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."
It`s because of the Republicans!
Because Jammie and her idiot lawyers somehow think they are ever actually going to win.
how could any copyright system function that doesn't punish individual citizens equally with corporations when individual citizens possess the potential for near-zero cost duplication and worldwide distribution?
The amount of ass-hattery in that statement is astounding. Individual file sharers do not benefit from sharing their files. They do not get to access more files, and they do not get paid for their activities. Saying that this is equivalent to a professional bootlegger who sells illegal copies of DVD's for profit is absolutely ridiculous.
That brings me to an interesting point, / . is just "the ramblings of socially-inept, technology-literate news-mongers".
What she allegedly did caused less harm to society than a parking violation, and that is how it should be treated.
Not true in the least. Companies or individuals are always harmed to some degree when people pirate. The problem comes in that each of those people who potentially pirated are then free to repeat; essentially building a tree of potentially unending pirated copies and as such, potentially unending damages. That's always been part of the problem. Its extremely difficult to evaluate the actual harm (damage). For one pirate for a given song, the damages could be catastrophic. While the harm from another pirate might be no more than the devaluation associated with the simple act of copying.
Now keep in mind, we're only talking damages so far. We've not addressed punitive damages, which are absolutely appropriate for malice and/or willful misconduct. Punitive damages are frequently calculated as some multiple of the damages. Their intent is strictly to punish. In theory, a higher degree of malice or willful misconduct deserves higher financial punishments.
Here's the catch. When its a company faced with punitive damages, no one seems to have a problem. When its someone of wealth, no one seems to have a problem. But when its their pet illicit act, suddenly everyone is upset about how broken the system. In fact, you could actually argue that your reaction actually validates the system is "blind" and working properly in this specific detail.
If you've read any of my comments in the past, I absolutely agree the system is broken. I just don't happen to agree this particular element of the system is broken. Its actually working as designed. After all, if she had wanted to avoid this whole situation, all she need do is to not have pirated the songs - and especially not had offered them up to be re-pirated.
At the end of the day, always remember punitive damages are a bitch and exist only to punish. Depending on the crime, punishment may serve as a minor reprimand (small judgment) to making an example (huge judgment). In this particular case, based on the constantly large judgments, its appears the juries want to make an example out of her because they are time and time again acknowledging the massive harm this does to companies, individuals, and society at large. Notice how that's a stark contrast to your entirely trivial and dismissive attitude, which is not in line at at with the severity of the situation.
But NPR will welcome your views because you're not talking about Muslims.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Because I need a certain snippet out of the song to use according to fair use, unfortunately it is halfway through the song and thus it is practically impossible to obtain the clip I'd like to use since the demos available typically only play the first 15-30 seconds of the song.
Boohoo. If it's really that important buy the song and cut out the part you want. Fair Use in no way implies that you get to have access to copyright works for free to use them in a fair use way.