Slashdot Mirror
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."
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?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
she was NOT the "victim" of the RIAA, they were judged to be the victim of her actions if anything.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
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.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
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!".
20/20 Hindsight is always better. Some attorneys have a tendency to throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks. -- I think that destroys credibility. On the other hand, some attorneys do not introduce theories that make sense because they do not quite understand it.
Fight Spammers!
She's not guilty of anything, this is a civil case. And as far as legality goes, they only proved she "made available" which has already been found to be inadequate evidence in prior cases (a fact the RIAA lawyers knew and were legally required to provide and did not...now there's a felony).
No legally she's not guilty. She was found LIABLE, this is a civil action NOT a criminal one, where the standards of proof are much looser.
My personal feeling is that one of her kids probably installed kazaa and maybe downloaded a few songs or traded some with friends...pretty harmless, and most of us have done worse. It's pretty clear that this woman had some pretty serious issues about how that turned around into trouble for her and had the grapefruits to fight the system.
The judge/jury verdict in this case is just one more example of how the decline of our social and political fabric is affecting ordinary americans. We are losing our country, and it's time to start taking it back.
merlin
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.
The issue of legality is one thing. As it stands, it is still illegal, and thus those who get caught should be held accountable to the law.
However, how they should be held accountable is another thing altogether. These lawsuits are the only thing I can think of where the damage cost is in the thousands for an item marketed for under a dollar.
It's like if you stole a pack of pens from Wally World. Not only were you charged for the price of the item, but were also charged the price of the pack for every potential customer who could have bought that particular pack, but didn't. It's stupid, yes, but essentially that's what's going on here.
It's not the product that's the damage, it's the potential damage that never occurred. It's "teach them a lesson and make a nice profit off of it". It's absolute, utter bullshit; hollow threats held up to somehow scare an entire market into quietly purchasing more albums, or something like that.
At the risk of using a fark cliche, THIS.
GP, Keep that up and pretty soon the University of Delaware will be hiring you to define a racist.
For linux tips: http://www.linuxtipsblog.com
My concern here is that she was found liable with absolutely no technical proof, other than what the RIAA presented, because she couldn't afford an expert witness. When you get to the heart of the matter, if she is telling the truth that her hard drive was replaced two weeks after the alleged incident, by Best Buy, not by her own accord, then without that forensic piece of evidence, how can she be found innocent or guilty? This should have been thrown out. I say this because if she is honest and there was never Kazaa software or other p2p software on her machine, doesn't that automatically make her innocent? How else do you illegally download music files without it? It's like an alibi. Although I think she is very foolish to have let the expert witness testimony go undocumented. I would have paid any amount to beat them. Of course, what was this expert going to say? That on her NEW harddrive, there was no sign of Kazaa? So what? My point again, without that harddrive, she has no defense, and the RIAA has no real proof.
The good times for vinyl were in the 50's and 60's.
The only competition, magnetic tape.
Vinyl does not look inexpensive when you adjust for inflation - and vinyl needs to be handled with great care, any serious collector has always spent the big bucks on turntables, tone arms, pickups, and so on.
This was a civil trial, not a criminal trial. In civil trials:
To sum up:
When you mix these terms up you sound ignorant, like when your mother confuses the difference between USB and ethernet cables or your sister confuses the terms uploading and downloading.
"Your mother" jokes to follow, I'm sure.
I am not a lawyer. This post does not constitute any form of legal advice.
$200,000 is way excessive.
But for those who would say that she's not guilty - too late for that. Legally, she is.
You now owe $400,000 for mistaking the difference between guilt and liability.
This was/is a civil case, guilt or innocence of any crime is not part of the proceedings. If there was a crime involved then this would be a criminal case instead.
This all about liability.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -Asimov
Don't get me wrong. In many ways I agree with you. But ultimately it is the right of the recording companies who own the tracks to set the price and condition for their sale. Just like, as a semi-pro photographer, it is my right to set the sale price and sale conditions of my photos. And if we don't like those prices or conditions, our only valid option is to not use the product. If one does not like the price on a loaf of bread, that does not give one the right to walk in to Safeway and steal a loaf. The fact that the recording industry sells an intangible product is irrelevant. And if the artists involved don't like the conditions or prices their music is distributed under, then they shouldn't have signed the contract giving the recording companies control of that distribution.
But regardless of that, this woman should not be the poster child for anti-RIAA sentiment. It was determined, in accordance with current law and by a jury of her peers, that she was indeed doing what she was accused of doing. That is not the definition of "victim". If anything, she's a perfect example of "if you can't do the time, don't do the crime".
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Er, maybe I'm missing something here, but wasn't this a civil judgement? And wouldn't that make it by definition not criminal?
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
... it is not an interview with Metallica!
I don't have to worry because I have a policy of not lying in federal court.
She's not black.
She's Ojibwe (Chippewa). She's a member of the Mille Lacs Band.
I can think of some "donations" I'd like to make against the RIAA. ;-)
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.
I think we should start calling them by their correct names Sony BMG, Universal, EMI, Warner - SUEW (or WUSE).
I had three boys and caught them on "inapropriate" BBS systems more than once, but I had the computer in the living room, right by the kitchen door. Every single "inappropriate" BBS I caught them connected to was being run by a schoolmate with a computer in his room. And believe me, they were pretty raunchy.
Fast-forward to modern times. I have a divorced friend whose son lives with his single mom. Let's call the kid "Johnny". Johnny has a lot of after-school activities, plus his grandparents live a short distance away. So Johnny is often out for an hour or two after school. Johnny's best friend lives next door. He frequently comes over, and even if Johnny is not home, his mom lets the friend come in and use Johnny's computer. It's a good one; I know because I built it. On two occasions my friend (Johnny's dad) came by to visit, and found Johnny not home, but the neighbor kid in Johnny's room, on porno sites. Looking over the browser history, we can see that the only times such sites were visited were when Johnny was not home. So is it not possible that Johhny's friend could also install Kazaa and nobody would have any idea that he had done so? And even if Johnny knew about it, how likely is a 12-year-old to rat out his best friend?
This does not absolve Johnny's mom of responsibility for what goes on in her home, but it does make it entirely possible that she quite sincerely has no idea that anything untoward is going on. How many of YOUR parents knew everything you or your friends were up to when their eyes were not on you?
The RIAA does not represent the artists, it represents the record companies (who scarcely have the artists' best interests at heart). Hence its name : The Recording Industry Assoc of America.
It's hard to keep all these people and cases straight, but isn't this the woman who was very clearly absolutely guilty? [...] if I recall the case, she was the one who we all agreed was clearly completely guilty.
I don't recall agreeing to that. Who's this "we all" who agreed that?
So in what way is she the victim, again?
She's just as much a victim as the old lady who lost her house because she didn't pay some minor neighborhood association fees, or anyone else who's been hit by disproportionate judgments or sentences as a result of any civil or criminal court case.
Justice isn't something that only saints are entitled to.
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?
It's not up to the RIAA to set, or to even be directly involved in, setting penalties for breaking the law. They're entitled to actual damages and court costs, and that's it.
If the RIAA had pressed charges against her or convinced a prosecutor to press charges against her in a criminal court, and she was found guilty of breaking the law in a criminal court, then she would have been subject to punishment. The fact that they wouldn't have a hope in hell of getting that isn't relevant... that is the only avenue they should be able to use to see that someone is punished for breaking the law.
In addition:
The way I see it is she paid $2,000 for the activity
If she had stolen those songs from a store, then it's unlikely the penalty would have been as high as $2000. The penalty for petty theft for a first offense is usually in the range of hundreds of dollars, not thousands.
You make some excellent points, right up to
Fair use (or "fair dealing" in some jurisdictions) is an important set of exceptions to copyright owners' right to control copying. It means that copyright does not trump free speech, by allowing parody. It helps the public by allowing reviewers to criticise dreadful works, without fear of spurious copyright lawsuits. It promotes research, education and the spread of knowledge by allowing limited private copying for such purposes.Even though in some countries fair use also allows you to make compilations of your CDs to listen to in your car, fair use is not just for pirates.
In fact, what pirates do is generally NOT fair use.
Paul "Say no to feeping creaturism"
It has to do with a breech of rights, making it law, so where it is NOT a felony by any means or even a "criminal" case it is still a crime. It's certainly not illicit but still. I argue that an entity's rights are debatable and not concrete by way of something as faulty as copyright law. A person with a copyright on material has been given monopoly over the item and they may subject whomever they sell the product to, whatever license they choose per use. The problem comes in when one must argue what constitutes use with music. The other concept to take into mind is that she was not (a) making a profit or (b) claiming the material as her own. If this is correct and she was not (a) nor (b) then one must further question the damages imposed upon the woman, 220,000 would be excessive, even for prosecuting a street vendor of "bootleg" music. I would like to see someone make an argument against this. Another interesting viewpoint, though very unpopular, is that she never bought the CD's and should therefore not be subject to the conditions of the license. If I found a knife on the street would I be subject to the original owners contracts with the manufacturer? How is it theft if one found it freely and made no attempt to hide one's acts??
"Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." -Asimov
So even mentioning the race factor makes me a troll...
I guess I live in a different world than those who happened to have mod points. For the record, I was born in Minnesota - and actually not terribly far from where this occurred, so I do have a little bit of insight into the community. I certainly wasn't implying that anybody assumed Jammie was guilty based on race - merely that race was a potential factor in weighing her defense or in deciding how much it was worth arguing for her in the jury room. It doesn't matter if she was black, indian, samoan, or anything else - the potential for race playing into things is there.
It was hardly the only point that I raised.
Refresh my memory, but when you use an mp3 encoder to convertthe information from a cd track to a computer data file, is it considered a derivative work subject to copyrights? What is the law that allows us to tape record radio songs?