Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal

sarysa writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: 'Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.'"

Comments

$24

[schlachter]

How about they ask her for $24.
Seems pretty reasonable.
Would still deter people from sharing thousands of songs.

Re:$24

[sqrt(2)]

Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all and take back our collective cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels and their toadies in Congress.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels

I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question. If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.

The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

Re:$24

[Fluffeh]

can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for

That's my point, not a month, but either per episode or per season - and yes.

Off the top of my head: Archer, Dexter, Walking Dead, Falling Skies, Revolution, Game of Thrones, Castle, American Horror Story, Big Bang Theory.

If I could download a decent quality (doesn't have to be super duper 1080p or anything like that) at the time it comes out and without a plethora of ads in it for $1 per episode, or get access to the whole season for say $15 or $20, I would gladly do so. Makes it easy for me to watch what I want to, and at the same time I can be smug in knowing that my money is supporting the shows that I like. It is a total WIN-WIN scenario.

Its all about control. they are losing it and the masses have it.

Absolutely. The problem is that the only way that they can wrest control back from the masses is to *at least* provide the same thing that they do. Make it even better, and the masses will give them control back.

Re:$24

[mattventura]

Here's the problem. There ARE supposed to be punishments are are strong enough to deter people from committing the crime, but those are punishments, not reimbursement. If I steal money from someone, I would generally be expected to pay back what I stole and then serve jail time as a punishment. Does the victim benefit from me being in jail? No (apart from the fact that there's one less thief on the streets). If you let media corporations sue for such huge amounts of money that it becomes beneficial to them for people to commit crimes against them, they have no motivation to actually prevent the crime in the first place. You know something's wrong when the victim of the crime comes out significantly better off than they were before.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

The right to take culture, modify it, and release it back to the world, enriching our common cultural heritage ... that certainly can be argued to be our birthright, in which case the current copyright regime is manifestly unjust. There's a reasonable compromise in which we say that modifying and releasing previous works is a human right, but getting paid for it isn't: in which case copyright should be enforced for commercial infringement only.

Re:$24

[mrclisdue]

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Isn't it?

Whilst the "content-cartels" occasionally ruin the odd-person's life, hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day. Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

And I do think it's tragic, and despicable, that even one person is ruined by the various aa's and their/our bought-and-paid-for politicians/legislatures.

Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail.

A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

cheers,

Re:$24

[rubycodez]

The original purpose of copyright in the USA was to give sole right of reproduction and distribution for a *limited* time, after which the work became the public's (the culture's). that time period was 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 years if the author was still around and still wished to do so. So 28 years, and then it became the common cultural property. but the system we have today is the opposite of that, to keep things from the people indefinitely. This is done by cabals of power and money grubbing scum who are robbing the people of things valauble to culture.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

Isn't it?

No.

hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day

Ongoing activity is not evidence of a "win." Look at the drug war for your benchmark. About a million and a half people are in jail over that in the US alone, the war is wrong in every way that matters, yet it continues, people continue to suffer, the jails overflow.... not a win. In the case of file sharing, the laws and the tech are getting more draconian, not less, and the harm is beginning to spread. Again look at the drug war and see the risk you're facing: Just as in the 60s we did drugs with a "so what" mentality, and then many of us (including me) got swept up and jailed, surprise, the system has teeth and they count. You think facing down the corporate interests with a "so what" mentality will win the day, I'm really afraid you're not only wrong, but wrong in a way that's going to get a lot of people hurt.

Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

Yes, but again, they don't know very much about it yet, nor do they understand the potential consequences. There's a great deal of "Internet Superman" behavior -- loudmouthery and etc. -- but when it comes time to face the judge, that stuff tends to evaporate like the worthless bluster it is.

Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

Again, perfect parallel to drugs in the 60's. While we frolicked in the parks and ran naked through the woods, they were just beginning to wrap their heads around strategies that would become more and more vicious, and they've not stopped to this day. You're at the very beginning of your fight with the copyright holders, and they -- realistically now -- hold all the cards. They own the airwaves. They control the Internet. They know your IP and what you're doing with it. They have congress in their pocket. Congress effectively controls the legal system with very little interference from the judiciary (and even when they do take an interest, they usually side with the corporations and the government.)

The drug war, in the meantime, has turned prison into a for-profit enterprise; it's no longer a negative to the state to incarcerate you (and take all your stuff, ruin your life, etc.) The more, the merrier: They'll just build more prisons and use you as slave labor. So when they begin to really reap the violators -- and you may be dead certain they will -- the prison system is ready to pack you in there like sardines, no problem.

It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail. A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

Now you're beginning to get it. Weed -- only one drug, and one so harmless it's amazing -- is just barely getting traction at the state level, while the feds -- congress and etc. -- continue to maintain the most draconian stance possible. It's been over half a century, and there's been one hell of a lot of suffering just in order to attempt assert the liberty one should have to ingest what one prefers to ingest. It isn't over, and it won't be over for a while, even assuming that in the end, the old, evil men in congress die and people come to power who actually understand liberty and comprehend punishing actual wrongdoing instead of going against every frightening ghost that lives in some weak-minded mother's head and then holding a grudge in the form of creating a permanent lower class of distinctly lower opportunity and economic potential.

Re:$24

[anagama]

I'm pretty certain you would love this debate Glenn Greenwald had with GWB's drug czar. If you want to see the drug war eviscerated in the most plain and eloquent terms possible, this is it:

http://vimeo.com/32110912

The Q&A session is definitely worth watching too as GG in no uncertain terms, but with great skill, points out that his opponent is just flat evil.

Re:$24

[Mr. Slippery]

Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house?

As soon as you can copy it with affecting my use of it, sure.

Information is not things.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Do you own your home? Can I just come and take whatever I want out of your house?

You might very well be able to. Property rights boil down to one, utterly non-sarcastic question: You and whose army?

Your natural right to own property is based on your ability to personally defend it from those who would take it from you. This isn't very useful, as there's always going to be someone stronger, and bigger, and badder, who can overpower you and take it.

So you ask for help from your neighbor; will he stand by your side and defend the things you claim as your property? Unless he is quite altruistic (uncommon), he's going to refuse unless there is some benefit in it for him, typically, that you agree to help him defend his things too. This is the beginning of the armies.

Internally, a group of people working for mutual defense will create rules that they can all agree on to hold their coalition together. But rules, like contracts, are something you only need once willing agreement has broken down. This means that some part of the group will try to enforce the rules against another part that is unwilling. And it's going to come down to force again. Sometimes this breaks groups into many pieces. Other times, there are few enough, weak enough, people that won't abide by the rules, and they can be overpowered and made to comply. The rules that the group develops will basically follow utilitarian principles, at least amongst the subset of the group that is strong enough that its opinions cannot be dismissed.

Assuming that like a lot of Slashdot users, you're an American, how did you think a bunch of people from entirely different continents came to live here? By waging a bloody and long campaign of genocide agains the previous inhabitants. The European settlers ultimately won because they were strong and the Native Americans were weak; this is all that it took to legitimize the settlers' claim to own this land. Likewise slavery; it was legal because the slavers were stronger than the slaves and those who sympathized with the slaves. It was abolished because the anti-slavery forces eventually grew strong enough to kill or otherwise impair the pro-slavery forces.

Even today, this is the unpleasant truth that underlies all property law: If you own a parcel of land, and I trespass on it, you can call the police and they will arrest me and take me away. If I resist, they'll use force. If I resist hard enough, they'll respond with yet more force until I submit, am incapacitated, or die. But suppose that instead, you own a parcel of land, I trespass on it, and I fulfill the jurisdiction's requirements for adverse possession. Now you can call the police, but I can claim that the law is on my side. We can go to court, I'll win (if I have indeed adversely possessed it), and should you attempt to use force against me, now I can be the one to call the police, etc. And if the state decides to take my land, they can use their self-granted power of eminent domain to do so, and this time I not only can't muster enough force to resist, but I can't even find a legal rule to help me; the land is theirs because I have no recourse whatsoever, not because of any other reason. And if a sufficiently powerful army moves in and conquers the land, it belongs to them, because no one is in a position to say otherwise.

Once upon a time, people used to think that the right of property came from God, or from the king or other silly things. But the truth of the matter is that it is all about force and utilitarianism, and this has been pretty well recognized for a few centuries now at least.

Copyrights work the same way: Everyone has an inherent right of free speech, and this encompasses the ability to repeat, verbatim, what someone else has just said. An author who creates and publishes a work literally has no inherent power, merely by virtue of being the original author, to stop other people from copying that work. Instead, the author is compelled for lack of any alternatives (aside fr

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Again, we come back to the law.

And the law is what I want to change.

Indeed, my top five changes to copyright law would probably be:
1) A system of strict formalities (registration, deposit, fee, notice, renewal) in order to get a copyright on a published work;
2) Very short terms (probably 1 year), renewable a varying number of times depending on the type of work (more for, say, a movie, less for, say, a computer program) but probably no more than 20 terms altogether;
3) Making non-infringing (or at least non-actionable) any otherwise infringing act engaged in by a natural person, acting non-commercially;
4) Placing works in the public domain immediately if they are published, under the imprimatur of the copyright holder, with DRM, and having a government-run program of distributing those public domain works and assisting in cracking DRM systems;
5) Withdrawing from all copyright treaties, instead offering national treatment to everyone unilaterally (but using diplomacy to encourage other countries to do the same, as well as to avoid mutually incompatible laws that would leave authors in a bind)

You should be arguing what levels of punishment is acceptable for when you steal my property

Setting aside that something like copyright infringement isn't stealing property -- because stealing doesn't occur and there's no property at issue -- my point 3 above indicates that if it was me, personally, and I acted non-commercially in doing so, the level of punishment would be ... none.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

Just back after watching it through.

Several things. The irony of the prohibitionist saying that people using drugs could never admit they were wrong and so needed to be stood up to, during an evening where a great deal of what he was saying was wrong, and people were standing up to him, was quite poignant.

The lesson here is that even when the arguments are couched in terms of empirical data, the prohibitionists are in no way inclined to listen. The defender of drug prohibition was an ex-government figure; even outside the context of having to back the administration that put him in that position, he couldn't admit he was wrong. And he was so very, very wrong.

Not that it matters, but several opportunities were lost, I thought, WRT claims of violence consequent to legalization; low prices deter thievery, availability deters seeking illicit sources, these are obvious but there was no contest offered, which was too bad.

Why I say it doesn't matter is because here, in the context of a Brown university hall, these arguments will have no effect. Half the hall left after the talk and before the Q&A; the level of engagement was minimal. Most of these kids, to be blunt, don't care. They don't care now, when their peers are actively engaged, and they'll care even less when the concern of the day is how to pay back the student loan, the mortgage, and why-o-why did we ever let that pregnancy come to term. The odds of any of them becoming political figures that can make a difference are depressingly low, and frankly, those few are the ones most likely to know better than to try to handle a political hot potato. So really ... doesn't matter. A great speaker indeed, but one who wasted an evening unless he found a good restaurant there.

Looking back on the effect he had on his opponent -- none -- consider what would happen if you put this empiricist, full of vigor and data and common sense, up in front of congress. Do you think it would change anything? I don't believe it. The drug war is a cash cow and a power cow and they simply won't let anyone back it down.

That's how I see the coming copyright war. All the signs are there. I sit through four or five warnings on some BDs and DVDs that I have purchased. I'm starting to see absurd monetary awards. Those same warnings point out there are criminal, not civil, penalties for various infringements upon the rights holders. HDMI incorporates HDCP, and my expensive receiver no longer offers the simple ability to record, or to down convert from say, HDMI to component or even composite. The barriers are going up everywhere, and the penalties are being crafted right now, as are the legal precedents that are going to be the bloody edge of the axe that strikes the collective neck of the current and forthcoming generations.

I wish I didn't see it that way. But I do. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm almost certain I'm not.

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

All you will accomplish is the forcing of consumers to accept highly restrictive contracts (not user agreements or licenses) that prevent you from doing anything with the software.

Well, I'm opposed to adhesive contracts, at least in consumer settings. It wouldn't take much tweaking of the UCC to shut that down, but I felt it was outside the realm of a discussion about copyright.

Individually negotiated contracts, OTOH, are okay I guess. At the very least I'd be willing to take a wait and see attitude. I figure the transactional costs will handle it.

Point #3 would ensure that I would code in special lockouts that prevent you from using the software and if I just felt like it, a yanking of your rights whenever I felt I couldn't trust that you didn't share your software.

I'm guessing you hadn't reached point 4 yet, when you wrote that.

Copyright law needs to be changed, but not yanked.

I agree wholeheartedly. I think that the basic idea of copyright is very good, but the implementation needs serious work. Abolition should remain on the table, but is obviously an option of last resort; it only makes sense when there is not a single possible copyright law that provides a greater public benefit than having no copyright law at all. I don't think this is likely anytime soon.

Of course, I have noticed more and more people who, frustrated with how bad the current law is, are supporting abolition just to be done with the whole thing. This is a dangerous side effect of copyright maximalism, IMO.

You should know full well that when you take away my rights you effectively do something like repeating prohibition -- that worked out wonderfully.

Again, I agree. When you have copyright laws, you take away my right to make copies of your published work. And while this can be justifiable, if I benefit more from that sacrifice than I lose, under the current law much otherwise unobjectionable behavior is being prohibited, the law is widely flouted, and it reminds me a lot of Prohibition.

If copyright were far more important -- like desegregation -- then I could see pushing it on a public that was not happy about it. But it's not anywhere near that level. Copyright really is of trifling importance in the grand scheme of things, somewhere in the neighborhood of building codes that require white picket fences or bans on jaywalking.

You really are a bloodsucking lawyer, aren't you? You effectively just destroyed capitalism in the sense that I, as an author, should get paid for my work...unless I decide not to publish it, which means I can't make money off of it.

Melodramatic much?

Right now there are a plethora of ways that you, as an author, cannot get paid for your work. For example, if you sell a copy of a book, you can get paid for it that one time only; after that, everyone can resell that same copy again and again and again and you don't see a dime.

All I'm doing is creating a single exception which would allow natural persons (as distinct from artificial entities, like corporations) to act freely -- as they basically already do -- provided that it is strictly non-commerical. No ads, no tip jars, no file sharing ratios, nothing.
You can still sell copies to people; some of them will buy it. You can still sell copies to other entities, or to people engaged in commerce.

Copyright, remember, doesn't guarantee that the copyright holder will make money, it just funnels a goodly portion of whatever money there is in the direction of the copyright holder. The funnel is not changing, but the available pool of money may shrink somewhat.

I would agree that it is a big deal. I have traditionally thought of this as the nuclear bomb of copyright exceptions. But after a long time of mulling it over, I support it. Filesharing is the new drinking, and banning it is as futile and dangerous as Prohibition was. And Pr

Re:$24

[cpt kangarooski]

Why do you feel that you should be paid, but not me?

Why do you think that you couldn't get paid by offering your creative talents as a service, as opposed to what I imagine is your current practice of creating a work at your own expense and then selling copies?

Before I went to law school, I used to be a professional artist. And I supported myself quite comfortably selling my artistic services. I didn't need copyright to get by, and my clients didn't care about it either.

And there are other ways of making money from art. Fine artists (painters, sculptors, etc.) typically get paid for particular pieces. An original painting can command prices that no other copy of the same work can. A Van Gogh can go for millions; the life-sized poster of the same thing is a few bucks, because people will pay for provenance.

As a lawyer, I sell my services because I can't sell anything like copies. What would I do? Sell copies of a brief or a memo tailored for one case to some completely different client? Sell the outcome of a court case? The idea is nonsensical. But lawyers, doctors, plumbers, and even a lot of programmers and artists work in the service economy. Give it a try sometime.

America is about equality

Yes, there would certainly be an equal vote for the legislators who would draft the reforms and (indirectly) the President who would sign it. And the reforms would certainly affect everyone equally. So that problem is solved.

If you thought, though, that authors as a profession are entitled to an equal share of the income made in this country, well, you must not know many authors. The cliche of the starving artist exists for a reason. Copyright never guaranteed you a living; just a chance at one. And it would still do so even if substantially altered.

Re:$24

[fyngyrz]

While I agree that the content providers are out of control and that the congress is in fact just their legal arm there is still the problem that content has a cost to produce. If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

Some content does. Notably movies. Music, not so much. I'm a musician, I have a complete 32 track studio in my home, along with a full band's worth of instruments. If you brought me several rhythm guitarists, a singer, a keyboard player, a bassist, a drummer and a lead player, all without gear, I could set them up, record them, either together or by individual tracks, and produce a high quality master CD for them for zero cost beyond what I've already invested -- and what I've invested (some years back now) is less than a cheap car, and even that was far more than you'd have to spend today to do the same thing. Or, if I went acoustic, I could walk into a bar, sit down, and begin to play and sing. No cost other than my time. Dinner, a few beers (not too many or the performance... ugh, lol) maybe a few bucks in a hat... that'd make it practical, if the audiences found me worthy. Attention from the opposite sex used to go a long way too, though today, I'm settled down.

So bands... no. Most television productions aren't worth a plugged nickel. The acting is terrible, the scripts worse. Something like Avatar or the new Star Trek... some spending happening there and no way around it as yet. Less in the future, I think, but still, gotta give your point to you on that front. All I can say there is I own both recordings; not even a slight urge to grab them for free. Well worth the cost. I'd like to be able to back them up, lest something happen like what happened to Heavy Metal (rights bitch fight), or perhaps one of the kids using it for a clay pigeon, etc. I can't.

If everyone didn't pay for it and everyone stole it then the content would dry up.

No, you really can't make that argument. There wouldn't have been any music, opera, plays, street performers prior to about 1920 if that was the case. But there were. There are other forms of funding that the arts can extract from society than direct charge for recordings. We can ague the merit of those methods, but you can't say they didn't work, because they most assuredly did. I suspect they'd work again, and in such an environment, we'd see some very fine performers, as well as a good bit more variety. But that is, of course, just my opinion.

What you're missing here is that music, and I presume other forms of performance are, is a joy to produce. I'd kick you out of the way to get a space to play. It's not always about money. Ask yourself if you'd have to be paid to have sex. It's kind of like that. I couldn't tell you how many times I've played for free, both solo and with bands. And I'm pretty good -- fifty years of experience now, rock, blues, hard rock, even some folk, that's me. I just love music and performing musically, and that's true for a very large portion of the other musicians I've known over the years. Fame isn't the prime motivator for everyone, nor is money. Sex, well, yeah. ;)

I personally try my best to not purchase music and content from other than the artist.

This is an excellent strategy and I encourage you to pursue it. I always buy a CD from a live performance, if they offer one. Or several, hell, I'll buy your whole catalog if given a chance and you gave me a nice evening.

What you have to do, though, to make that strategy really effective, is get everyone you know to pursue it, and they their acquaintances, etc., ad infinitum.

Re:$24

[Anonymous Coward]

hard copies(mp3 or any file counts as this) don't use bandwidth, don't require an internet connection, can NOT be taken away from you.

Re:$24

[zenasprime]

Thank you. As a creator myself, I often find this argument ridiculous and obviously from the mouth of someone who is NOT a creator. They don't understand that I create for the joy of creating, not the possibility of monetary reward,

Re:$24

[somersault]

Really just a desire to get high is in itself a proof that something is very wrong with a person

Sooo.. is the desire to go for a walk in the park, or have a nice hot bath or shower on a cold day also proof that there is "something very wrong with a person"? I rarely buy alcohol, and have never bought weed (though I have smoked it a couple of times). I hardly even drink coffee these days. But sometimes it's enjoyable to do these things. Why does there have to be something wrong with someone who wants to do change their environment for a little while, either physically or mentally?

The RIAA is sensitive.

[Anonymous Coward]

Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.

Reminds me of the exchange of Good Will Hunting.

Will: He used to just put a belt, a stick, and a wrench on the kitchen table and say, "Choose."

Sean: Well, I gotta go with the belt there.

Will: I used to go with the wrench.

Sean: Why?

Will: Cause fuck him, that's why.

SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[ebno-10db]

Yet the Supreme Court happily lower the punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-supreme-court-orders-reduction-in-exxon-valdez-award

Justice David Souter, in the court's majority opinion, said the punitive damages award should be brought into line with $287 million in compensatory damages awarded

So spilling millions of dollars of crude oil into the ocean in a grossly negligent act, destroying the local environment and wrecking people's livelihoods is not a big, but file sharing? There's a threat to the Republic!

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[Anonymous Coward]

Jammie Thomas didn't make any campaign contributions.

Re:SCOTUS Lowered Exxon Valdez Punitive Award

[ebno-10db]

"Justices do not campaign. They are appointed ..." by people who receive bribes (oops, I meant "free speech" campaign contributions) and revolving door jobs (oops again, I meant highly merited post-political positions).

Re:She refused a $5000 settlement offer.

[TemperedAlchemist]

Since when should the legal system be like playing roulette?

Like Death for Bicycle Theft

[rmdingler]

When I was 6 years old, my father took me back to the store where I'd stolen a pack of gum with the money to pay the owner. After a rather sheepish apology that involved no eye contact from me at all, the proprietor accepted my dime and my remorse. My punishment was to return to the store after school and sweep for a week, every day after school. In the movies, that's how the story ends, with an errant youth learning a valuable lesson. In riaal life, his 11 year old son kicked the shit out of me every day but one... and that one day was the worst because I waited all day for the beating that never came.

Re:She refused extortion.

[Overzeetop]

Those were essentially extortion offers. Pay us or we'll break your financial knees.

What an insult

[jamessnell]

$200K+ for sharing 24 songs? Those profound douche-baggery. I'm so glad that newer methods are emerging to kill off the record label. This is an example of the industry that we call "The legal system", milking the life-force out of lady justice and then ripping her corpse apart and devouring it without a napkin. There's no measure of justice involved at all. Was there REALLY $222K in damage? Hell no, she helped advertise a brand, of sorts. What a disgusting farce. Glad I don't live in the states.