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

I'm glad...

[Enderandrew]

I'm glad that this person is not thinking solely of themselves, but of further cases down the line. They are fighting on principle against the RIAA to help other people out.

I wonder if people can donate to their legal fund?

Re:I'm glad...

[Enderandrew]

I'm confused. You admit to piracy. You don't think people should be tried for piracy, but you don't support her?

For the record, I pirate, but I don't claim to have moral superiority in doing so. I understand it is illegal, and try to financially support products I enjoy to ensure those products will continue to be produced.

I don't subscribe to the theory that it is okay to break the law so long as there are worse criminals out there. I simply acknowledge that as an adult, I don't follow all the rules. I understand that it is wrong, I just don't care enough. The same goes for jaywalking, or speeding.

Re:I'm glad...

[Fulcrum of Evil]

She wasn't brought up on charges, she was sued. I don't really care about her specifically, I just want the RIAA blunted.

Re:I'm glad...

[SL Baur]

if she's guilty then she should have known they had a mountain of evidence. But they do not have a "mountain of evidence" as our own NewYorkCountryLawyer has proved in court. See http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/03/deposition-of-riaas-expert-available.html
(I can't find the slashdot article where this was posted).

They employ a bunch of computer dufuses and their "evidence" is most suspect, but don't take anyone's word for it. Read the deposition of their "expert".

Enough with the spin

[timmarhy]

please can you posters cut the retarded anti RIAA spin you put on EVERYTHING?

she was NOT the "victim" of the RIAA, they were judged to be the victim of her actions if anything.

Re:Enough with the spin

[Tim C]

Well, if you think paying $20 for a DRM'ed CD full of crappy, with low-audio quality music at the same price that a vinyl disc in the old times is NOT a ripoff, then I ask what the fuck are YOU on.

So it's a rip off, so don't buy it. That doesn't give you the right to break the law by copying it without permission.

Re:Enough with the spin

[hackstraw]

So it's a rip off, so don't buy it. That doesn't give you the right to break the law by copying it without permission.

Everyone in the US is breaking the law to some degree. Breaking the law is orthogonal to rights, morals, etc. OK, it may not be completely orthogonal, but they are not the same thing. In my area, exotic pets like rabbits, snakes, etc, are illegal, but they sell them in the stores. Nobody cares, but if the police get bored one day, they might start busting people for it. In most of the states in the US, sex is practically illegal. I've even heard where a husband sued his wife because she never had sex with him, and she was found guilty of something.

The thing is that there is supply and demand and a free market, and using things like extortion and racketeering and whatnot used to be things that "bad guys" like the mafia used to do, but today this is a new business model, and I think its in our right to pick and choose the most affordable and convenient way to obtain music.

Look at television. Its subsidized by ads _AND_ people are willing to pay extra to have a wire installed in their house to get extra stuff. Today, that is a viable business model, and it works. Sure people "steal" stuff that is broadcast for free over the air and redistribute it for free, but its not their agenda to make their business model by fear and lawsuits.

The music industry simply has not established a good or a service in over a decade. I guess there is satellite radio, but compared to TV/movies where I can choose between renting, on demand, some internet streaming/downloads, over the air, cable or satellite. What kinds of options are there for music?

Music is slightly different than TV/movies, but the thing is that its a commodity item that can be sold at a market price just like anything else, and the industry simply has not come up with a way to make money off of the stuff, and its their job as business people to come up with a viable business model or they simply go out of business. There is no right to make money.

I've known a person who owned a retail outlet in a college town for selling music, and they went out of business. They said it was OK. They said it was due to downloads, and it was OK, and that times have changed. I don't know any blacksmiths or coppersmiths today either. Nor have I heard of them gathering together and suing for their right to work with iron or copper.

Times change. People want music, that is clear. These people simply need to figure out a method of distribution that works today, or else they simply need to find a new job.

Re:Enough with the spin

[westlake]

Support indie bands instead

This works only if the geek's indie band defines your tastes in music forever.

Re:Enough with the spin

[HybridJeff]

"If the law is unjust, you have the RESPONSIBILITY to break the law."

fixed

Re:Enough with the spin

[Targon]

What most people find offensive is that the artists deserve the money, and they don't get it from the sale of CDs or downloads. If even 50 percent of the price went to the artists who make the music, then there would be less support of piracy.

Now, there is a clear issue these days when it comes to the costs involved in retail. Starbucks may charge a huge amount, but a good chunk of the money goes into lease prices for the location and paying employees and utilities, not to mention supplies. This is a part of the reason Amazon and other online companies can sell things cheaper, because they have a lower overhead. That still doesn't excuse the record labels. The costs to manufacture a CD have dropped since the early 1990s, so all the increased costs we see are about money going into the pockets of the record labels. If the artists do not get more money when the record labels have increased the prices, that shows where the real problem is.

As for fair use, as long as I do not duplicate a CD with the intent to play it at the same time in multiple locations, there should be no violation of any rules. I should be able to make one copy of a CD for my car, one for work, and one for home(so the original stays protected). As long as other people do not have access to the duplicates while I am at another location, there really should be no issue.

I do see an issue with lower quality of downloaded music when purchased legally from an online store, even if most people can not hear the difference, it is still an inferior version compared to what you get on a CD. And then, there is the question of how much money the artists get from legally downloaded music from these purchases. If only one or two cents out of each dollar goes to the artist, that really doesn't help make a good case for ANYONE supporting the RIAA. Take the money the RIAA is paid and give it back to the artists who deserve more than they get.

i learned it from dick cheney

[User 956]

my attorney filed a motion to have the verdict thrown out or to have the judgment reduced based on the constitutionality of the judgment.

That would be true, except that in this country the constitution is not so much a law, as it is a theory.

Re:Victim?

[Spy der Mann]

So in what way is she the victim, again?

In the way that she was asked to pay $222,000 instead of a couple thousand (or even some hundred dollars, taking into account the price of $0.70 per downloaded song the RIAA gets).

In short, the RIAA wants her not to pay them back what they "lost", but they want to make an example of her. Just like the UFO hacker who was treated like a terrorist by the Bush administration.

Re:Victim?

[Spy der Mann]

So kind of like when you steal a candy bar from a store and the only punishment is to pay back the 55 cents for the candy bar?

Well isn't that called restitution? yes, there must be a punitive damage. But come on, two fucking hundred dollars? The punishment does NOT fit the "crime" (it was NOT a crime, the lawsuit was civil, not criminal) in any way.

Re:Victim?

[vux984]

So kind of like when you steal a candy bar from a store and the only punishment is to pay back the 55 cents for the candy bar?

Your right, its more than $.55. But what is the actual punishment for that? Is it it $200,000? No. I didn't think so either. Not even if you stole 24 of them. Not even if you stole 240 of them. Seems to me $220,000 is right out of line.

The way I see it is she paid $2,000 for the activity and she paid $220,000 as a penalty for trying to run and hide under the cloak of the anti-RIAA movement to get herself out of a jam

I see. So if you stole 24 candybars, and then plead not guilty, and tried to get sympathy because you stole them from WalMart who is disliked by a big chunk of society, so you tried to ride that wave of discontent -- THEN you should have to pay $220,000??

Sorry, nope still I don't see it. You still only stole 24 candybars. Your penalty should be based on what you actually did, not the defence strategy. If you want to punish her for "trying to hide under the cloak of the anti-RIAA movement" charge her separately with that, and convict her for it. Otherwise get bent. (Good luck with that by the way, since its not even remotely illegal. And besides the RIAA itself is a cloak the labels hide under to hide from any negative PR blowback for what they do while wearing that cloak.)

Re:Victim?

[DustyShadow]

The "making available" argument comes from one case in the 4th Circuit that applied the theory against a library that made unlawful copies of a piece of art available. Most who are familiar with the case believe it was supposed to be limited to libraries only. It was really a stretch to find liability. The copyright statute says:

"(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;"
17 USC 106

Nothing in the statute says anything about "making available" to the public. In fact, in that same opinion, the court said "In order to establish 'distribution' of a copyrighted work, a party must show that an unlawful copy was disseminated 'to the public'" Even after saying that, it went ahead and made the library liable for infringement because they had no record keeping in place and therefore could not prove if the work had or had not been checked out. There was no proof showing that it had been checked out or seen by the public. It'll be nice to have another appeals court look at this issue. It would be even nicer to have them read the statute correctly and require proof of distribution.

and by the way, it's "plaintiff," not "prosecution." Copyright infringement isn't a crime.

Thanks, but no thanks

[westlake]

I'm glad that this person is not thinking solely of themselves, but of further cases down the line.

The jury left the box convinced she was a liar, and showed absolute contempt for her defense as a whole. The most she can expect to accomplish now is to minimize the damage.

The one fact that can't be erased is that a jury found for The Big Bad Wolf and not Little Red Riding Hood. That should - but almost certainly won't - silence talk of Jury Nullification.

The jury is small-C conservative. It believes in the rule of law. It does not share the Geek's sense of entitlement.

You can win on the facts. You cannot win on your "right" to a free media fix. Your "right" to lay out a free smörgåsbord of "The Transformers" and twenty other flicks for ten million of your closest friends on the P2P nets.

Re:Thanks, but no thanks

[Enderandrew]

She is a liar. If I recall she blamed a neighbor for leeching a wireless signal when she wasn't even using a wireless router. And personally I don't believe anyone is entitled or right for stealing products.

However, she is a kid with no money. They aren't really going to be able to collect anything, and if parents are smart, they'd look into a good bankruptcy lawyer to protect what they can. Continuing to fight the case isn't about her, because she was wrong. However, that doesn't make the RIAA right.

Did they obtain evidence legally? Did they entrap her? Have the RIAA used illegal tactics such as illegal file sharing themselves?

Someone needs to continue this fight and stop the RIAA and see the bigger picture.

Wrong

[knuth]

She's not black.

She's Ojibwe (Chippewa). She's a member of the Mille Lacs Band.

Seriously People...

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the RIAA and all, but I can't agree with what is essentially outright stealing. Where is the support for this "victim of the riaa" coming from. If I scanned an entire book and put it online, or ripped DVDs and put them online, or rip CDs and put them online, its wrong I would deserve what I got. Stop spouting shit about how she should get off. Frankly, I would make her pay the cost of all songs downloaded, plus the RIAAs legal fees. Yes, I hate the RIAA for what they have done, and think that they deserve to be sued into the ground, but are you trying to tell me that this person is a victim?

I will support the computerless grandma, or a 11 year old kid, but my vote is for the RIAA here.