Slashdot Mirror
In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson. Also, neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory — as opposed to actual — damages. No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional." Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT by T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica, too.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Third time's a charm.
$1.92M for 24 songs is unreasonable? What makes you say that?
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.
Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
She should have settled at any point during this whole mess. In fact, the RIAA's spokesperson gave this comment right after the verdict was read today. "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." That seems pretty reasonable.
The damages are enormous, but the legal fees that the RIAA has amassed need to be recouped in some fashion. Jammie was stupid to think that the damages would go down. I've been following the case, and she has been caught lying several times.
Everyone likes to dogpile on the RIAA, but they are only defending the rights that the law has provided them. They didn't suggest any fine; the jurors decided on it by themselves. You can argue till the cows come home about whether what she did should be a crime, but it's the law and given the facts in the case, the burden of proof in civil trials (it only has to be more likely that she did it than not), and the facts of the case; a verdict of liable was the only reasonable conclusion. I'm disappointed in her counsel; trying to make a statement on copyright law and the shenanigans was irresponsible. Kiwi did a horrible disservice to her.
Moral of the story: don't break the law, and if you do, try to avoid lawyers, they are very expensive. It was foolish to reject the initial $5000 settlement. Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence, which is very important in civil trials.
2 party out of state bad checks?
Do they just keep having new trials whenever juries award supposedly crazy damages? Or do the damages just get lowered/reversed on appeal?
Why didn't the defendant call their expert witnesses?
Seems we get unreasonable vedicts every day without all of them causing a do-over.
speechless.
Something definitely doesn't sound right. Given that the making available argument was already shown to be bad, how can they still get her? And what the hell was the jury thinking?
Just why is it, NYCL, that you're one of the very few voices crying out in the wilderness? Aren't all lawyers bound by oath and ethics to do the same thing you do? And just how many lawyers are there in the USA?
Where are they?
AC
Absolutely unbelievable.... F!@# it...why not go for a full million per track...
It looks like classic civil disobedience. Break am unjust law, get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court, all the way to the Supreme.
That, or massive incompetence of her defense.
Fellow pirates,
I implore you to continue your campaign on Slashdot to make me feel less guilty. I know that not paying someone for their work is wrong, but if Slashdot posts enough articles bashing the RIAA/MPAA/copyright law/whatever, it's easier for me to accept what I'm doing emotionally by visualizing someone else as the bad guy. Once on the forefront of relevant IT news, Slashdot is now a lame repository of mainstream pseudoscience links and pro-piracy articles to appease a dwindling readership. I am overjoyed.
Even though the open source community is about giving back as much as it is taking, I'm just going to take. I'm a human leech with self-serving beliefs and an inability to empathize with content creators who are trying to make a living.
I don't believe John Carmack should be paid for his work. I'm going to sit on my ass while he spends years coding the next advanced 3D engine from id Software. When their game comes out, I'm going to pirate it without giving a second thought about paying John Carmack for his work. I'm just so used to pirating things now that I take it for granted. If anyone mentions John Carmack to make me feel guilty, I'll look for Slashdot articles that bolster my viewpoint, such as this one, amusingly posted in the Your Rights Online section even though none of my rights are being violated.
According to that study, it's okay to not pay people for their work because there's some vague hope that they'll make up the difference in income through "concerts and speaking tours." Artists are now forced to take time out of doing what they want to do. John Carmack must stop programming in order to make money from programming. It's genius. The study does exactly what I need it to--make me feel less guilty when I pirate. We've managed to stretch the truth so far that we're actually telling ourselves that we're helping artists by not paying them for their work. Excellent job.
I look forward to Slashdot telling me everyday who the bad guys are. Even though Slashdot has sued websites in the past for copyright infringement, and they've pretended to care about plagiarism, we're supposed to go along with Slashdot's anti-copyright agenda. I'm okay with that hypocrisy because it serves me. It makes me feel less guilty when I pirate something. Remember, I'm not the bad guy--the RIAA/MPAA/whatever is. That makes it okay for me to not pay people for their work.
EULAs and copyright licenses are wrong, yet the GPL is good. Piracy isn't theft, yet GPL violations are referred to as "stolen GPL code." I accept all of these double-standards because it serves me. I pretend not to notice when someone points out that the GPL relies on copyright law, and if I want to get rid of copyright, my beloved open source code will no longer be protected by the GPL. I don't care, because I'm too busy concerning myself with what I want for free, not about the consequences. I want to get rid of copyrights because I've been told that copyrights are the bad guy, and they are an obstacle to my rampant piracy.
Fellow pirates, let us continue our selfish leeching. Let us paint others as the bad guys to absolve us of our emotional guilt. Our goal is to convince people that piracy is something the good guys are doing in a fight with the evil corporations. Making money is wrong, even though Slashdot displays ads, and it cost me money to buy the computer I'm using to pirate stuff.
Yours truly,
A fellow Slashbot
"Sufferin' succotash."
This is obviously unreasonable, I don't understand how a dozen juries find that it is not absolutely insane to order the defendant to pay that amount.
However from point of view of RIAA it is obviously necessary to make the fines so obscene, that from now on every single person charged just settles for the few grand (what is it, 5K nowadays?)
In any case, at this point it could be a bajjjillion dollars (with a pinky near near the corner of a mouth), there is no way that the defendant can ever pay this out, so why not add another 20 zeros at the end of the fine? Shit, they could argue that taxes from this fine alone will fix the US economy for the next 50 years!
You can't handle the truth.
Now that they've virtually guaranteed her bankruptcy, how else could they possibly punish her? Couldn't she just go on a sharing spree and drum up attention about it? Seems that once you ruin a person, they have no more motivation to do what you want as you've already leveled the most extreme punishment.
Wisest is he who knows he does not know.
CDs are $10 at Wal-Mart...
In the beginning, there was null.
Where are they finding these jurors at? Where is the constitution on this one? I just recently served as a juror and I was told to look at the evidence and testimony presented then come to a conclusion based on this without bias. How could anyone come to a verdict like this given the evidence from both sides? Do these people not realize at any time they could be a victim just as the defendant, open Wi-Fi anyone? This has to be a blatant violation of her 8th Amendment rights, this is wrong on so many levels it makes my head hurt.
If we end up with a string of verdicts like this I have two things to say:
1. I, for one, welcome our new RIAA overlords
2. I think we finally have step 3!
1. Produce easily copied item no one wants to pay for
2. Let people get used to getting it for free
3. Sue your customers for millions of dollars
4. Profit!
This space for rent...
According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $32,000/year (never mind the fact that women make $27K). Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $1.4 million.
They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.
What's wrong with this picture? Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
Porquoi?
Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.) This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.
"Sorrow is better than laughter, for by sadness of face the heart is made glad." [Ecclesiastes 7:3]
While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential, I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.
If it weren't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury, the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her. Instead, she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded. It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files, and while she didn't need to volunteer that information necessarily, the deliberate obfuscation (returned hard drives, etc.) put her on the wrong side of the line.
I think this is a terrible precedent that was set, but really, I'm not surprised. The RIAA, of course, will never see their money, but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again, either, so I guess it's even.
I sell a mp3 for $2 and I'm damn sure there are 10 million people out there just dying to buy it, trust me on that one.
So far I only sold 10k mp3s so you must be stealing my loyal customer base that I was supposed to be selling to...
There, you owe me $19.9M. That simply. Can't argue here.
none
Assuming a price of $15 per album, the defendant could have stolen 128,000 CDs and resold them and it would have been less damage than what they are collecting for two dozen songs.
Not actually too far off. A case could be made for $250 million dollars (one quarter trillion dollars), based on 1,700 songs available, and $150,000 damages per song.
She lied about her hard drive, thinking it would get her off. I don't like the RIAA, but she deserved this.
$2M for 24 songs? Sounds like jury tampering.
So all I have to do is, twice a year write an awful song, then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right? That's a freaking awesome alternate reality! I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year!
By that kind of accounting, I'm worth billions. Boat salesmen will knock. Bikini clad women will swoon. I can have any car I like!
Tell the truth now, you're just trying to outdo the British, aren't you? They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread. You'd ruin people's whole lives over copying a song.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
1.9M is so suspiciously close to 2M that a potential previous conversation perfectly could well has been "I pay you 2M if you don't defend yourself, and return only 1.9M... you can keep the change". You know, like using a bait trial to set a precedent.
> Any lawyer could have looked at the facts of the case and come to the
> conclusion that she didn't have sufficient evidence to prove her innocence
Ah, so in other words, society should let large corporations extort money from the public because, actually, it is hard for an average citizen to prove his innocence given any kind of evidence of wrongdoing. This is why, in my opinion, in criminal cases the trial is supposed to start out biased in the defendant's favor ("innocent until proven guilty", "beyond a reasonable doubt").
I prefer that our justice system actually serve, well, justice!
I hope that the third time around, either she gets off with a really small penalty, or that the absolute maximum penalty is awarded against her. In the second case, for all practical purposes, the exact sum won't greatly matter in how this affair affects her life, and the staggering amount should either start a media blitz over how ridiculous the state of copyright law has become, or at least some kind of reaction in the legal system. Or perhaps people will stop being interested in RIAA's clients product, since having it on your computer could end up becoming evidence of wrongdoing, even if it's just being shared out by your friendly bot-net controller rather than you (or your neighbor via your wireless router, or whatever)....
Seriously, I thought charges were supposed to be DECREASED whenever appeals are made. Is this court case that screwed up that appealing your case gets you an even harsher punishment?
Let's assume 24 songs is about 2 CDs worth of music. What would happen if I stole 2 CDs from Wal-Mart? I'd get a slap on the wrist misdemeanor, and no more than a $1,000 fine. Probably I would get a whole lot less than that.
How is stealing that same content digitally somehow worse? If anything I can think of a few ways it's less harmful than shoplifting...
Porquoi?
But you know, "campaigns can change hearts and minds... If you do them right you can make a material impact on people's behaviour.'" Well, here's a campaign killer.
All the RIAA did was cloud the identity of who the real pirates in this case was.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
> Moral of the story: don't break the law
In my eyes the moral is: don't let large corporations twist the law into an distorted abomination....
The most ironic part of this whole mess is that the jury system was designed to exactly defend against this kind of abuse of the legal system, but because big government and big corporations have gotten so good at controlling the public's behavior, it is actually working out in reverse....
From the jury instruction: "The law demands of you a just verdict, unaffected by anything except the evidence, your common sense, and the law as I give it to you." And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?
It's always the stupid and careless pirates that get caught in the harbor. It's natural evolution at work, a culling of the weak and unfit from the pirate fleet. Feel sad if you must for Thomas, but also feel comfort that evolution has done its job: the pirates that remain are the cream of the crop. They will bear an even more naturally skilled crew to man the next fleet of sloops and schooners.
As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome. I admit to not closely following this case. But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak. Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:
I really can't emphasize that last part enough. Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense. It's about convincing normal people. If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose. If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose. Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose. Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.
On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too. It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used. That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it. While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it. Especially if she seemed less than forthright.
That said, the damages award is completely insane. I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750). It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level. Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song. My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.
I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details. Maybe these were the best arguments they had. Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations. Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story. Whatever the case, the defense was really weak. This verdict was predictable.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch.
No distribution was ever shown. The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!
I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If they take the money and start producing music that doesn't suck, then this may actually work out OK for everyone.
Say hello to my little sig.
Actually you can notice that the actual lawyers here like NYCL never, ever say things like "... couldn't possibly win". That's probably because they're quite familiar with the fact that the legal system often coughs up ridiculous outcomes (in their eyes).
In my eyes, these outcomes just show that even judges often don't actually understand what the law says. And juries for sure don't. It will be interesting to see if this decision will be thrown out again.
this kind of idiocy pops up and sets me straight.
They'll never get a dime from me.
This is rather a bitter pill to swallow, however it is a travesty of justice. The awards in no way represent compensation or fair justice. I find it appauling to the extreme. When is someone going to stand up to the RIAA, legally and disband this corrupt organisation? They are just as bad as if not worst than what happened at Enron, which was the start of the economic downturn in reality and because people have no money, we are hitting an all time high of lawsuits of compensation. May the .ogg be with you!
All cows eat grass!
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.
This sort of obvious bullshit trials, bad defense lawyers withstanding, topped with ridiculous legislation really pushes the younger part of society, not yet indoctrinated, into anarchism. I usually state that I'm Swedish - we recently saw a "spectrial" (as The Pirate Bay called it) unfold, too.
Combine this with deaf politicians who refuse to listen to the (quite large) opposition and what do you have? You've got people contempt of law. I realize you need to build your own case and defend yourself, but even if you do, the playing field is uneven. I personally question the correctness of being able to monetize an idea/creative work for a life time. Most people outside of showbiz offers hard working labor - be it welding or consulting - for clients. We cannot profit from our monday 12'o'clock service for the rest of our lives. What's so got damn special with music or film?
I think, imagine at least, that people are growing more and more contemptuous to the powers that be. This is one failed business model - people recognize the absurdity of the situation. But when will this bullshit stop?
I'd had wished it'd be just like with SCO - touch and hard spirit then die a slow death in the media. Unfortunately, they have support from the government, who refuses to see the illogical conclusion that they need to work for their money (not just sell copies). //S
Fight for your digital freedom, join the EFF *now*: http://www.eff.org/support/
Jesus Fucking Christ!
What the hell is going on in this country?!
Since I'm sure that Kazaa doesn't exchange entire files but rather does it in small blocks, when Kazaa is actively sharing a file under copyright it must be distributing blocks of copyrighted information hundreds of thousands of times per minute.
Now award $150K for each block distributed....
Good point, however even if NYCL was the worst trial lawyer, his knowledge about the RIAA, copyright, etc is amazing. Include that from all I've been able to gather, he does seem competent as a trial lawyer (few lawyers are really any good at being a trial lawyer).
Perhaps NYCL will correct me on this, I've seen great litigators who never step foot in a courtroom and would be a disaster at trial. On the other hand I've seen great trial lawyers - both criminal and civil - who don't have the finesse to be a great litigator.
Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.
Well,its my impression that he is skilled. At the very lest he seems knowledgeable. So I agree with you there. But I'm not a lawyer, so my feelings aren't very valid as evidence.
I was fishing for evidence that he's actually done some work in this area that would prove his competency. I realize my post came off as trollish, but I couldn't really find a less-blunt way of putting it.
There has been a time where in Britain it wouldn't be surprising if in a similar case the defendant would have been ordered to pay £2,000,000, payable at one pound a month for the rest of her life, and plaintiff pays all the cost.
What I would really like to know, was the jury made up of people who actually think that almost two million dollars for copying two CDs worth of music is correct, or did they intend to set a judgement that just _has_ to be overturned?
From the summary:
No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional
I have my doubts. Isn't an accepted definition of insanity doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
What an absolutely disgraceful award. 24 songs and done for $2 million. They should make the damned jury pay it. What a goddamned disgrace.
Turns out they did find her guilty, and decided to put a high penalty on her.
What a surprise!
Believe it or not, Juries do decide sometimes that they're going to send a message in their verdicts. This is why Judges can sometimes reduce the amount of the judgment downward. Perhaps the judge in this case will decide to do so. Perhaps the RIAA will never both trying to collect. For them, it's more about the message, which is...don't be a shit-head and think you can get away with sharing music that you don't have the rights to share. And don't expect the courts or a jury of your peers to be idiots and buy your lame bull-shit excuses.
You want to work for a world where music is free? Start feeding money to bands and artists that license under the CC instead of hunting the latest top 40 hit on your favorite site.
> And what, if the law as given by the judge obliterates common sense?
The whole point of jury trials, when they were established after independence, was to prevent a corrupt legal system or judge from victimizing an innocent public. They were a reaction by the Founding Fathers against Americans having been jailed by British courts with no posibility of defense.
It's a pity that that isn't the first instruction which is given a jury in every trial --- a reminder of the real reason for their being the last word, and the information that, yes, they can totally ignore the letter of the law if they so desire. Or at least, they used to be able to do it. The legal system has been eroding that power slowly but surely, as we get further and further removed from the spirit which freed all Americans from tyranny, more than 200 years ago.
IANAL. I don't even want to be one.
but I wonder - suppose they get the 'guilty' stuff RIGHT out of the way. don't even deny that. you get some goodwill that way (apparently) and then just TALK to the jury about what is fair punishment.
let 'fair punishment' be on trail. that's the elephant in the room.
now, perhaps this IS the way to get that to be the foremost issue - by making it so high even an extremely well-off person could not, in their lifetime, pay this 'fine'.
but the fact that the jury gave this kind of figure away means, to me, that either they didn't realize what they were really assigning (hard to believe) or that they were simply correct and somehow paid-off.
it does not pass the smell test.
I hope this is not the last word. else, well, time for an iranian style revolt right here.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
This is clearly a mistrial, because a true jury of my peers would never sign off on this bullshit. I call hax on the jury.
How do you even find 12 average people who can justify in their little brains that nearly $2 million is reasonable for 24 freaking songs?? Not much surprises me anymore but come on! WTF???? Most likely just another case of selecting a jury with a bunch of people dead set from the start on making the defendant pay and pay as much as possible regardless of guilt or innocence. The verdict was probably in before the opening statement was made. The RIAA's dream jury
Well done, RIAA, and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.
I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection. Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection "Best Rock Songs Ever".
Used Bittorrent, so I figure that, at 80,000 per song, I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month!That theft took just 5% of my transfer cap, so I *could* go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking!
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
....then you probably shouldn't be trying to outsmart the justice system in a tech based case. Also they should change the name of kazza to: 'barrel of fish into which the RIAA will periodically shoot.' Personally I think that the verdict from the first case should have stood + additional court costs. Then a perjury case should begin. I'm not anti-piracy, but it is piracy. All there really is to discuss is what the penalty should be.
I'm wondering if the award will cover the loss as people start to refuse to do business with the music business. Some have already started. The ball is rolling a picking up speed. The industry is doing nothing to stop it.
The truth shall set you free!
No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional.
The plaintiff has taken this case twice to a jury on essentially the same set of facts - and each time the defendant has been pounded into the ground.
It is no longer a theory when statutory damages are written into the law.
The trial court or the court of appeal can reduce the damages without ever touching the constitutional question. The chances that the case will reach any higher are about the same as winning the weekly Jackpot Lotto.
As instructed, my children know....swap hard drives of music. Rip discs to your heart's content. Don't upload to the internet, ever, ever, ever. Then they told me that they could swap songs via Chat. I went back to my Victrola and listened to some Perry Como.
Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense, and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it, they picked the cheaper alternative.
We are now officially past soap, ballot, and jury.
I'm sure you all know the defendant's next stop will be on the very long line outside the Bankruptcy Court, where the Trustee will do a double-take at the Petition, and then approve it, as no normal person could pay that back. Once the Chapter 7 is behind the defendant, they can go on with their lives, with only a smoking crater where the credit rating used to be.....
Chances are, if there is an appeal, she'll get the death penalty. Three times.
Lets presume each of the 24 songs in question (of the 1702 songs being shared by that IP) is available on itunes with a price of 99 cents. Lets also presume that statutory damages were actually limited to the revenue lost by the company (which they apparently aren't). And finally that the 24 songs were each 5MB and the cable modem had an upload speed of 256kbps.
For the 24 songs in question to incur $80,000 in damages each, therefore, they would have had to be downloaded a total of 1939394 times, for 9696970MB of downloads. This would, at 256kbps, take 3507 days (about 9 and a half years). Kazaa had only existed for about three years at the point of infringement. Also, for that matter, that ignores the remaining 1678 songs.
Going the other direction, if all 1702 songs were saturating the upload speed of the modem for the history of Kazaa (call it 3 years even to make things easier) you'd have been able to upload 1009152MB, or about 201830 songs, divided evenly over all 1702 songs that's about 118 times each. At 99 cents each that's $2803.68 in statutory damages.
All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.
The federal jury is essentially creation of the federal courts.
You do not get to handcraft your own:
In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. ... All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the court. 1870. Challenges
The federal juror is 18 or over, a US citizen resident in the district for at least one year, writes and speaks English with reasonable proficiency and is physically and mentally fit for service. 1865. Qualifications for jury service
You could make a persuasive case for the geek being the idiot in court - to the despair of his consul and the joy of his opponent -
and the most common mistake he is likely to make is to show contempt for the jury.
It's time to change the law. Copyrights should be shortened to the lifetime of the author and intellectual property should be taxed in order to claim a copyright claim. If I can pay property taxes on my land, I can pay it on my IP.
This is my sig.
We need laws that match the new technological reality. Updated business models too. Those who figure out the new business reality are gonna run circles around the old-school whiners.
"The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
Not that I'm angry or anything, but I think the law is already unfair, the ruling unjust, and for what?
This is my sig.
Is it just me, but isn't that the shortest trial in history?? Didn't it just start this past Monday??? How could ANY trial, short of a "kangaroo court", end so soon... Oh wait... perhaps that's what this was... Where were all the expert witnesses, and hotshot lawyer that was taking this probono??
I'm sure gonna be waiting to hear NYCL's take on this abortion......
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)
Soap, Ballot, Jury, Ammo.
Use boxes in that order.
Well, so much for the Jury box.
I have way more than 24 songs and I will even take 1/4 price of what they think they are worth, $20000 per song. With the money I plan to pay off Jamie's Judgment and buy a beer for $1.2 million (that is what they should be worth in the RIAA's world).
Disregarding the merits or not of this specific case, I wonder how different people's attitude would be if the RIAA had taken all the money they've spent on investigation's, lawyers, lobbyists etc, and instead of suing people offered an "amnesty" where they subsidised subscriptions/purchases to DRM-free music to the first X (invent some very large number > 1M) of people. They could market this with the labels and come out looking like good guys.
Just a thought.
Artist's deserve to get paid. Maybe their contract with the label suck. But damn it they should get paid for every song they put out "there" in the world.
6.8SPC TR of 550, l xwind at 6, drift rt at 26" drops 77". AT has 503 ft-lbs at 1403 fps. FT 0.86
How about we start with the fact that OurFavoriteCountryLawyer would have called his team's technical witness to challenge something?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Note that she actually downloaded far more than 12 songs, 1700+ in fact, for the sake of simplicity the prosecution only proved 24, but I think 24 is enough. That number is skewed, of course even when you make it 1,700, it's still far too large to give a single mom, but just wanted to put that out there. The verdict is ridiculous but not /that/ ridiculous.
source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31432024/ns/business-local_business/page/2/
I always though that statutory damages are not meant as a punishment, but as a means to give the copyright holder fair compensation in situations where the actual damage is impossible to establish.
According to the CONTU report ("Committee On New Technological Uses", back when congress was working on extending copyright to software), and if I recall it correctly, the statutory damages are apparently intended to be both punitive and to allow the copyright holder to recover enough from the few moles he manages to whack to make up for the many he missed.
The precedent is a church choir director who purchased sheet music for a song that was scored out of the range of his choir (and most singers), did a transposition that made it singable, ran off a few copies for his choir, and offered the transposition back to the original author and publisher, gratis, for their next edition. Instead of "incorporating the patch", they sued for some large number of thousands of dollars (real money in those days, too) for the infringing copies of this derived work. And won.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Ray,
Weren't we all hoping for the best when her counsel changed and she got a "young bright newcomer"?
Typical article among many:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/05/jammie-thomas-gets-new-counsel-kiwi.html?showComment=1242855147496
But given the apparently uneven performance of her counsel, what now?
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
As far as I know, these file sharing programs require that you distribute about the same amount of songs that you download yourself.
Not even close.
Kazaa and its ilk do not require any upload:download ratio.
You don't even have to share anything at all to download.
The only P2P networks that (might) require ratios are private bittorrent trackers, e-mule which is based on your upload speed, and FTP/variants (like Direct Connect, etc)
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Why did the expert not get called?
Why was no objection made?
Remember, anything you don't move or object at trial is forever barred at appeal.
"No doubt there will now have to be a third trial"
When you prove to be as wrong about this as you are about the vast majority of what you post, will you come back and admit you hav eno idea what the fuck you're talking about?
We don't need the admission, it's obvious, but it would be nice.
It's funny, people would hire you because they think you're nice, while overlooking your patently awful legal opinions.
$400 trillion dollars more is unlikely? What makes you say that?
Anyway, I say we give that to them. Think of how much it will benefit the economy! In this time of economic downturn, since we have given up on any kind of manufacturing, we should be giving as much money as possible to the companies that are still afloat. How could that fail to work?
...what?
A huge jury award such as this one virtually assures that the RIAA will never get paid. In addition to grounds for appeal it also
would cause almost all normal people into bankruptcy or simply moving to an area such as Florida where the debt would be next to impossible to collect.
Perhaps the RIAA values the publicity generated by such an award but it sure is the wrong way to try to get paid.
One week the RIAA loses a case the next week a federal law is created that makes it possible to win, the next week the RIAA can't get more then a dollar a song this week they can get 80,000. Oh well time to file for bankruptcy and live in a cabin in canada.
Downloading been called no different than shoplifting by members of the music industry - why is it not prosecuted accordingly? This woman lifted $23.76 worth of music. If those were candy bars she'd be slapped on the wrist with a small fine or light jail time.
You don't win cases by giving press conferences and bragging about what you're going to do to the other side. You win cases by staying up late, going through boxes of documents. I was truly surprised everyone was reading and writing all that nonsense and buying into that hype. You don't see that on my blog.
Yes I was "hoping for the best". And for all I know defendant's counsel did a great job. They certainly worked hard, and demonstrated intelligence and enthusiasm, at least in the earlier stages.
I'm not in a position to criticize her counsel because I don't know what went on, and I don't know what pressures they were under.
All I know is that, as an outside observer, I was disappointed at the absence of a number of things I would have expected to see. Whose fault that is, I don't know.
What's next is:
1.Defendant moves to set aside verdict and for new trial.
2.Motion granted, new trial scheduled.
3.New trial: defendant wins, plaintiffs appeal.
I would also not be surprised to see the RIAA aggressively seek to enter into a confidential settlement with her, even to the point of paying her attorneys fees, to avoid this getting set aside.
Those of us making the constitutional argument on excessiveness of the RIAA's statutory damages theory will be helped by this verdict.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If 1000 SlashDotters download one song every 2 minutes, then they will download 262,800 songs over the course of one year. If the RIAA collects $80,000 per song, they will collect $21 Trillion Dollars. At 10% income tax, this will raise an extra $2 trillion for the U.S. budget, and wipe out the nations deficit.
As such, every /. reader should download as many songs as possible. Save the nation from deficit! Fix the housing crisis! Save the stock market! Be a national hero!
My classics prof said the Inquisition only paradigm-shifted when the church started trying to torture and burn the kids of the nobles.
She is in essence, incapable of escaping poverty for her entire life. Every extra nickel she gets will be taken.
You know, taking every last thing a person has leaves you with someone who has nothing to lose. One of these days the RIAA's laywers are going to win a punitive suit against the wrong person, and I just hope that I am nowhere near the building the lawfirm is in when it happens.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Then she's equally as crazy. I'm sorry, as much as I'd love to "stick it to big media" and/or fight against the RIAA, I'm not willing to settle for blowing a case in order to incur potentially life-ruining expenses. While it's just my personal opinion, it goes beyond "gutsy" to the realm of "crazy"
I haven't read through the whole transcript, and I'm certainly not a lawyer, but as a technical person I wonder about this point:
"The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port
How the heck would they have gotten the MAC of the modem and/or her computer, unless such details were provided by the ISP or sniffed by some form of internally invasive software? A MAC should only be available to a machine within the same network segment, so - assumedly - her modem could ready the MAC on her PC, and I suppose the ISP's next upstream router could read the MAC of the modem, but without the ISP's assistance I realyl don't see any other way this information could have been attained. Even then - depending on configuration - you'd need some pretty stiff logging to tie continual traffic from a given IP to a MAC.
That being said, the common username was a fairly damaging point aside from this all.
The ARS article pretty much repeats these same tidbits without fleshing out the how. Any answers?
This is the law. If you don't like it then abolish copyright. Do that, and all these problems go away.
Until then if your teen downloads a song from pirate internet radio and the RIAA takes your house because of it, I don't care. If someone jacks your Internet and downloads a song, they'll bankrupt you and I don't care. If they make a mistake and try to pin this rap on you when you're completely innocent, I care a little but it won't save you. You didn't speak up when it was your turn. Some people are going to live under a bridge. Is it you? Are you sure?
Help stamp out iliturcy.
> The justice system did serve justice. Twice.
Ah, so the next time you break any law whatsoever, you think it would be perfectly OK that you should pay arbitrarily large sums of money? Either you are very, very rich (so the penalty wouldn't affect you), or very, very, very careful about never breaking any laws, nor even being put in a position where it even appears that you have broken the law.
> The RIAA lawyers were able to convince two juries that she was distributing
> 24 unauthorized mp3 files.
And they were also able to convince most reasonable people that copyright law is in a terrible state, currently.
> How would she (or anyone) be better off if her lawyer told her that they had a
> strong case, that she had a weak defense, and that it would be cheaper to settle?
It's not exactly clear what you mean here, but I will assume your question is against my position, that it was good she didn't settle. Let me clear it up for you: I obviously didn't mean it was personally good for her. But it is obviously good for society in general to be shown the consequences of the bad laws which are currently in place, so that there is some small chance they will be changed (or overruled, or something).
Sometimes, the best lawyer you can hope for is the one who tells you that your case sucks. People hate to hear this however, and I'm sure NYCL, as with any lawyer, has had plenty of experience disappointing people who equate the statement that heir case blows, with thinking that the lawyer sucks or is a wuss or something like that. People love to hear hopeful things, and really hate reality checks.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
thing is nobody question main angle:why SO NUMEROUS jury's in various contries decide similary ? yep, against constitution, yes, against country laws, and main jurispridency primnciples(such as fundamental"inoccence presumption") btw answer is simple - they are blackmailed by international organisation. those lawyers, who not member of it. so in fact, Microsoft/RIAA/MPAA or etc is ONE org(and use shared HR resources, financial, security and etc..) google about "scientology", for example. btw, google... participated too :-)
as 85% of IT&telecom :-)
60% law enforcement.
~38% world money.
worldwide.
space aliens invade us tiny, blue, Earth :/
and humanity days are numbered.
duck and cover, brotherzs and sisters !
those freaky aliens in courts are gonna eat us all :/ they drink you blood and eat you brain(according to rumors, they prefer cook it in microwave owen)
and no salvation, upon BatMan, Elvis or Connor/Conan return !!
Don't do it !! If you want to pirate, go after a fucking ship. You'll only face death, not a fine !!
When the "law" is on the side of the RIAA in cases such as these, I can't help but think that if you're already going to break the law--you might as well do it in style. Let's see how much one of these songs are worth their lives or their loved ones. In a matter of minutes you could very quickly teach them the value of "respect".
Violence doesn't get you anywhere? Sure it does. Violence solves a lot of problems. The American Revolution, for one.
I'm not a psycho and wouldn't do this in practice--but what other options do we, the consumers, have when backed into a corner such as this?
Viva la revolution.
What I want to know, NYCL, is why the judge didn't bar the RIAA witness from testifying about all that "evidence" that was collected with no safeguards, no peer review, and no anything? Why, from what I've heard, was only the defendant's expert witness barred from testifying about things? Please tell me they weren't allowed to make a mockery of the business records exemption? I've heard about how badly it's been misused in the past and it somehow seems like the most likely scenario, even though I find it hard to imagine why it would be allowed when their business consists of preparing documents for use in later litigation, but I've heard of it abused that way in the past...
United States land of freedom.... yeah right.
I am missing the most important thing - where is the list of those unbelievably valuable 24 MP3s? I need to know which bands I want to boycot.
If you don't get signed to a Label, you don't get a chance at the big bucks.
It's just that rather than a rich family paying you, it's a rich corporation and you pay it.
not to the plaintiff
I have no words for the award amount, the jury, the MPAA. But there is something I will do and if every slashreader on this list does the same, we can make a noticeable dent. I refuse to buy another new CD/DVD/AA3... from any company which is a member of the RIAA cartel. I don't advocate stealing, I advocate buying directly from the artist or independent labels. There is plenty of good music out there. I won't suffer, but this cartel will.
You can't control the flow of information. People will download what they want. Is anyone really sympathizing with the corrupt organizations who steal millions, if not billions of dollars from the United States and the people?
They steal from us because they can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.
We steal from them because we can with relatively little repercussions, and without anyone significantly noticing.
The difference is, they have billions of dollars and the most disgustingly immoral and unethical teams of lawyers that money can buy.
We don't. And even if we did, they still have more powerful friends.
Fuck the RIAA. Downloading songs isn't unethical, its a legitimate fucking financial strategy. These corps can teach us one thing - The law only applies if you get caught.
From TFA:
"Spokesperson Cara Duckworth of the RIAA, who attended the trial, told reporters afterwards, "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case... and we remain willing to do so." The industry appears to be doing everything it can not to appear vindictive in these cases..."
The RIAA says, vindictive, pretty old me? No, no, we are bending over backwards to take as little as possible of this poor native American mom's scant resources and transfer it to the billionaires we protect. Look, we kept it under $2 million, that's fair isn't it?
Use the above resources, don't buy anything which pays into the RIAA coffers. Let them see a $5 million negative blip that makes them wish they hadn't racketeered against their consumers including this midwestern mom.
I dont know how civil court works, but jury sets the award amount, then later the judge can reduce it if he wants to
Dont they have to go through a sentenacing phase or some such
fred_weigel @ HOTMAIL? /.?
Am I really on
If I recollect correctly, this girl was depressed and suffered from some incurable disease. Add this to her (already big) list of problems, and she's ready to commit suicide.
This isn't justice anymore, this is extortion. The lawyers of the RIAA know damn well of this girl's state, and they just press on.
What kind monsters are they? When will the state step in and start kicking the RIAA around over this? Must this girl be turned into a martyr to convince the justice department to prosecute the RIAA?
Tax law is an excellent way to go after the RIAA in response to these kinds of cases. Some RIAA activities could fall into the category of racketeering. They have certainly committed violations of anti-trust laws. (price fixing...) I can even imagine cases where an individual is hurt on a shattered legally purchased CD, forcing the RIAA to decide whether the consumer buys the content (in which case, fair use laws apply), or whether the consumer purchased the media (in which case the record companies should be liable for damages caused by defective, dangerous products.) If the RIAA says, 'we own both' then consumers should be able to sue upwards of $2 million for damages arising from the content as well as any possibility the media itself is unsafe. Are they willing to take back millions of CDs worth trillions of dollars (using their math) if it is found, for example, that the aluminum and plasticizers in the CDs are found to be hazardous to human health? This sounds far fetched, but anyone who understands CPSIA, the typical badger-brained congressional response to the issue of chemicals in imported children's toys, this may be a possibility. From the CPSIA FAQ:
Does the new requirement for total lead on children's products apply to children's books, cassettes and CD's, printed game boards, posters and other printed goods used for children's education?
In general, yes. CPSIA defines children's products as those products intended primarily for use by children 12 and under.
If this had been me, I'd be out buying fetilizer and diesel fuel with what little money I had left over. ;)
Perhaps the RIAA have reached an agreement with the defendent already?
Let us WIN; let us destroy you in court; do not challenge us on the point everyone knows are full of chit; let the court assign ridiculous damage awards to us; in turn, we will not collect anything from you, but the general population will have a clear example of why they should not fuck with the RIAA.
maybe?
This is how I saw the trial from what I read. I am not a lawyer, but my best friend is and I know a decent amount about the law thanks to him. This is just how I see it and in my non-lawyer viewpoint, I could be wrong about things.
It seemed to me that she pulled a fast one on her attorneys. They seemed caught off guard with the revelation that her disk drive was changed by Best Buy after the date she had specified in her previous trial. Oops! I think it was pretty much "game over" at that point. Her attorneys now had to improvise a defense on the spot and you saw how well that worked.
The defendant seems to project a real aura of arrogance and dishonesty. This is twice now that juries have bitch slapped her with huge compensatory damages. I'm sure if we met her in person that we would think that she is a master manipulator and she has twice convinced attorneys that some great wrong has been done to her and yet both times in trial she looked completely guilty when her web of lies fell down. Now all we can hope for is a 3rd trial based on technicalities, but at this point I think it's pretty hopeless. Her case is pathetic and she's not going to win. It really hurts those who have been wronged by the RIAA that this delusional and manipulative woman has been a test case for fighting back.
This pretty much proves what I thought all along of the RIAA - they abandonned their goal of making music years ago, now they plan to making lawsuits their SOLE source of income.
I want to make sure I have this right. She was accused not merely of downloading for her own use 24 songs, but of distributing the songs to others, and this was the reason for the high damages. Is this correct?
If like me you think this is absurd, let me suggest you join the Pirate Party in your country. We recently got 7.1% of the vote in Sweden, and it's likely that soon we'll be achieving this and more throughout the developed world.
In the UK, join Pirate Party UK; elsewhere look at Pirate Party International to find your national Pirate Party.
i have been downloading mp3s for free since 1999. i have never spent a single dime on music since 1999. i currently have about 20,000 songs. poorly sorted and duplicates (which actually is an argument for buying songs: good organization), but i guess that means my hard drive has a greater value than the GNP of some smaller countries
or maybe NOT, and this whole notion of economic damage is BULLSHIT. maybe its time to rethink your business model, you assholes, or better yet: GO OUT OF FUCKING BUSINESS. artists distribute directly to fans, making their money from concerts, advertising, etc. NO MIDDLE MAN NEEDED. NO MORE FUCKING DISTRIBUTORS. the motherfucking INTERNET is the distributor. you are an expensive redundant alternative. UNDERSTAND YOU ASSHOLES?
just DIE already you useless pieces of shit, your entire reason for existing HAS BEEN RENDERED EXTINCT
fucking deal with it and die already, like the blacksmiths, chimney sweeps, and manual scribes that have been rendered extinct due to technological progress as well
HISTORY HAS SPOKEN. YOUR BUSINESS MODEL IS DEAD. RETAIN SOME DIGNITY AND FUCKING DIE ALREADY
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Are these the same Minnesotans, who think "carnally knowing any person by the anus or by or with the mouth." is "Sodomy", and recognize that whoever "voluntarily engages in or submits to an act of sodomy with another" is wrong and merits a severe sanction of "imprisonment for not more than one year or to payment of a fine of not more than $3,000, or both" ? https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.293 at least we now have a price: 1 song equals 27 bjs. can any grupie/musician on /. confirm this?
Can a presidential pardon work for statutory damages?
How Scotus determined it's a Constitutional infraction for a person to receive punitive damages from a company in excess of 10 times actual damages, but thousands of dollars per song is hunky dory?
Oh, sorry, I forgot, those original meaning purists in the Supreme Court know that the original meaning of the Constitution was equal rights to the wealthy. God save us from jurists that complain about citing the logic in a foreign court case while citing Blackstone.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
Jammie Thomas is an Ojibwa woman living in a state where 89.3% of the population is Caucasian. Yes, there is racism in Minnesota -- not overt, cross-burning, KKK-style racism; but a kind of smug, condescending relegation of non-white people to second-class citizenship; people to be tolerated with feigned PC magnanimity, while hinting that life would be better if they would just all go away, "back to where they came from."
Against this backdrop of white Minnesota popular culture, it only stands to reason that Jammie Thomas could not have gotten a fair trial from an all-white jury. For justice to be served, the jury should have included at least a few Native Americans, if only to remind the other jurors that Ms. Thomas was not some abstract cultural archtype that they could direct their fears and frustrations at, but that she was a real human being like they were.
Were there any Native Americans on the jury? In a comment on NewYorkCountryLawyer's blog, I politely asked what the gender and racial composition of the jury were. He rejected this question, characterizing it as "offensive." "People's lives are at stake in these cases," he offered in self-justification.
Oh really? Let's set aside, for the moment, that the notion of a trial by a jury of her peers is somehow offensive. How does suppressing information about whether there were Native Americans on the jury actually HELP Jammie Thomas? I think suppressing this information actually hurt her, and continues to hurt her.
Racism hurts people in the justice system. Not acknowledging it hurts people even more.
Or how about download stuff, get caught, and then make your case to the Supreme Court?
Reading this case, it looks like they intentionally threw this one. Probably didn't, but it reads that way. This gives an opportunity to fight the unreasonable awards. Plus, depending on how old the songs are she downloaded, it might make the case for lowering copyright lengths. This might not be the best case to show it, but that's not my point.
My point is, the only way to change the law is either get Congress on your side, or get Judiciary to tell Congress to buzz off. The only way to get the Judicial system is to get caught doing something.
Do it until you get caught, then stand up for yourself. If you're downloading tomorrow's #1 hits, perhaps you deserve to lose. If you're doing something you think should be legal, carry on. Either it's de facto legal because you never get caught or it's potentially going to get a law struck down.
You wouldn't protest elections in Iran by following the law would you? You'd never get anywhere! Neither will we get anywhere with copyright.
I've always wondered... Provided that the conviction is not a Felony or some criminal conviction (for which their are restrictions concerning financial penalties), couldn't the defendant file for personal bankruptcy to avoid the judgement? In her particular case there may be hinderances like owning her own home, but isn't the bascic premise sound?
Aside from the obscene amount, my biggest worry about the case is the judge's instruction #14 to the jury:
"The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright ownersâ(TM) exclusive reproduction right."
AFAIK, the RIAA has not tried to sue anyone for illegal downloading, only for sharing / distributing. While it seems like "common sense" that downloading something for free when you know the owner wants to make money off it would be illegal, this is troubling. This means it is up to the person downloading or streaming music to know whether the source is licensed to provide it. Given that there are a lot of music services and web sites that now legally allow users to stream or download music for free, how is the user supposed to know for sure if it's legal?
Shouldn't the person who makes the sound recording available be responsible for the reproduction tort?
Cause there is no possible way this could be legit. I mean in America, with our uncorrupted legal system.
Just because you are wrong and I called you out on it doesn't mean I am a Troll.
From the US Declaration of Independence:
> For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
You claim
> You have jury trials because we already had them.
which is partially correct, but you also seem to have been missing some historical significance, eh? The significance here is the enshrinement of the right to a trial by jury in the Bill of Rights. Not whether we "created it by ourselves". And it's really not clear to me, based on the long and varied history of the function of the jury trial in British law, that it had the same significance in the British legal system around the time of US independence as it took on in the US legal system during the same period.
Sure, Ray. Whatever. BTW, it WAS an all white jury, according to Ars Technica. In Minnesota, for a Native American, that's a hanging jury.
Funny how people that are so ready to believe that the RIAA can buy whatever laws it needs to support it's flawed business model can't conceive of the notion that it might also pay someone to "throw" a court case in order to set a favorable legal precedent. I'm pretty sure file sharers are a lot easier to bribe than congressmen. Unlike congress-critters there are a lot more of them, and most of them don't already have a lot of money. If I had a plan for profiting from copyright, I would make buying a patsy to argue badly and lose all the way up to the supreme court to set a legal precedent #2 on my list:
1. Buy draconian laws protecting my "intellectual property".
2. People people to fight those new laws and lose badly, thus establishing legal precedent.
3. Sue everyone.
4. Profit!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
As of 2009-06-19, he's been deed for 42+ years and not 50 per hairyfeet's post.
Walter Elias Disney (December 5, 1901 - December 15, 1966)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney
Walt Disney
Date of Birth:
5 December 1901, Chicago, Illinois, USA
Date of Death:
15 December 1966, Los Angeles, California, USA
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000370/
However, I agree that copyright is broken in the USA which is likely why infringement is so rampant of creative works created by big American media companies -- it's tit for tat and a form of 'civil disobedience' done by the masses who are tired and fed up with 'forever minus a day'( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Valenti ) copyright terms and respond the only way they know how to try to cripple such companies by simply watching/using their works without paying for them.
He said it suggested that jurors didn't believe Thomas-Rasset's denials of illegal file-sharing, and that they were angry with her.
The prosecution successfully created personal feelings towards the defendant in the jury?
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
The answer you're seeking: may shock you.
Yeah, right.
Single mother with kids is given a two million dollar fine for downloading a handful of online songs - probably deserved at most a two hundred dollar fine. There is a complete lack of common sense & decency on display here. Makes me worry for America.
I'm really full of admiration for those who debate over the guilt of a person who downloaded a few songs. They are willing to see an tiny match in her eye without seeing a huge wooden block in own eye. This is what happens if the greed is the only reason behind. Unrestricted, unstoppable hunger for more and more money without looking on something that is called "public interest". I still do not understand how it is possible that a crappy piece of plastic called CD, DVD or BluRay is worth more than hardware used to play it. What kind of innovation, brilliant ideas and hard work is contained within this plastic. Just one. How to sell shit at the highest price. I'm also astonished by stupidity of American judges who are buying the crap stories of RIAA about the amount of loses music industry is suffering because of people downloading music. It requires really the brain of the size of a bean (or maybe even smaller) to accept the thesis that if not downloaded every song would have been bought. Hundreds year ago ordinary people have been chased and punished when trying to catch animals in forrests that belong to a count or alike. They did that in order to survive. Music and movies are not necessary to live but the motives are similar. Not wealthy people are trying to live normal live, to enjoy little pleasures whithout haveing to spend excessive resources on those who did nothing but think how to sqeeze another dollar without giving anythin of value in return. It's strange that ordinary people are punished and those who are paying himself millions of dollars for causing companies to collapse are untouchable. If this is justified by law it is a piece of shit not a law.
Sometimes I type too fast for my own good.
Porquoi?
http://forum.thedailyshow.com/tds/board/message?board.id=story_suggestions&thread.id=9642
Pass her the KY, I am sure that her butt hurts!
Seriously, the judge has no real world knowledge of what songs cost, because if he did, he would have laughed at this, the fact he ruled in favor shows the judges need to be replaced with younger ones, because they are still old school, not even aware what mp3s stand for let alone what they should cost!
Although your item #3 is above is technically correct, it distorts the story badly:
Yes, she could and did appeal the penalty.
The word "instead" here is incorrect or misleading.
You call it a "dubious technicality," referring I assume to the making-available legal theory. However, the making-available argument was the linchpin of the RIAA's argument in the first trial, and the subject of fairly heated debate. Personally I consider this argument to be bunkum and balderdash, but federal judges have weighed in on both sides. It's no technicality, it is a live wire of case law.
It was not a pointless retrial -- when the judge gives the jury rotten instructions, a citizen damn well deserves a new trial.
No, the law says penalties range from $750 to $150k per offense, so the median there is $75375, and so a per-offense fine of almost-$80k is on the higher end of possible outcomes (exceeding the median, to be precise). Moreover, the real story here is that the penalty wasn't just "high," it was stratospheric compared to the worth of the items in question.
I agree with you on the facts of the case though -- the evidence was squarely against her, she (IMO) lied to the jury, and deserves some penalty. The important question is how much, and that is where the debate should lie. Pretending this punishment is anything but manifest injustice and a cruel absurdity is, I think, misinformed or disingenuous.
$META_SIG_JOKE