First RIAA Case Victim Finally Speaks Out

An anonymous reader writes with a link to an article at P2P Net about the very first victim of the RIAA's file-sharing litigation sweep. The site gave Jammie Thomas the chance to explain in her own words what the last two years have been like. She recounts her experiances with subpoenas, Best Buy, and most of all, stress. Even after all this time, her case is still in legal limbo: "As for what's next, my attorney filed a motion to have the verdict thrown out or to have the judgment reduced based on the constitutionality of the judgment. This is not an appeal, this is a post trial motion. We are currently waiting for the plaintiffs to file their response to our motion. The judge will not make a decision on that motion until after the plaintiffs have filed. The timeline for appeals is we have 30 days after the judge decides all post trial motions before we file any appeals ... I do know personally I cannot allow my case to end this way, with this judgment. My case will be used as a sledgehammer by the RIAA to force other people caught in the RIAA's driftnets to settle, even if they are or are not guilty of illegally sharing music online."

Comments

Victim?

[Seumas]

It's hard to keep all these people and cases straight, but isn't this the woman who was very clearly absolutely guilty? I may disagree with the criminalization of downloading music over the internet and all, but it is apparently currently decided that it _is_ completely illegal. And if I recall the case, she was the one who we all agreed was clearly completely guilty.

So in what way is she the victim, again? I mean, I know it's hard to imagine any parent being guilty of anything, because people who give birth are the most saintly, self-sacrificing people on the planet and all . . . but I'm pretty sure she was clearly guilty from day one. And apparently, so did the courts.

It's unfortunate that this was the first real attempt to prove either side in a court of law, in the vast sea of other potential cases that could have stepped up and presented the opposing side. From what I've understood of this case, it was more an issue of "oh shit, I got caught doing something clearly illegal -- I better jump on that EFF information wants to be free bandwagon thing I heard about!".

Re:Things are a little more clear

[Score Whore]

The very first thing I noticed when I saw the article was that this was a black woman in Minnesota. We're not talking Mississipi, but I have to imagine the possibility that race played a role, given what I know about Minnesota.

First, you should immediately go see an eye doctor. She's not black. Second, you should immediately go live some life and get a little perspective before it's becomes too much of a habit of playing the race card immediately when you sit down at the table.

Re:Enough with the spin

[timmarhy]

No she isn't a victim. she commited a crime and got done for it. wether the punishment fits the crime or not is another matter, but i'm sick of this stupid bullshit spin you people feel you have to put on EVERYTHING concerning *AA. it makes you as bad as they are with their stupid ass "you wouldn't steal a movie" ads.

if the *AA really are SO bad you don't need to make such stupid claims all the time, do you?

Victim?

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

Bias much? She allegedly did the offence, she gets a trial. The (alleged) victim here is the RIAA here. And they are undoubtedly victims, due to the all the millions of dollars worth of pirated works that are transferred illegally that they fail to be reimbursed for.

Thank god...

[jamar0303]

If it weren't for this article I wouldn't remember to download all the stuff I can while I'm still living in China. I also get to install OSx86 legally on my PC here, unlike America, where EULA is on equal standing with the law.

Mod me down all you like. I'm used to it from Mac-haters and from RIAA apologists. It's natural when you're saying something controversial.