Slashdot Mirror
RIAA To Appeal Thomas-Rasset Ruling
frank_adrian314159 writes "The RIAA will appeal the ruling that reduced Jammie Thomas-Rasset's $1.92 million fine for file sharing to $54,000. '"It is a shame that Ms. Thomas-Rasset continues to deny any responsibility for her actions rather than accept a reasonable settlement offer and put this case behind her," said RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth.' Joe Sibley, an attorney for Thomas-Rasset, said his client would not settle for the $25,000 that the RIAA has asked for. '"Jammie is not going to agree to pay any amount of money to them," Sibley said, adding that it doesn't matter to Thomas-Rasset whether the damages are $25,000 or $1.92 million.' In addition, Thomas-Rasset's attorneys say that, win or lose, they plan to appeal the constitutionality of the fine."
The RIAA will win the appeal, it will head to the Supreme Court, and they will uphold the damages. From FindLaw:
If it wasn't clear before, recent rulings have made it abundantly clear that you should expect no justice of any kind from the Supreme Court.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The only problem with being judgment proof is you lose any opportunity to have a career in the future. To remain judgment proof, you can never take a job where the wages can be attached. Therefore you remain a ward of the state on welfare for the rest of your life with only the guarantee of any real job being robbed. Working like deadbeat dads with cash under the table is the only way to raise your ability to purchase a car, insurance, housing, etc.
I don't expect the RIAA's bill collectors to ever let up looking for the money. They have a strong incentive to never let her rise out of poverty.
They seem to think they have the right to be completely inhumane in her treatment and show no attempt at compassion in the least.
This stance will of course come back to haunt them. I and many others have simply stopped supporting the industry in any way. I don't buy from any label involved in this and won't until they change. The change doesn't appear to be any time soon.
The truth shall set you free!
Disney has balance sheets and accounting books and X number of employees to show what IT'S doing with the IP. What do you have? Other than "but but but feudal system!?"
feudal lords had balance sheets, accounting books, X number of employees, chancellors, stewards, inspectors, taskmasters, sergeant at arms and innumerable other types of offices under them, working for them. even the smaller nobles, 'landholders', or with the term in early middle ages, 'freeholders'.
yea, i say 'but but but but feudal'. because it IS feudal. however, you are quite ignorant on that matter, seeing as how you can show having accounting books and balance sheets as being something differentiating the modern feudal estates from middle age ones.
actually it is worse today. back in feudal times, the lord, estate owner, had an obligation to feed the peasants, who were tied as serfs to his/her estate. it was a double sided oath, a social responsibility. today, the estate owner is even free from that obligation, while retaining all the privileges of being an aristocrat.
and there are people like you too, justifying the system of inequality through various excuses so that you can accept the reality you are living in, and cope up with it.
Read radical news here
The problem is most p2p file sharing of copyrighted material IS in violation of current laws. There is no fair use for downloading an entire song, movie or TV show. There is no justification that makes this ok.
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway. If you wouldn't have bought it anyway then simply don't listen to it or watch it.
That being said, your point regarding bringing the RIAA to heel is valid, they are abusing and violating the laws just as much themselves. That makes both parties wrong, and both parties subject to legal penalties.
In this particular case IMHO both parties need to change their behavior and work together to solve the problem. You can't have something for free, it costs money to produce and the people doing it need to be paid. The companies that make up the RIAA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_RIAA_member_labels need to realize that artists and their fans are changing and adapt, they cannot make money they way they did before and trying to is what causes the conflict.
You cannot enforce a business model yet you need to realize that entertainment IS a business, and an expensive one.
Compromise people :)
The question is , is it normal that people , who had absolutely no part in creating music ( they just bought the rights when they were cheap ) , have the right to get profit from an artist who is long dead ?
And , is it normal that they sue someone who downloaded that song , for a cost a 1000x higher than the original costs ( i don't know any album that costs $54,000 ).
Plus , in my country , i'm already paying artists , each time i buy cd-r , dvd's , or other equipment. So , when anyone asks , i just have to point them to my stack of linux distro's .
Slipping shoelaces ?
Their claim of lost sales is bogus, we all know that, but so is the claim that it's not stealing since you wouldn't have bought it anyway.
It's not stealing because it's not stealing. Stealing is when you permanently deprive someone of their property. It's also not a whole load of other crimes that have nothing to do with the transfer of digital information, e.g. it's not arson (even though you've "burned up their profits") and it's not assault (even though you've "hit them where it hurts"). Pretending it's a particular crime to make it sound worse just makes debate more difficult and confuses the issue.