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's NOT a victim for having to pay $222,000 because she was "making available" 24 songs? Give me a break. The RIAA are THIEVES and murderers of family lives. They deserve utter and complete financial destruction. With fireworks if possible.
Sigh. No. Wrong.
She was judged to be LIABLE, not guilty, based on the fact that she had offered files for upload, despite earlier cases where such an offering was not considered to be fact enough to prove infringement. A fact which was hidden from the trial judge even tho it was known to the RIAA attorneys, who should have disclosed that to the court.
This should be tossed on that fact alone.
Now, when will we see the RIAA sue EMI?
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.
Why do people keep supporting these F---s? Stop feeding their legal tirades; stop buying their music, stop copying their music. The last thing you want to do is make their music more popular. Support indie bands instead, put your money where your mouth is and hopefully that will help create a new music-based economy that isn't so draconian.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
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.
And here's a proof that the RIAA are *NOT* representing the artists:
Uh...you modded this flamebait? The parent is about as correct as correct gets. You feel it is appropriate to cast a person into financial ruin over what amounts to ~3*24MB of data? We'll call it 100MB for grins.
:(
Financial ruin for the rest of your days over 100MB. Fair? Not even close. $222,000. $2220/MB. Those had best have been some seriously good songs to be worth $6-7000 per song.
The RIAA has been playing an extortion game all along. The settlement was probably not fair either, and anyone in their right minds knows that. No, what needs to happen is a large-scale act of civil disobedience (and in reality, that's already happening) and whether or not this one person gets things set straight or not could very well set the course for how this all plays out here in the US. I don't necessarily buy into the poster-child image, but anyone that the RIAA has come after for downloading can wear the title of "victim" and be correct in doing so IMHO. If you're not pressing CD's or running a large-scale piracy ring, they have no business coming after you. I don't care WHAT the law says. I wish I had the magic wand that fixed the fact that they aren, but I don't.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.)
If you want to be taken seriously, you need to have some grip on reality.
1) CDs are not $20
2) CDs are not DRMed, and haven't been for a while now. Even when there was DRM, it was only on a handful of CDs.
3) The quality of music on CDs is not low quality.
4) Trent is the exception, not the rule. Successful artists like Trent can afford to go it alone and don't speak for the vast majority of artists on record labels who are struggling to make it. For evidence, you only need to look at which and how many artists are speaking out. There simply isn't an outcry, and one artist doesn't make a movement.
5) Anyone who suggests $10-$13 is a rip-off for a CD needs to think about the fact that that is the same as 3 cups of coffee at starbucks and often less than the price of a new book. Think about the amount of use you get out of an album.
6) Read what the jurors wrote. She's clearly guilty, and even her legal strategy acknowledges that. What she's trying to do now is get her sentence reduced.
People who make creative works for a living deserve to get paid, if that's what they want (Radiohead and others can give their stuff away for free if they want). The rights of the many (pirates) don't outweigh the rights of the few (creators). No one is fooled by the indignation of those who wave the banner of "fair use". Everyone knows the vast majority of these people are just pirates, trying to protect their own hides.
This works only if the geek's indie band defines your tastes in music forever.
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.
fixed
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.