Slashdot Mirror
Jammie Thomas Hit With $1.5 Million Verdict
suraj.sun writes with this excerpt from CNET: "Jammie Thomas-Rasset, the Minnesota woman who has been fighting the recording industry over 24 songs she illegally downloaded and shared online four years ago, has lost another round in court as a jury in Minneapolis decided today that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages to Capitol Records, for songs she illegally shared in April 2006. ... The trial is the third for Thomas-Rasset, after one jury found her liable for copyright infringement in 2007 and ordered her to pay $222,000, the judge in the case later ruled that he erred in instructing the jury and called for a retrial. In the second trial, which took place in 2009, a jury found Thomas-Rasset liable for $1.92 million. Thomas-Rasset subsequently asked the federal court for a new trial or a reduction in the amount of damages in July 2009. But earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be 'monstrous and shocking' and reduced the amount to $54,000."
I thought that the $54k amount was the amount that she had to pay. How exactly is she now required to pay so much more?
Palm trees and 8
$54,000 is still a lot of money, but it's doable, over a good number of years.
1,5 mil, however, not so much.
So, 24 songs are worth $222,000... no, actually it's $1,920,000... wait, I mean $54,000... did I say that? I meant $1,500,000...
Who the hell decides these amounts? The guy who wrote the Windows file copy dialog?
Look at those dollar amounts. First trial: $220,000 Second: $1.92 million Third: $54,000 Fourth: $1.5 million
Something about the shear inconsistency of the outcomes tells me how broken this system of courts truly is. It's not based on anything real. It's based on appearances, fuzzy opinions, manipulated interpretations, etc. This woman shared some music over the internet, and they want to financially crucify her. $54,000 thousand would take a lot of people a long time to pay off, let alone $1.5 million. That amount would effectively end her financial life.
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
When you are in a hole, stop digging. This applies more to her "lawyers" than to herself though.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Arstechnica just posted a nice companion piece to this: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/42-german-p2p-fine-stark-contrast-to-seven-figure-us-judgments.ars
Word game?
Said the Tick-Tock Man.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Why is it that in jury trials she gets slapped with over a million in damages, yet judges appear to favour a milder approach? Are the "Jury of your peers" seriously that gullible that they feel they have to institute massive punitive damages on an individual?
The law is bipolar.
They're just ruining the rest of her life? What gives. Where is the justice! She should be executed!. Sharing music is serious business!!!
Copyrights were never really meant to target individual citizens; copyright is a regulation on businesses, and should only be applied to businesses. The way the RIAA is suing individuals is a disgrace, and their lawyers should be reprimanded for abusing the court system.
Not that anyone really cares about what is best for the people of the United States.
Palm trees and 8
...the Minneapolis jury is pretty misinformed and outright unreasonable.
Are we now going to get all the people who illegally made mix-tapes for their friends in the 1980s and fine them too?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
It`s because of the Republicans!
... so can someone in-the-know explain why these awards always increase as trials go on and on? Since when is the appeals process "double or nothin'?"
It's always confirmation bias!
I don't think you understand what she and her lawyers are after. The last thing they want is for the Jury to find her innocent or award a reasonable amount of damages. The more absurd the amount the better. They need the award to be absurdly high in order for an federal appeals judge to rule the law is in unconstatutional. Thats the end game here.
This amounts to nothing more than legalized extortion and racketeering. How can a so-called "jury of her peers" possibly allow such a thing to happen? I can see a stodgy old judge doing something ridiculous like this, but a jury? They are supposed to possess the collected wisdom of several lifetimes, yet they allow this to continue. It boggles the mind.
It will be a cold day in hell before I buy anything from Capitol Records. Sorry Beastie Boys, you gotta fight for your right to party!
earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be 'monstrous and shocking' and reduced the amount to $54,000.
[the jury] decided today that she was liable for $1.5 million in copyright infringement damages
The jury is instructed to apply the law without considering whether the law is constitutional. The judge is applying his perspective on constitutionality. Given a 30x difference in outcomes, it seems that there is a pretty severe disconnect between the law and what is right according this official boundaries of this nation's legislative charter.
What do we do to find the law to be 'monstrous and shocking'? What is the process for finding the legislature and DoJ to be 'monstrous and shocking'? For finding that they do not derive their just powers from the will of the governed and have violated their sworn duty to The Constitution in favor of their sponsors' will-to-power?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Even forcing someone to pay a single cent for pirating a song would be too much. Pirates don't actually take anything or harm anyone. The "potential profit" argument doesn't make any sense because not only is it likely impossible to steal money that only exists in the future of an alternate dimension where the artist/business made more money, but even if it were possible, everyone would be 'guilty' of 'stealing' profit that others could, potentially, have had (I can give quite a few examples if you wish). What's broken is this worthless capitalistic society that tries to interfere with actions that harm no one.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
The most interesting part, for those of us who read the article, is:
But earlier this year, the judge found that amount to be "monstrous and shocking" and reduced the amount to $54,000. Following that, the RIAA informed Thomas-Rasset that it would accept $25,000--less than half of the court-reduced award--if she agreed to ask the judge to "vacate" his decision, which means removing his decision from the record. Thomas-Rasset rejected that offer almost immediately.
RIAA is scared their tactics will no longer work. When faced with more reasonable verdicts, their defendants are probably more likely to fight it out in court, making RIAA's whole business litigation plan useless.
Every last one of these acts will have a twitter / facebook / forum etc... at least a couple of them are going to be people who interact with their fans on there in person.
Do they know that this is being done in their name? We know that songs are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas#The_24_songs so let's start asking them the question...
I have a friend who is wondering if there Is there a statue of limitation on copyright infringement? Anyone know?
You're rather forgiving. If it was up to me (which fortunately for them, it isn't) I do have them lined up against the wall...
If this is indeed the endgame, it's not just coming up with absurd decisions. It's also getting the much smaller amounts in the middle. The situation looks even more ridiculous when the jury and the judges come up with polar opposite amounts for damages. A yo-yo of decisions on the same case does not make sense in the record books.
Is there a list of ISPs that do and don't deal with the RIAA?
How do I know if I'm safe?
that if any of the jurors were 'investigated', you would find quite a bit of infringing material in their homes. I have yet to meet anyone that doesn't have a old cassette of songs dubbed from someone else, a CD of tunes made for a party or wedding, a photocopy of some book or newspaper, lyrics on their website or profile, etc. Even if they don't have these items currently, they've made infringing copies in the past.
Everyone in the US is guilty of copyright infringement at one time or another. Most people don't ever think about copyright, or if they do, it's to make up the rules as they go.
I wonder how the jury would react if they were sent invoices for damages for their past and current infringements, based on the ridiculous damages they approved for this woman.
But the message is crystal clear. You can't legally COPY someones work and especially you can't share it. I'm a writer and I want to get paid for copies of what I write. NO ONE has a right to take my work and share it with others or copy it without paying. I have every right to expect that what I write IS MINE TO SELL or give away - but it's MINE.
should you not be forced to pay for, just because you've found a way to "harmlessly" acquire them?
--
where individuals are supposedly free, but end up being corporations' bitch. you are just free to choose who you will be a bitch for ...
i know a lot of you oldtimers will get irritated. get irritated. the reality YOU built for us youngsters is irritating us too.
Read radical news here
This ruling is ridiculous and equivalent to life sentence, because that's how long it will take Miss Thomas to earn the money (plus interest) and pay the 1.5 million dollar fine.
The crime committed is not worthy of that heavy level of punishment.
I mean - it's not as if she killed somebody, and now she's sentenced to Lifelong Indentured servitude.
She just shared 24*4 == ~100 minutes worth of music. Big. Frakkin'. Deal.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
if there is one, I assume it grows faster than the passage of time, just like copyright terms.
new sig
I can't imagine sitting on a jury and handing out an award like this, even if she is guilty of the charges. It's like people lose all sense of reality in the jury room. I wouldn't know for sure because when I give my occupation as "satellite communications engineer" I'm generally excused by the defense in the next breath.
However, you listen to the juror interviews after some recent high profile cases with questionable verdicts, and you can see how a lot of them get wrapped up in the pseudo-religious fervor of CIVIC DUTY[TM] and lose themselves in the minutiae of what are in many cases pretty clear situations if you just hold on to your common sense.
I love the "our hands were tied" excuse. So screw the jury instructions or whatever you imagine is tying your hands. It's *your* baby in that jury room. Give the correct verdict. Maybe it'll get overturned by another court, but at least you did the right thing.
you will only have a legal right to what you create, after you successfully participate in the abolition of all the self-created monopolies in music, media, publishing and broadcasting monopolies that FORCE their business models and PRICES down on people's throats through lobbying or market domination.
until then, you cant have a right, and you cant talk about having a right, because 'free market' is not determining the price or the ways a product is sold and used. if the market is not free, you dont have a right to be free either.
Read radical news here
How long until someone gets hit with this kind of judgement and goes postal on everybody. When you are in such a lopsided position of power and you put people in a position where they have nothing left to lose, some will decide to take revenge, especially if they feel it is an unfairly unjust proposition.
A message to the jury: You guys are either fucked up sadists, or are the dumbest motherfuckers this planet has to offer....just sayin.
They keep buying the RIAA's line that she's somehow responsible for the tens of thousands of other people who partially or indirectly downloaded the songs from her. There are two ways to look at this:
100,000 people download a song. Each person is criminally liable for their own download. Fines should thus reflect people trying to be cheap and get a $1 product for free. Something on the order of $2-$20 per song would probably be the right amount.
100,000 people download a song. One person is determined to be the criminal mastermind and fined for the infringement of all of those people. So a fine on the order of $200k-$2 mil is probably the right amount here. But because you've made one person pay for everyone's infringement, that one fine indemnifies the 100,000 from any charges for the crime.
What the RIAA is trying to do is get a fine on this woman as if she were the criminal mastermind behind it all, and then apply the same fine to the other 100,000 people. It just doesn't work that way logically. Either each person is responsible for their own actions, or one person is responsible for everyone's actions. It's totally illogical to argue that each person is responsible for everyone's actions.
As has been pointed out, the real problem here is that the RIAA is taking copyright laws written to be used against commercial copyright infringement, and using them against individuals. Commercial copyright infringement (e.g. mass-producing bootleg CDs) fits the "criminal mastermind" model, and the fines were set up to reflect that. If a bootleg shop got caught, they'd be sued, fined, and the people who bought those bootleg CDs weren't liable for anything. Totally different situation, totally different penalties, which the RIAA is misusing (or abusing if you prefer) against individual infringers.
Apparently based on my experience that's legal. After fighting to get my film back for 18 months I was just told it'd cost me 10K to 20K and even if I do get a judgment it might not be enforceable. The laws are written by criminals to benefit criminals. If you're a victim you don't stand a chance and you have no rights.
http://www.fftheuntoldstory.com/
No matter what she did with these songs, this is just bullying to scare people into a sheep-like state. Even if the verdict is according to the law, in my view it only means that the law applied is wrong, and no longer serving the people. The whole system is rigged to follow the interests of a few.
I do not do illegal sharing or downloading, and I do not support people who does it. But I do not do it out of the idea of supporting the artists, not out of being scared to be caught. What the record companies are doing is despicable. One would think that with the rise of the Internet artists will eventually find a way around this perverse system.
So, if she were a mentally unstable 13-year old girl who now kills herself over this judgement, is the RIAA liable for cyber-bullying?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Those capitals have won me over. Truly you must be a great writer to employ them so aptly.
Its interesting that 24 songs can get you millions in fines and other legal problems. But infecting thousands of computers with viruses, stealing financial information, spamming the crap out of everyone usually results in a slap on the wrist and probation. Sounds like the system works.
Let's see. She's definitely guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (beyond any doubt whatsoever, in fact). She lied under oath. She tried to destroy evidence. She tried to shift blame to her kids. When offered a settlement that worked out to a few dollars per song she had illegally downloaded and shared, she refused to take it (she's refused several settlement offers, most of which were quite reasonable).
Why should we have any sympathy whatsoever for her?
... you would have to get 3 DUIs per week for a YEAR to reach 1.5 million dollars. Clearly one person sharing music online is as big a danger to society as 150 drunks on the road.
Seriously, this is so out of whack. There is a reason punitive damages exist but this is like executing people for speeding. If Jamie earns--excuse me, NETS--$50k per year, this would take 30 years to pay off.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
More than likely I will get hit as flamebait or a troll for this, but I do need to play devil's advocate for some of this.
/.) to random teenagers wanting the new Hannah Montana album. Even if the music industry is not losing money and even if the RIAA is crap, pirating is out of hand. Us nerds made it too easy for normal people to pirate (I guess the story of my life).
Downloading and distributing music is illegal. We all know why the amount is so high. It is to make an example of this person. For somebody that only downloaded 24 songs and they need to pay 1.5 mil. That is insane.
Is it also insane that if a person gets busted with less than one ounce of marijuana, that they lose all college funding (unless they do it through a bank immediately) for a full year (High Education Act - 1998)?
We live in a time where it is very normal to just pirate what you want. Pirating has left the realm of just us using it (you know, the type of people who read
If examples are made of them, they will eventually slow down. Of course, there is no way to stop the true pirates, but to get the people who want the new Hannah Montana album to not download, then pirating will get back to how it used to be. It was something that the nerds did.
If you know you are committing a crime and get busted, I think it is rather dumb to wig out when you are made an example of. Of course the people that are getting busted right now will be made an example. I can tell you this, that person is not going to download anymore songs for comitting that crime.
The world is how you make it
Only the crazies want jury trials when its clear that they are in the wrong. Juries are pissed that they're stuck in a courtroom for a week and are getting paid $20 dollars. When you throw in a defendant who is clearly wasting everybody's time by lying ... there tend to be pretty harsh verdicts.
Miss Bachmann, like her favorite founding father Thomas Jefferson, considers copyright a bad idea. He said: "If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
"That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."
He also wrote to James Madison, author of the Constitution:
"I like the declaration of rights as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me... Article 9. Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature, and their own inventions in the arts, for a term not exceeding ___ years, but for no longer term, and for no other purpose." Jefferson's preference for the term of copyright was submitted to Madison a few days afterward. The proposed term was that of 19 years, based on the average author's lifespan after publication. Today that length would be 35 years, and nowhere near the current 150 granted to Disney and others non-humans.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
You're an idiot.
A judge's ruling that a certain level of "damages" is excessive is very much precedent - whether individually binding, contributory to an overall aggregate of similar decisions, or "persuasive" precedent (essentially similar to Amicus briefs in the way that they can be considered in relation to a current case) - that can affect the damages the MafiAA may be able to extort in future trials.
Vacating a ruling means that you declare the ruling inapplicable and inadmissible to any future proceeding - in essence, "Null and Void." As such, a vacated ruling cannot be cited as precedent, whether binding or persuasive.
Now please run along, little child. The grownups are trying to have a grown-up discussion of important things. Come back in 18 years or so when you have a firm grounding in the real world and how the legal system works.
Why don't we just put up the death sentence for copyright infringement and be done with it? /sarcasm
This new verdict is as "monstrous and shocking" as the $1,940,000 verdict was. After reading through many articles on the history of this case, I have to proclaim it a farce. Since when don't you need actual, admissible evidence to prosecute someone? The only evidence they had was from MediaSentry, which, at least according to an appeal that was filed, may violate wiretap laws and state private investigator laws. In fact, there was a court ruling in 2007 which proclaimed that this company was operating without a private investigator's license, rendering their evidence in that case inadmissible. If the RIAA is going to try to prosecute for this type of thing, they should at least use legal means to gather their evidence. The jury is in essence awarding the RIAA for ignoring due process and illegally obtaining information which should not have been admitted in the court case. Since they would no longer have admissible proof of her sharing the files, given that MediaSentry's evidence was illegally obtained, then the RIAA should receive no reward. I'm not saying that what she (Jammie Thomas-Rasset) did was right or wrong, that's not my call, but my observation is that the RIAA has performed its share of misconduct all throughout this trial, yet that's being ignored and they're being rewarded statutory damages for copyright violations that they can't legally prove with legally obtained evidence.
The real problem with all of these prosecutions (persecutions?) is that there is a semantic gap regarding the actions that are occurring. P2P users think what they are doing is theft, if they think about it at all. They think that by using these systems, they are getting things for free. However, they are not being prosecuted for theft, but for copyright infringement, which is carries significantly larger fines. The average P2P user does not log onto the system thinking that they are distributing illegal copies. They may think that they are "giving back," since they got something for free, but they do not realize the legal implications of their actions.
What makes these prosecutions so heinous is that the MPAA and RIAA are perpetuating this misunderstanding. Every "P2P is bad" public service announcement that I have ever seen on TV or before a movie says that "file sharing is theft." This campaign of disinformation actually lures users (primarily those who are young and naive) into thinking that their crime is less severe than the charges they will actually face.
Courts and the legislature must work together to address this semantic gap, which includes new legislation that addresses the nature of sharing in the digital age and sets appropriate fines. That should also include sanctions against the trade organizations for irresponsible campaigns.
This is the very last story of "your rights online" as it has become brutally evident that we have none anymore, the RIAA having swallowed the very last shreds we still clung on to. Start saving your money for the multi-million fine that you WILL be receiving soon.
The next time someone refuses to settle for $5k or whatever they demand, they shouldn't take it to court. They should instead sign a "I'm a horrible pirate thief and i'll pay $10m for my crimes".
And as a thanks for saving $50million in lawyer fees, in addition to agreeing to pay more than any court would deal as damages the recording company should pay her fine and a $5 million bonus for good behaviour. If the person can cry for the camera and tell the audience how her life is ruined, she should get $10million more.
While this may be in jest, the fucked up thing is that the recording companies would actually save money if they did this.
I say she declare herself "Too Big To Fail" and get a TARP bailout at 0% interest, just like those scumbag Wall Street Fatcats. Then she can pay back the loan over the course of 1.5 million years.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
i mean that. if a jury was made of people with a iq grater then 20 stupid cases like this would never survive in court. back when race would be a deciding factor for some judges the jury would nullify the decision. imagine if smart jury's star using the sprite of the law again and not whats on paper or what the judge tells them to do.and starts saying no the ammount are stupid we find them not guilty based on that.
If I buy a song legally (and can prove I did so), then share it, what legal grounds would these muppets have to prosecute me? Surely the people downloading from me are the ones at fault (assuming they don't already own the music and can't be bothered to rip the media themselves)?
Come back in 18 years or so when you have a firm grounding in the real world and how the legal system works.
The U.S. legal system can be described as many things, but certainly not as having a firm grounding in reality.
Well, my orig post was crap humor.
However, Michele Bachmann's stance on copyright is great, if true. You didn't link anything where she actually is on record stating such. What I have heard her say on record is typically narrow minded or devoid of actual ideas. I've never seen any indication from her she is anything more than your typical politician toeing the party line. Vote for me if you want things to change, but we're not going to tell you how.
For example when asked by Chris Mathew's on election night for specifics regarding her comment earlier in the chat, that the GOP needs to create jobs, reduce spending, cut taxes, her answer was to repeat herself. Reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes. When asked again, directly, in plain English "What would you cut to reduce spending?" (paraphrased) she repeated the mantra, reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes.
Not that the Dems are better. I personally loath both parties.
No sig for you!!
No, MN did not. The 6th district did, which consists of the rich Republicans of Stillwater, poor Tea Party extremist hate-farmers of Anoka county, stoned college kids too lazy to vote and misguided, fanatical evangelicals in St. Cloud. The rest of MN thinks she's an embarrassment, and hopes she falls through the ice somewhere in the district she never visits.
Put up a torrent of the 24 songs, call it jammies mix
enlist your friends to all burn several copies of the mix
put them under the wiperblades of the jurors, judges, lawyers, distribute them in minnesota
there, now everyone is in violation, we are equal now. Can we move
Jammie Thomas Found Dead Inside Home.
Jammie Thomas, after losing the forth round of her case against the RIAA, was found dead inside her home early this morning. Early reports indicate it appears to have been suicide. Jammie Thomas was recently ordered by the court to pay the RIAA the amount of 1.5 Million dollars after illegally downloading 24 songs 4 years ago....
Anyone got a light for my sig?
So...
Doesn't that mean they (she and her lawyers) are winning?
by several orders of magnitude.
The value of a human life is routinely computed for insurance purposes. Depending on the jurisdiction it's on the order of $100k to $1m; possibly more but definitely much less than $10m. In other words, the amount she's asked to pay is roughly equivalent to that she would owe in restitution for killing someone.
Ok Consider the following:
While I wasn't home some drunk guy wanders on my property and smashes my bird bath, crushes my garden gnomes, empties my swimming pool, slices my vinyl siding, tears up my petunias, and smashes a window. Now I have this all on video and later he is arrested, so there is no question of his guilt. Then I drag him into court to recover my damages which are only $700. However I file the suit for asking for $1000,000.
Now this is REAL property with REAL damage..
Don't you think I would be laughed out of court?
See my point?
Whats wrong with this picture?
The secret about the courts is that the individual is introduced as someone who is under the law as a debtor that hasn't payed-off their Citizenship to the standing army/body-politick. Look-up the postal regulations about the difference between a person and a patroon, and you'll find it remarkable how far the people have been sold out of the common-law and into Admiralty venues of the district court. This has all been brought to overlay States of America ever since George Washington the 1st President under Federal jurisdiction outside Articles of Confederation, moving under the captured Moorish charter of The United States (1754) to incorporate The United States into the United States debtor nation in to the district of Columbia and maintane a concealed war of characteristic attrition against the States of America.
What judge and jury thinks some everyday person could ever pay this sort of damages fine in their lifetimes? I mean really? Hey you owe record company a million dollars! Really, good luck with collecting that. Maybe the accused can get a loan from China...
I'd like you to consider an alternative analysis. Michele was just fuckin' with Chris. Consider, not matter what she proposed cutting, the crowd assembled at MSNBC would immediately proceed to rip her apart and explain how her approach would lead to puppies mauling babies to death while their grandparents died of hunger in the streets. Chris' question was a loaded gun for Michele to shoot herself with. Instead, Michele hands the gun back to him. She feeds him the party line with a shit-eatin' grin, and finishes with a reference to that tingle that keeps going up his leg. No accident, considering the quickly scrawled poster that kept floating behind her. Her response was a thinly veiled, "I recognize the power of your pulpit, and FUCK YOU!!" The message obviously came through loud and clear to Chris, as he struggled to keep his head from exploding.
Bachmann may not be the sharpest tool in the chest, but I thought her takedown of that self-appointed elitist was classic.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
You'll notice that Moryath didn't in any way link them. You need to understand both "the real world" and "how the legal system works". Neither one nor the other is sufficient. How many life times you need to live to achieve that is another question.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
She just needs to author 24 songs and perform them. Record the performances and give the RIAA or individual studio the rights to the songs she wrote. Since the jury said 24 songs are worth 1.5 million her debt is paid. I see an opportunity to retire early here. Where is that sheet music pad I got at the swap meet last year...
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
needs to be completely destroyed. All they do is push plastic (disks and artists) and sue the little guy. I hope each of the lawyers on the RIAA's side, as well as the leadership of the RIAA have THEIR lives summarily ruined somehow.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
This was my post, and I didn't check the box for "Post Anonymously", so I have no idea why it posted it anonymously.
Between the scripting errors and the new discussion system that I can't figure out how to turn off, I'm about ready to give up on this website.
You hear me, slashdot? Stop "fixing" shit that isn't broken, you're pissing off your viewers!
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
You do understand that this outcome will practically certainly be appealed based on constitutional grounds, right? Since you are such an expert?
What we are seeing is precedent in the making. There really isn't any yet in this area (what to do in the case where a party is claimed to be significantly damaged economically by the actions of a vast multitude of individuals who cooperate using the net, while each individual actually causes very minimal damage by himself).
Please show us where all this was clearly foreseen by the Founding Fathers. Righhhht.
... and now, I've apparently replied to a post that isn't mine, despite clicking "reply" on the correct post. It appears that my actual post is now missing. Slashdot, your site officially sucks.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Keep on copieing like usual.
She just an other casualty in the on going war which we ofcourse will win.
The RIAA backed off a bit and said they wouldn't pursue any NEW lawsuits against individuals (sure, lets see how that goes), but if the IAA's all start a new round of lawsuits, and "SUE EM ALL", as Doctor Love wants, then how many people do you suppose would need to be financially ruined before "Right to Bear Arms", becomes a rallying cry, and heads do roll. Many folks here have insinuated as such, but I am afraid we sheep will eventually just fall in line and say, "Whew! glad they didn't catch me". I am going to miss Life when I'm gone, but will never miss this world.
Ok, this is the post I somehow posted as AC (despite not checking the box for "Post Anonymously"), and then I replied to it when I realized it was AC for whatever reason, but slashdot has managed to misplace my posts here and here.
Whatever. This new discussion format is apparently more screwed up than I initially thought. Anyone know how to go back to the way it used to be?
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
There Is No Way I Would Ever Pay A Dollar...First Off...MP3 Is A File Format, How Can I Be Punished For A Format Which Was Created By Technology? Second, The Record Industry Is Over, Pack You Crap, And Leave! I Dont Want Your 8 Tracks, Audio Tapes, Or CD's, You Can Pack All That Crap Up Too And Burn It. Its Not My Fault That Your Industry Fell Apart Over 5 Years And You Failed To Adapt. This Is Like Someone Charging Me 25k Everytime I Wanna Make A Call Because Of All The Switch Board Operators I Put Out Of The Biz. I Swear Its Stories Like This That Drive Me Crazy. I Download Stuff All The Time! Gigs Worth! Come Find Me...I'd Love To See What My Grand Total Is...But I'll Break It Down Into Eaiser Terms...It Will Take You 90k A Year To Hire A Dude...2k To Fly Him Here, Feed Him, Drive Him Around To Court. For a 2.6 Billion Dollar Suit Against Me. Where Ill Drive Down To Court For 10 Bucks, Get My Government Appointed Lawyer For Free, And Bag My Own Lunch. I Hope They Are Prepared For The Longest Settlement Payment In History...Take A Ticket. Your In Line Somewhere Behind My Taxes, My Student Loan, My Car Loan, My Rent Payment, Food Bills.
You're an idiot.
You start your comment with this.
As such, a vacated ruling cannot be cited as precedent, whether binding or persuasive.
Then quote wikipedia.
Now please run along, little child. The grownups are trying to have a grown-up discussion of important things.
Then try to claim this?
Come on mods. What is a troll if not somebody that begins and ends a comment with insults?
Grow up.
Copyright is meant to "target" copyright holders, by giving them a monopoly, and yes, that only makes sense for businesses since the point of the monopoly is help them make more money than they could make in a free market. So in that sense, copyright is only being applied to a business here (Capitol Records).
Whether infringement of a copyright is done by a competing business or a not-for-profit person, does not really have a bearing on the amount of money that the copyright holder makes (or doesn't make) due to the monopoly not being actualized. Why would laws that prohibit infringement, only single out competing businesses but not be applied to not-for-profit individuals? If you look at it in terms of the purpose of copyright (to promote the progress .. of the useful arts) the two situations work against that purpose in an exactly identical way.
Take any any post-1991 Metallica song: whether you download-by-bittorrent or buy a CDR from a professional pirate, you are going to realize that it sucks and when Metallica offers to sell you the song, you're going to say No Thanks. Both the uploader and the CDR-seller have equally subverted the monopoly and made it so that you became informed that Metallica sucks, thereby frustrating their sales, so that Lars ends up as a homeless crackwhore in the gutter. In both cases, when he goes running to mommy government, he's going to be crying equally loud.
LOL, yep, hate farmer. That's me alright.
Does the poor little Democrat need a tissue after the complete ass raping you received at the polls the other day?
You now have $50 cash and $12 worth of music for a total of $62 of value. You are now effectively $12 richer than you were since you have the music and you retained the $12.
Sounds like you have just hit upon the perfect technique to generate wealth and solve the current economic crisis. Some call washington, YES WE CAN!!!!
Wow. I'm surprised to see you. Shouldn't you be out shouting logical fallacies? It's telling that your squinty gal needed the most money ever spent in a mid-year race in order to win. Congrats.
I dunno, seems to me "What would you cut to reduce spending?" is a pretty important question.
Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? Military? Anything else is a drop in the bucket.
This is the problem with the tea-partiers and the government in general right now. Go ask HOW to reduce spending.
Eschew Obfuscation
First, let me say that I do NOT think that she is deliberately trying to get absurd rewards. I just don't buy that argument. But playing devil's advocate and agreeing with it...
That's the point. The Supreme Court takes cases based largely on two criteria: First, that there is an important constitutional issue to settle. And second, that lower courts have arrived at different decisions. If every court that has ever heard a case agrees on how it should be handled, there's little reason to step in -- unless they want to reverse it. I don't see any reason that lower appeals courts wouldn't also consider cases along such lines.
This is one case with one set of facts, and yet four different outcomes. On the one hand you have a couple of jury decisions obviously attempting to apply the law, but arriving at pretty wildly different decisions. $1.92MM is over 30% higher than $1.5MM just in percentage terms, and almost half a million dollars higher in absolute terms. And then of course the first jury with a $222K verdict that is nearly an order of magnitude different. That alone is an indication that the law may be too vague and require clarification, either by the Congress or the judiciary.
At the same time we have judges raising constitutional concerns. An award that is "monstrous and shocking" is essentially code for "in violation of the Eighth Amendment," and his reduction took the damages from the highest the case has ever seen to four times less than the lowest jury award. That's significant. So startling, in fact, that the RIAA offered to let her settle for half that ($25,000) if she asked the judge to vacate his verdict -- it is so vastly different, in short, that it has the RIAA worried it might be used as precedent.
These are all extremely intriguing things for appeal, and for a higher court to step in and go "alright, wait a minute here; something obviously is not right." If they do so, and if they agree that following the law leads to unconstitutional awards, or even that the law is so ambiguous that justice is not being served leaving it so wildly in the jury's hands, it may end up with the law being struck down.
The murder charges will be much more lenient than whatever the copyright lawyers will throw at you!!!
What I've never understood is why it wasn't a flat rate (modified by the scope of the infringing activity) plus all the revenues you gained from the infringing activity.
It used to be very similar to that; "In the corporate world treble damages often arise in regard to patent infringement, willful counterfeiting and antitrust lawsuits. Damages are calculated against the financial loss incurred by the plaintiff directly resulting from the actions of the defendant."
The problem in this case, and specifically the reason the damage award keeps bouncing around so hard (gaining and losing multiple zeros on the left side of the decimal point) is that damages in IP infringement cases are difficult to quantify, especially when the "damage" may be, in actual fact, a net effect of zero... or even an increase in sales of music on physical media.
From http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-boosts-cd-sales-071103/:
The researchers conclude that that people who download more music actually buy more CDs. They report: “We estimate that the effect of one additional P2P download per month is to increase music purchasing by 0.44 CDs per year.”
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
The RIAA proved to the satisfaction of the jury that Ms. Thomas-Rasset had downloaded 24 mp3 song files.
There was NO evidence of her being a "distributor" which would have required
-proof of dissemination of copies
-proof that the dissemination was to the public at large, AND
-proof of a sale, another transfer of ownership, a rental, a lease, or a lending.
There was no proof of any of the above.
So all there was was 24 downloads.
Wholesale price [70 cents] minus saved expenses [~ 35 cents] = 35 cents lost profit from a lost sale.
35 cents x 15% [the ratio of lost sales to unauthorized downloads according to music industry statistical companies] = 5 cents.
5 cents x 24 files = $1.20.
The statutory damages should not have exceeded $100 in all.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
and therefore what a perfect opportunity to exercise their power. Boggles the mind what the jury are thinking.
Ask and post the same questions about the jury, the people representing "Virgin Records America, Inc, Capitol Records, Inc, Sony BMG Music Entertainment, Arista Records LLC, Interscope Records, Warner Bros Records Inc and UMG Recordings, Inc" and so on.
Give tips on how to burn down their houses, destroy their stuff and generally scare the crap out of them.
These companies stop for nothing until they own the entire society, but people working for them are just human. And you can find out who they are and where they are. Or you can just sit back and see your human rights go down the drain.
Lets say that the price for 24 songs is 24 dollars, you made a profit of $24 for the songs you downloaded. In order to get to 1.5 million of profit you had to distribute 62,500 copies.
For argument sake, unless otherwise proven on court, let us assume this woman was an average internet user from 2006.
Internet Download: 1mbps
Internet Upload: 256kbps
Average Computer Uptime: 6/24hr
Assuming each song was about 4MB, 24 songs would be 96MB.
In order for her to have distribute 62,500 copies, she would need to have at least uploaded 96MBx62,500 worth of data (6,000,000MB).
In order for her to upload 1MB with her given speeds she would need 32 seconds (256kbps*4*8).
In order for her to upload 6,000,000MB, it would take her 192,000,000 seconds (6,000,000MB*32)
Which is equal to 3,200,000 minutes
Which is equal to 53,333 hours
Which is equal to 2,222 24hr-days or 8,8889 6hr-days
Taking the 6hr-day approach as an average user of 2006, it would take her 24 years to upload enough for that verdict...
A more reasonable approach using the average internet user of 2006 would be given that the life expectancy of an average song is 5 years.
5yrs*(365days/year)*(6hrs/day)*(60mins/hr)*(2MB/min)*(0.25USD/MB)=5,475 USD
2MB/min is based on waiting 32 seconds to upload 1MB
0.25dollars/MB is based on a song cost 1.00 dollar and on average it is 4MB
5,475 USD as a MAXIMUM award saying the the user purposely shared the song 5 years in a row using 100% of their upload bandwidth on their average usage capabilities
That is 0.3% of what the verdict was made from.
Don't you hate it when morons think they know what they are talking about and yet have no clue? Minnesota needs more judges and jurors that don't work on a farm on their free-time.
Bit harsh. Can't we all just 'get along'. =)
I think you're argument is strong enough without the barbs.
could care less
Couldn't care less, please, unless you mean the RIAA actually do care about getting money from her. Say what you mean, not the opposite.
If she went to a record store, with a gun, and stole 150 CDs she would be prosecuted for armed robbery and sentenced to at least ten years in Prison. Even without a gun, she would be convicted of a felony. The record labels want to believe that her downloading the music is the same thing as going to a record store and stealing the music.
If I were a enterprising states attorney general, or US attorney, I would start going after file sharers with criminal charges. I would demand that the record companies turn over and report any instance of downloading before they attempted any civil action.
If we saw a lot of otherwise decent people going to jail for the rest of their lives because they downloaded some music, people would start to care about copyright reform.
If we suddenly, I dunno, switched back to natural law for a day or two and decided to punish the frivolous bastards who are responsible for these outrageous numbers that can truly ruin people who would dare try to do the honorable thing and pay the bill, who would you even be able to solidly aim the sole of your shoe at?
Lawyers?
What the hell goes through someone's mind to be that vengeful for almost nothing? And for someone else, too.
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.
and disproportionately HUGE and involve crucifixion as to render all such judgments unenforceable. (Except under Sharia law. Those fuckers make up a charge and a punishment that bear no relation to reality...)
Get an obviously worse judgment than Bernie Madoff.
I say lets sentence to immediate death and lets sentence her children to indentured servitude for 150 years. (Clearly unconstitutional!)
Needless to say, parole is not an option.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
For example when asked by Chris Mathew's on election night for specifics regarding her comment earlier in the chat, that the GOP needs to create jobs, reduce spending, cut taxes, her answer was to repeat herself. Reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes. When asked again, directly, in plain English "What would you cut to reduce spending?" (paraphrased) she repeated the mantra, reduce spending, create jobs, cut taxes.
Not that the Dems are better. I personally loath both parties.
The reason that she can't answer those questions is that the answers are highly speculative, potentially long winded and most likely the result of further research.
For example, it is reasonable for a sales manager to tell his prospective client that his team can deliver a project, but would need to cut features if a shortened delivery date is to be met. The above press question is equivalent to the client immediately putting the sales manager on the spot by asking what features he would cut.
To be able to answer the question, both he and his team would need to research the detailed technical impact of that request and additionally work with the client's 'people' to come up with a sensible result.
In the same way, asking "What would you cut to reduce spending?" to a political candidate is pointless. 'Reducing spending' is a reasonable goal on its own, and answering the question would require a team to research the effects/solutions. Ideally, if she is elected, she can form that team and search for a solution to achieve her goal of 'cutting spending, cutting taxes and creating jobs'.
Now we all know that this is not an easy problem, and I assume that she's not already an elected official. If she's already in office, then a better question would have been: "What have you done so far to achieve this goal?"
(BTW, I have no idea who these political figures are as I don't live in the USA.)
Jammie is the victim of legal shennanigans.
If Jammie stole 24 CDs from a music store, copied them and gave them away to 1 or more people what would the fine be?
A: Not 1.5M. More like $2000 and some community service.
The RIAA has not demonstrated how many times Jammie shared the music.
A more suitable way to fine Jammie for her actions would be along the lines of infringement. If a gym, hotel, hifi store plays a CD or DVD they break the law by publically performing the artists work without license. There is a fine for this behaviour. Given that we don't know how many people shared the music, a $2000 fine on the assumption that she shared with 50 people would seem realistic.
The wrong rules have been applied to Jammie, the RIAA love the huge sums as they want to make an example. The RIAA should be scared, because Jammie is fighting much harder and longer than expected. The RIAA really want a settlement because of the high likelyhood of a finding that is not in their favour. I am glad that Jammie is standing up to these pr!cks.
The last thing the RIAA want to see is a $2000 fine, this is not the message they want to send to p2p users.
I have 5 TB+ of music I've downloaded off the web for the last 8 years, thousands of songs, and they go after someone for downloading 26, yeah, the "system" IS broken isn't it?
Education.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
o not unfasten your seatbelts until we have docked at the Insanity terminal.
The RIAA has to be permanently taken out. This has gone too far, for too long.
Go to your senate library and read up. The law as written was available as abuse to noncomercial infringement. However, in the discussion about the law and why it was needed and how it would be applied and you will see in the documented discussion (which is only available in the archives of the Senate processes) that this was for commercial use.
A nearly empty warehouse raided that has a few thousand CDs has made millions selling CDs and, once sold, cannot be proven. Hence the statutory damages.
It was meant to account for an empty warehouse, not a network connection being available.
I am not sure whey they keep repeating the same thing, if she wanted to not pay the 25k or 50k then does that mean she goes to federal court, if so, then once twice three times your out??? If this goes wrong, how many times can she come back to ask "can you rethink this case".
We live in quebec, where file sharing is legal.
The onus falls on the record company to not make a media format that is copiable. Like in the day of VHS , if you lent your vhs tape
to your friend, and he copied it, were you legally held accountable, NO! If you paid for your copy, you owned it, to lend if you like to anyone out there...
For music, the industry seems to be trying to change the rules on the fly, as there was no money made on her part which is clearly stated as being the premise for legal ramifications by the FBI (at beg. of all VHS)....also the reason I keep bringing VHS up is because this is when that part of the law was written....so back then there was no forsite that technology would advance
to the point it has, allowing us to mass produce movies like we can....is that our fault, technologies fault, or the industries fault for not making an effort to encrypt their stuff.
You can say that if i have a knife and i use it to kill someone , it is not the knife creators that should be held accountable.
That being said, you should not hold a scientist liable when a nuclear bomb goes off, but we do....this area is very grey...
Drug dealers should not be held accountable for the drugs they sell, they do not force their junkies to use...
Alcohol companies do not force alcoholics to drink, and airplane companies do not force terrorists to fly into buildings.
We have a grey area, and in this case the record companies seem to forget back in the VHS days it was plain an clear that reproduction was for mass distribution to make money with, not sharing a few files with friends on the internet. Funny how we
are not focusing more on the fact that record and movie companies play with the accounting books and are able to use a dummy company to say that harry potter lost 700 million dollars and that the company harrypotter6 will go bankrupt, and now the tax payers are left holding the bag....I think that this is one sided, let's not focus on the fact that MGM still made a killing on harry potter
but had no taxes to pay because of that creative accounting, but they are worried about the lost revenue from the torrents online for that very same movie.
I do not see her making a fortune with this file sharing, I see no wrong, as a friend would lend another friend some cds , and that friend were to make their own copies to listen to....I do not see them breaking down any doors for that....they just want to make an example out of her which seems to me pretty sad.
You can't get water from a stone. Next, she declares bankruptcy and not even her lawyer gets paid. maybe they've done her a favor, a clean slate on all her bills. RIAA is S-T-O-O-P-I-D to chase her to this extent. A grand she'd settled, 1.5 Mil, they've wasted their time.
This is the problem with the tea-partiers and the government in general right now. Go ask HOW to reduce spending.
No. It is a problem with the population. The issue is that the electorate has discovered that they can use their vote to rob the public purse. The tea party is screaming that it has to stop, but they have to be very careful how they tell all the special interest groups to get their hands out of the candy jar.
An alternative is to stop putting candy in the jar. The entitlement special interest want be able to scream bloody murder when everyone can see that it is empty.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
What part of this does the US legal system not understand?
And I say this as a Brit!
Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and the Military, which of these are special interests?
Eschew Obfuscation
>Medicare? Medicaid? Social Security? Military? Anything else is a drop in the bucket.
All of them could be made more efficient, for significant incremental gains.
I would not cut the military, exactly. The radical move I would make would be to reduce the profit motive for industry in the military.
If you want to be a defense contractor during wartime, you will take payment up to your operating costs (decided by the government, not the corporation), and compensation beyond this level will be in the form of bonds that are redeemable *after* the end of the war. This gives the people making the war machine a strong motivation to bring an end to the war. There would also of course be strict rationing of natural resources for the duration. Oh, and if the leaders of industry balk at the war scenario under my regime? The government *will* assume control, and such dissidents will be executed for their treason. They would certainly have no motivation to go to war for anything resembling an elective purpose. It would be the absolute last resort, and the big conservative industrial folks would be the FIRST ones in the anti-war effort, because war would force them to give up the things they acquire for greed, and contribute those things to the war effort.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it.
(John Lennon)
All of them.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba