Slashdot Mirror
Thomas' Testimony and the RIAA's Near-Fatal Error
eldavojohn writes "The long and torrid trial of Jammie Thomas is in its second stage and in full swing. Yesterday, two major events took place: Thomas gave her surprising testimony and the RIAA was threatened for not disclosing new information to the opposing counsel. Thomas claimed she didn't know what KaZaA was before the trial started. She also admitted that the hard drive handed over to investigators was different than the one that was in her computer during the time of infringement. Her testimony from the first trial was that 'the hard drive replacement had taken place in 2004 and that the drive had not been swapped again since.' This is problematic because the new hard drive had a manufacturing date of 2005. The RIAA had its own troubles, almost losing all evidence from a particular witness when they added an additional log file to evidence without the defense being notified of it. The judge mercifully only removed that new evidence from the trial. It was related to whether or not an external hard drive was ever connected to the computer."
If she is innocent until proven guilty - why does she have to give up her hard-drive and "prove" her innocence? Nobody is forced to prove innocence. The RIAA should be given the challenge, without her hard drive, of proving guilt. /shrug (IE: external records, etc.)
I think the focus here should be for the defence (may actually be, I don't know) that the fees to pay be reduced to an "acceptable" level, meaning not the life-ruining, impossible-to-pay-unless-you-re-gazillionaire fees demanded by the RIAA.
She "stole" 24 songs. Let her pay a fine of a few hundreds bucks and fucking be done with it. Asking for half a million in damages should be laughed at by any sensible court system, and that's the real problem here.
People fight at the level and in the area they can. We try to fight corporate greed that has nothing to do with music and songs anymore. It's the suppression of our rights as customers. It's the fact that regular people are being targeted by the RIAA, being ruined and bankrupted by a broken justice system with obsolete laws that favors corporations to the detriment of their own customers.
Global economic meltdown cannot be fixed by computer nerds.
Fraudulent elections in Iran cannot be fixed by computer nerds.
Militants in Pakistan cannot be fixed by computer nerds.
North Korea going insane cannot be fixed by computer nerds.
Also, you're no better. Instead of writing a stupid post on a website, you should have tried to do something about the global economic meltdown, the fraudulent elections in Iran, the militants in Pakistan or North Korea going insane.
The HD manufacturing date could be argued out. Those understanding HD recovery also understand that there are scenarios where she could meet her legal requirements and provide a different drive, or she could have been giving the failure date, not the replacement date. We must also take into consideration that a) maybe she isn't the one who swapped it and b) this is a sticker, not digital info from the drive.
All that aside I agree she has her work cut out for her. On firs tread it seems both sides may be pushing the law a bit. I do have a couple questions though:
Has the question of which Kazaa client was installed been answered? There were malware versions of the client, so I would assume these would need to be ruled out.
Has the possibility of the Windows XP "at hack" been resolved? I know this is a real stretch, but those understanding this fairly simple exploit could get around her password. If the computer had been exploited in anyway, it's completely reasonable that the username on Kazaa would match the machine username.
It is obvious the RIAA has set out to make an example of Thomas. If she's guilty then it's understandable that they had to choose -someone-. However, Americans have proven our disregard for our credit scores. All this will prove is that they can hold a big slot on your report, and my assumption is most creditors would begin to glance over them like medical debts if the RIAA makes them common.
-rant over-
Where genius and insanity become confused true wisdom is found
The RIAA's evidence is compelling.
The IP address was hers, with no WiFi, no NAT, and a password-protected Windows box
The username chosen was the one she's used online traditionally for 16 years.
The problem is, the nearly inevitible $100K verdict will not be justice, even if it is legally correct.
Test your net with Netalyzr
In this case, a guilty verdict isn't at all a bad thing, if the damages are reasonable. If damages of $200,000 or more are awarded, then the RIAA strategy is validated. They prove that they can win, and that they can win significant damages. It would also give credence to their "Settle or we'll sue for all your money" letters, as an award of that scale could easily wipe anyone out, house and all.
For Thomas, the endgame is the reverse. I'm not at all sure she can show that she is innocent, given her testimony - which is a shame, but not unexpected. Her goal must be to somehow limit the damages to a reasonable amount. Doing so sets precedent - if the RIAA can expect only a few thousand for a case that goes to trial, then it ceases to be profitable for them to try. The settlements will become more affordable, or may go away - why spend $1,000 on an attorney to get a $500 settlement back?
Were I in Thomas's place, I would be far more worried about the Perjury thing, which is an actual criminal offense. She said one thing under oath, and then said another thing under oath, and the statements are not compatible. So, we're in a position where she might win the trial (or get reduced and affordable damages), but end up in jail with a massive fine for lying under oath. Not good.
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
Where we don't care about anything important like the global economic meltdown or Iran's fraudulent elections or militants in Pakistan or North Korea going insane.
Nope, all we care about is being able to unabashedly steal music and then yell at the people selling it when they try to protect their interests.
Way to rage against the machine, assholes! How about you try fighting for something truly meaningful instead?
You may not be able to see how this affects your civil liberties, or your rights to fair use and the right to not be treated like a criminal, however some people may not be ignorant to such things and for this they do not deserve your simplistic nickelodeon subjugation. (pwndhippy). What are you doing to make certain that there are no tainted elections in Iran? What did you do when there were tainted elections in North America? You should be grateful that people are out there trying to safeguard the civil liberties which you are too ignorant to protect, and I suppose they should be thankful when they have you marching in the streets in IRAN holding hands with the people and counting out their ballots. If you are not able or willing to do this yourself then you are just another armchair general sending someone elses children off to align the world to your moral compass. In other words little man, talk is cheap. So either make the changes your bitching about here, or can the John Wayne act.
Where we don't care about anything important like the global economic meltdown or Iran's fraudulent elections or militants in Pakistan or North Korea going insane.
Read the masthead - we're nerds, not dorks, dork.
Nope, all we care about is being able to unabashedly steal music and then yell at the people selling it when they try to protect their interests
No, we are incensed at the mainstream music industry's blatant evil, including its bribery of Congress to get copyright lengths to insane levels. Personally, I will not respect any copyright on a work made more than a quarter century ago. Most of us DON'T infringe copyright, even copyrights on works that should be in the public domain.
You are free to consider anything I wrote moret than 20 years ago in the public domain, and anything newer as having a CC license.
Free Martian Whores!
What does her personal profit have to do with it?
If a new popular book gets published (say a surprise 8th Harry Potter or something), and I print my own version and just give away copies on the street, that's still infringement, even if I don't personally profit (actually, a loss with the printing costs).
It doesn't matter if I've personally profited, the publishing company (and the author and other associated people) have lost money on my infringement.
There are questions about how much the damages should be (certainly lower than what the RIAA is asking for) but IF infringement is proven, then there should be a punishment for it.
Maybe it works differently in some other parts of the world, but that's certainly the way it works on the US and Europe. That's the whole point of having copyright protection in the first place.
(Assuming a first time offense) At worst, I'll probably spend a few months on probation and lose about $1,000 in legal fees/fines. If I download the same CD online (which, for the record, didn't cost the record company shiping or a CD) I'll get slammed with hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines. I don't care if she's guilty -- she shouldn't suffer any more than someone who stole the same music off a store shelf.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
Worked for Gandhi.
Worked for Prohibition.
Worked for national speed limit of 55 mph.
Seems to be working for pot.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
So, rather than work to fix the law by taming your congresscritters, you prefer to break the law because it is easier than actually fixing the law and then whine when you get caught that the law is unfair. I am sure that will work out great and get things fixed up in no time.
"Voting for justice is as ineffective as wishing for justice; what you need to do is to actually be just. This is not to say that you have an obligation to devote your life to fighting for justice, but you do have an obligation not to commit injustice and not to give injustice your practical support."
"In a constitutional republic like the United States, people often think that the proper response to an unjust law is to try to use the political process to change the law, but to obey and respect the law until it is changed. But if the law is itself clearly unjust, and the lawmaking process is not designed to quickly obliterate such unjust laws, then the law deserves no respect and it should be broken."
- Henry David Thoreau
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
No sig for the moment.
> Copyright infringement isn't a criminal offense.
Of course it is. If the volume is enough, and/or it's for profit, or pre-release then maybe the state/federal prosecutor's office will go after you.
Slashdot has had several stories about people facing jail time in criminal copyright cases.
> Where is the problem with the judge adjudicating that $500 is the penalty? It's stiff
> enough that Jammie will feel the pinch yet not so much she faces eternal punishment
> for what is, after all, a minor offence.
Considering that she's $130K in debt to her last lawyer, even if the judge let her off with $0.01 of damages she's still faces the "eternal punishment" of having to deal with a lawyer for as long as he wants her to try to pay off the debt (I get the impression that her ability to do that would mean that might be "for the rest of her life").
I don't recall ghandi going out of his way to stay anonymous. In fact, he made a big deal out of publicly breaking the law, and accepted the punishment to show how the law was unjust.
I don't recall this woman going out of her way to stay anonymous.
I don't recall Dave1.0 mentioning anything about anonymity.
In fact, you seem to make a big deal out of some arbitrary fact that isn't particularly applicable because you have a narrative going on in your head that is pretty well disconnected from reality.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Ghandi proposed non-violent civil disobedience as an effective weapon against injustice.
No matter how bad the rhetoric of the **AA's gets, almost no one considers file sharing violent.
But it is civil disobedience.
And yes, you are correct that Jammie hasn't reached Ghandi's spiritual level yet. But that was already clear to, er, most of us, even the poster to whom you replied.
Of course, if RIAA crucifies her enough times, who knows what might happen.
Speaking as a former warranty tech, customers almost *never* remember when their last service was. 6 months off is pretty average.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)