- the first zero in 02.0 is certainly not significant, but your first bulleted rule says it is). If I make a measurement and it comes out as 20000 +/-2 then all of the zeros are significant. If it comes out at 20000 +/- 20 then the first three zeros are significant but the last one isn't. You can't tell just by looking at the number, you need more information. I could say "the measurement is 20000 to four significant figures", or I could be more precise and say "the measurement is 20000 +/-20" (I should probably add a confidence limit if I'm being really picky), but otherwise you can't tell.
Ok, perhaps this math 101 question is a way of illustrating it. What is 19999 to three significant figures? For a bonus mark, how can you tell it's to three significant figures?
Wikipedia gets it right http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures (at least at the moment -- you might have edited it by the time other slashdotters look :-) -- although there is a "bar convention" to show the significance of trailing zeros before the decimal point, it "is not universally used; it is often necessary to determine from context whether trailing zeros in a number without a decimal point are intended to be significant".
Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
1. Each of the songs in question was available for $0.99, so even if she did not purchase the songs, the direct damages to the record company are $0.99 x the number of songs in question.
2. Each of the songs in question was ALREADY available from hundreds of other P2P users online. This particular infringer did not make anything available that was not already available. Adding one more source improves performance by maybe 1% or so. Therefore, the total indirect damages to the record company is whatever the value of slightly faster downloads would be. And that would be how much???
And then we have this, let's say amusing press release from the RIAA. The short of it is that they would like ms. Thomas to go home and cry, long before the case has gone throgh the appeals routine. Their approach to presenting their view is that she is a horrible, horrible person for making use of the civil appeals etc. system.
ill pay $150 any time as damages. its more than what they deserve. but i ask, are they going to pay the damages in regard to the artists they ripped off for the last 60 years ?
Read radical news here
Most courts hold putative damages to 3X actual damages - 100X damages is generally held to be unconstitutionally excessive.
this is slashdot, nobody here gives a fuck about the content creators. we just want free shit, and whine like babies if we get caught stealing it.
I think the defendent (and many of the readers here) are confusing "reasonable" with "legal" or "constitutional".
No, her fines aren't particuarly reasonable when measured against objective harm. Presumtively there was some (since we can probably assume that somewhere, soembody, got at least one song from her), but it's unlikely any objective damages added up to 220,000.
Legally though, this DOES NOT MATTER.
In an infingement suit, the victim may ask for one of two things:
A) Actual damages (which they must prove)
B) Statutury damages ($750-$30,000 per violation)
In this case the RIAA asked for (and got) statutory damages. The way the law is written the underlying actual harm is not relevent to the award.
I know, I know RIAA is "evil". But here's the problem with the principle. Either copyrights establish a property right -- where the copyright holders own something, or it establishes a right to temporarily control behavior. In the first case (the one which we all oppose), the damages would in fact be only what the sale price of the song would be. But The Constitution gives The Congress power to establish copyrights only for the purposes of promoting useful sciences and arts. It does not give it the power to establish rights of ownership of intangible ideas (which is what copyrights and patents are). Why should we welcome the large judgment? Because it is clear indication that copyright violation is not stealing. It's a different type of crime. If one were to steal, one would only owe the victim compensation for the property lost (maybe times some single digit number as a punitive damage). In other words, this is not a tort. If we all settle on the fact that copyrights are temporary permits to restrict copying, then there is nothing wrong with an overly large fine on those who would break the restriction. Anyone who followed the case would remember that the minimum fine for each instance of copyright violation was $750. That alone recognizes the fact that copyright holders do not own intellectual property, but only own a temporary distribution right. And that's a good thing (tm).
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
What is the difference between "making available" music files on a publicly accessable location on the internet, and placing some CDs in a location which is not under lock and key and which conceivably could allow someone to steal them?
Interesting how she is pleading to the public for here to be freed even tough she is not imprisoned.
~ In Trust, We Trust ~
Dum dum dum honey what have you done
Dum dum dum it's the sound of my gun
Dum dum dum honey what have you done
Dum dum dum it's the sound it's the sound
Jammie got a gun
Jammie got a gun
Her whole world's come undone
From lookin' straight at the sun
What did her daddy do
What did he a put you through
They say when Jammie was arrested
They found him underneath the train
But man he had it comin'
Now that Jammie's got a gun
She ain't never gonna be the same
Jammie got a gun
Jammie got a gun
Her dog day's just begun
Now everybody is on the run
Tell me now it's untrue
What did her daddy do
He jacked the little bitty baby
The man has got to be insane... yeah
They say the spell that he was under
The lightnin' and the thunder
Knew that someone had to stop the pain
Run away run away from the pain
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Run away run away from the pain
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Run away run away run run away... wooh
Jammie got a gun
Jammie's got a gun
Her dog day's just begun
Now everybody is on the run
What did her daddy do
It's Jammie's last I.O.U.
She had to take him down easy
And put a bullet in his brain
She said 'cause nobody believes me
The man was such a sleaze
He ain't never gonna be the same
Run away run away from the pain
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Run away run away from the pain
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Run away run away run run away
Jammie's got a gun
Jammie got a gun
Jammie's got a gun
Go Leslie !!
"If a civil court feels that a defendant has wasted their time and the plaintiff's money by fighting bringing a meritless case"
I've been wondering about this for a while now.. Don't you also have a right "not to self-incriminate", which would make the statement above a moot point, or that one doesn't apply here?
...that none of the folks that thought it necessary to comment on the significant digit phrase has ever gotten laid.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
For my own purchases, I have stopped purchasing music for the last several years. I do not copy or download songs either. However, the problem I have run into recently is I now have a girlfriend and she is always compelling me to purchase music. No amount of explaination about how horrible these people are, she *needs* the latest hits. I don't suppose anyone has found a good set of arguements to convince thier significant others?
Municipalities have the right to control traffic and prevent jaywalking which is justified in principle since it potentially can cause harm on a busy street. However one would still argue that a fine of $212,000 is excessive and use facts like "no one was hurt" or "it occurred at 3 am when no cars were around", to bolster their case.
Similarly even if what you say is true about copyright violation, one could still argue that the fine is excessive and that the damage due to the improper behavior should be a factor in the determination of whether this is the case. Though, I see what you mean - the damage should calculated on how the violation affects the purpose of copyrights ie. "promoting useful sciences and arts", which is only weakly(?) related to the financial loss of the copyright holder. An appeal might force an admission of the subtle difference which would be a good thing(tm).
It would have been more like justice if, rather than offering them money, even $151, the defense offered to compensate them by reaming them with 20-inch cattle prods. I'm sure they pay more than $151 for that service now. Think of it as "the voice of the customer."
Pompous much? If you get pulled over for going 5 mph over the speed limit, wouldn't you think a $3,000 fine is a bit much? How about when you go to trial and it gets bumped up to $220,000? Get a sense of proportion, man.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
A judgement is not a fine. Judgements are harder to collect. Since Jammie is generally without means to pay $220,000 outright (low pay and no house), then the RIAA will have to resort to such approaches as garnishing her wages, and convincing a judge to grant them all money sent to her defense fund.
The RIAA will become like Goldman is to Simpson, and there are no gold rolodexes to take. Ms. Thomas is more photogenic and sympathetic, so the RIAA has a lot to lose in the court of popular opinion.
Anyone going into court "playing to lose" in the first round is a nincompoop.
The first round decides the facts - which - in all but the most extraordinary cases - are thereafter set in stone.
When damages are awarded based on a existing statutory formula - you have one chance to guess who holds the upper hand on appeal.
There is at least one juror who has already opened his mouth to the press and said something to the effect of "the punishment is so high because we want to send a message that this is a bad thing to do... mmmmKay..." Which... ::cough cough:: is against our Constitution in America.
The law of torts sets boundaries. It helps to define right and wrong, good and bad conduct in a civilized society.
The jury verdict always sends a message. To the plaintiff and defendant. To all those in a similar situation.
It is a bad thing to drive when drunk. To let your kids play with matches. To sell asbestos as a consumer product when you know it can cause cancer.
The problem is that this jury sent a message you didn't want to hear.
But if no one else was punished for what was a cooperative effort, then she can argue that she got an "unusual" punishment. The way bittorrent and other P2P system work is that the copier gets different pieces of the same file from different people.
If the RIAA wants to prosecute people who do file sharing, it's all right with me, but they should treat everybody in the same way. Suppose the guvmint said "let's not bother with prosecuting all murderers, let's just torture very slowly to death the first one we catch and let that serve as an example to all others".
Justice is balance...
That concept goes back hundreds of years in Philosophy literature. It's nearly the bedrock of every judicial system.
A fine of $222,000 is not in balance with her crime. She is asking for balance.
Considering that songs are going for $.99 each at a popular on-line store, I don't see how the $222,000 figure can withstand examination. What's the likelihood that she provided nearly a quarter of million unauthorized on-line copies?
It's Viagra...
buy it here
www.tdobson.net #### Dare to Dream #### blog.tdobson.net
Laziness and greed is not an effective defense. Not an argument you can sell to a jury.
People pocket ball point pens all the time. But when these cases go to court the plaintiff is always the guy who silk screens or laser engraves novelties as a living. The defendant the employee who walked off work each night carrying cartons of 1,000.
Sadly, no - if you want evidence of how brainwashed some people are, go here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/universalmusicgroup
I've given some of the videos the lowest possible rating, and made intelligent comments about why I feel UMG is rotten to the core. Most people don't see it as an attack on the label - they see it as an attack on the band. The notion of boycotting a band they love due to the behavior of the record label is completely alien to them.
You do get some people there who can make an argument against boycotting RIAA purchases. I don't want to give the impression that they're all airheads with a combined IQ of 3, since that's not entirely true.
(P.S. - If you do visit the UMG Youtube site, thumb down all the videos!!! It feels really, really, really, really, really, really good when you do it. It's the ultimate euphoric rush.)
Is it "viri" or "virii"?
"... don't give him/her an excuse to get angry
the cry of abuse victims
No, it's slightly different. It's more like running from a cop who is holding you at gunpoint. If you do it, will the cop shoot? Yes. If you're lucky, he may just pursue you and tackle you, depending on the threat level.
If you're legitimately breaking the law, then you are opening the door for a penalty of some kind. I don't endorse the RIAA at all, but even I acknowledge this. If they can collect penalties on you, that serves as a substitute for album sales. We don't want them finding any other means of getting that revenue. We want them to die a painful financial death. Boycotting them outright will do this. Pirating their music will not.
Follow me?
I do.
Of course, the RIAA will claim that the drop in sales from those who are boycotting them are the result of piracy and place more pressure on lawmakers to pass legislation to allow them to recoup their 'losses'. The lawsuits are not about generating revenue (they don't, they are a significant loss), they are a kind of marketing. They are fighting for mindshare, for the idea that sharing intangibles is 'wrong' (or "legitimately breaking the law"), for the political environment where they can dictate legislation (the DMCA in the US that cripples reverse-engineering), for the social acceptance of the inevitability of BigCorporation punishing you for doing something that it doesn't want.
Some time ago in NSW, Australia, the local Milk Board brought charges against a person who was found to have a milk crate in their possession (a stackable plastic crate used to deliver milk by the dairy's and as storage and/or furniture by just about everyone else). The crate is clearly marked as being the property of the dairy but the judge, in his comments noted that so many people assumed that it was ok to take them and use them that he was dismissing the case. He confessed that even he could not be sure that he did not have a couple in his garage.
Obeying laws that have been bought and paid for and which clearly do _not_ reflect what people consider to be 'wrong' is no virtue. Boycotting is unlikely to make the point you are hoping it will make and misses the point of these lawsuits - it's not about revenue, it's about social acceptance and behavioural change.
And in your case they have won. Here you are advocating (for the best of reasons) that people turn away from 'piracy' (their term, btw) and not expose themselves to the risk of lawsuit.
To return to my metaphor - the usual goal of the abuser is not the violence, it is the change in behaviour that the violence (or fear of that violence) creates.
I know you are a bit sensitive on this topic due to people copying your games. Which may cost you money. However, advocating that people should *settle* is just wrong. The whole point of the extortion by the RIAA is that they are making a business model out of forcing people in to settlements for a few 1000 dollars or face a penalty many times higher. This makes people scared. Not everything is black/white. She may be guilty. But of what *exactly*. The legal system can determine that, and set appropriate fines. Too few cases have been decided to know what is a good settlement deal. I applaud that she is fighting this. Morally it is much much more important for society that a good legal basis on this is established compared to the few songs she made available. Heck, I am actually considering financially supporting her because of this. Even although I know she is probably guilty of copying things. But then, so is 90% of the IT population, including myself.
If we boycott them outright, yes - they may turn around, and try and blame it on musical piracy, but if nobody is pirating them, it obviously makes it a much harder argument to make. People could respond "you're doing financially poorly because you suck, not because you're being pirated." This can be reinforced if people also buy more independent label music. I would LOVE to see independent music overtake the big four as the largest piece of the pie.
As far as musical piracy goes, do they have the right to try and prevent it? Yes! Whether you like the RIAA or not, they do have the legal right to prevent their music from being distributed freely to other people. My criticism of them is they often try and exercise this right even when they have a wimpy case that lacks credibility. Much of the time, it might as well be a witchhunt. As I've said before, they shouldn't be allowed to use the threat of a lawsuit as a form of extortion. Furthermore, even if they do have a strong case, the resulting fine should be a reasonable amount. (I'm thinking it should be closer to the size of a parking ticket. $9k per song is not a just punishment.)
If you don't like when the RIAA does the above, boycotting them is ALWAYS your consumer right. The major labels are slowing fizzling out. I would love to see this happen even faster. (It's not just a matter of boycotting the four big labels - support the little guys that don't behave like corporate asses. If you do this, it will help the music industry to evolve into something better than it currently is.)
That just leaves the question of whether or not "making available" constitutes a "distribution". I'll leave the finer points of that discussion to actual lawyers, but I will offer this: You: I have a box of cookies that I do not want. Please feel free to distribute them at the office.
Me: OK, I'll just put the opened box in the break room with a sign that says, "Free Take One (or a fraction thereof)!" Further, I will send out an email to everyone on my floor that says, "I have made available some cookies for anyone that wants! Enjoy! Oh shit, did I just say that?
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
This comment points out the importance of stating units. A dollar amount can be reasonably interpreted this way. However, the comment I replied to was talking in terms of raw numbers, simply because he forgot the unit. Again, like the period/dot mistake, confusion resulted because the poster failed to say what he meant. You can hand-wave some "clear from the context" argument, but it doesn't change the fact that there's less ambiguity if you do the right thing to begin with.
You'd better make damn sure it's not your neck in the noose before you call for a hanging.
What needs to happen is for someone to stand up and say "Yes, this woman downloaded music. But it's your corrupt laws that are at fault, serving the interests of criminal racketeers and destroying lives, and we're going to put a stop to it."
The jury heard these arguments - perhaps a trifle more refined - and rejected every one of them.
Her lawyers were persuaded to take a flawed case - and a flawed witness - the defendant herself - into court knowing it would expose her to the risk of an award of statutory damages.
If her life has been "destroyed" - which it has not - she has only to look into a mirror to find the reason.