Comments on: RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: Day 1

By: dr Karpov

dr Karpov — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 18:05:19 +0000

Also this:
lets face the facts – if every1 WOULD ONLY download their music, and not buy any AT ALL – then what would happen 2 all the musicians?
Given that, IT IS wrong 2 download, after all, it’s not like in the 80s when some1 borrowed u a tape and u got to tape it off, now, a couple of seeders could spreed a material to tens of thousands of downloaders or more. So that sort of takes out the “it’s about borrowing” argument. Sure, I wasn’t going 2 buy all of those songs – but on the other hand, once i’ve downloaded them – i sure as hell aint gonna buy em, especially given that my connection costs money, which adds to another point – how many of all the filesharers havent thought about, preferred and actually gotten a faster download speed, inorder to be able 2 download more? If you would be prone 2 agree, then one probably also could c how that money instead could have been put on buying music instead of downloading it..
Anywayz, thats how Im thinking, whats ur opinion??

By: dr Karpov

dr Karpov — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 17:53:08 +0000

2 musician:
as an artist u wanna make $ on ur art so u dont have 2 spend time doing a shitty job.

By: M

Sat, 13 Oct 2007 05:22:41 +0000

*cough, cough*

Just how did she get caught? How did they catch her? Isn’t there a way to do it without detection?

By: Musician

Musician — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 08:28:05 +0000

I am also a mucician. Lets think for one moment! Who is killing the music? People who download it or the Record companies? There are millions of nice songs today and hundrends are produced daily. Don’t they understand that it is impossible to buy all these songs that we like?

Spreading the music, is what will make an artist famous and give glory. Record companies do the same in another way. They pay millions of dollars for ads and clips on TV and then collect the expences from cd sales. The artists should argue with the Record Companies, not with the ordinary people. Record companies suck their money, because they do the promotion. We promote them for free! The artists make their money from live performances. And believe me. They make a lot of money. Enough to buy a hairdresser for their dog, while other people in the world starve to death!

So F*** RIAA and Record companies! They have sacrificed everything at the altar of profits. I call all the musicians to consider giving their music for free. Where are your values? What is the meaning of producing art when nobody can have it? You don’t need the record companies to be famous. The Internet will do the job for free! Long live the good, free music!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 14:47:59 +0000

222,000 dollars for 25 songs is more than not right.
It is criminal. You could produce 25 songs for that.

How they figured it is nonsense, unless they are arguing 222,000 direct uploads at a dollar a pop. Fine, if they have
evidence. But their evidence itself must be unpresentable
due to invasion of privacy during its collection.

Even more probable is Jammie Thomas, set up to put a real scare
into the P2P users, possibly with a backdoor deal with the RIAA to lose this case for a tidy sum.

Or just a disgraceful example of merciless scapegoating.

By: marked1234

marked1234 — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 23:01:53 +0000

I found all the Songs that they are suing her for. 222,000 for 25 songs huh doesn't seem right.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:11:15 +0000

Mongrel greedy bastards!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 14:45:08 +0000

So what happens to music videos that we all see on TV? Millions of people watch them, and anyone can save such files to their computer with a tv tuner card.
Fifty music videos now saved in a folder on my pc can be shared on any popular file sharing network. Who gets sued making the files viewable to others?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 12:52:08 +0000

i have 60Go of downloded and shared mp3’s in my computer … how much can be the money that i would have to pay ? suckers!!! 200 000 $ now you can see where media homes earn money … so fuck SONY, fuck BMG, fuck all of them .. and lives p2p for ever !

By: Stock Trader

Stock Trader — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 05:09:00 +0000

This Pariser woman said something about a loss of jobs at her company. But didn’t Sony and BMG and possibly another record company merge in the time frame she quoted? Usually with mergers of this type, redundant and duplicate personnel are laid off. Who needs two heads of personnel? How many jobs were lost to piracy, how many were lost to pay off the merger, and how many were lost because they simply weren’t needed any more?

By: Anti Reich-Wingnut

Anti Reich-Wingnut — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 03:39:22 +0000

Copyright is intended for the prevention of others MAKING COPIES AND SELLING THEM, in order to protect the ARTIST for a SHORT PERIOD in their own efforts to profit from their work. If a copy is made BUT NO MONEY OR VALUE IS EXCHANGED BY BOTH PARTIES, then it constitutes “fair use” and DOES NOT violate copyright.

Also, this is one of the very FEW laws directly addressed in the United States Constitution, just as I have described above.

In the modern world the subject of “missed purchases” comes up….but that is a red herring argument. Even IF (and that is a BIG “if” to overcome in court) the defendant DID download 1,700+ songs, at 10 songs/cd that is only 170 CDs. The average person buys 4 CDs a YEAR. This means that the defendant must be 60+ years (18 to be legal + 170/4) and NEVER have purchased a CD in that time in order to have “missed purchase” all those songs….yeah, right.

So “Free Thinker” (who obviously is a walking oxymoron) and “demonoid user”: breathe easy and stop spouting corporatist rhetoric.

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:51:16 +0000

I am indeed living up to my name, thankyou!

You obviously have no idea what you’re talking about.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 01:38:32 +0000

Free Thinker: Live up to your name, or STFU.

By: domoniod usr

domoniod usr — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:52:07 +0000

ive downloded thousands files and never really think about it like that interesting point made. feel abit guilty when i downlode really

By: Free Thinker

Free Thinker — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:37:01 +0000

If the RIAA are going to such great lengths to prosecute this alleged massive distributer of copyrighted material, then it seems to me that they have good evidence for it and that her activities must certainly be causing them harm.

After all, the fact that the hard disc was replaced like that after the defendent received notice, is very suspicious, isn’t it? Yes, obviously she has the pretext that it was “for repair”, but oh come on! Think about it, if it was a murder case and the defendent got rid of their gun or whatever, it would be more than a little suspicious, wouldn’t it?

Also, I read somewhere, that 700+ pages of evidence gathered by the RIAA has been ruled inadmissible after a crafty manoeuvre by the defendent’s lawyer. This seems a shame to me, because for any court case, for there to be a fair trial, *all* the evidence must be considered, especially that from the prosecution. I think deep down, the defendent and her lawyer would also be happier if all the information were to be included and might reconsider the inclusion of this evidence.

For everybody’s benefit (not least consumers such as Jammie Thomas) it’s very important that this trial sets the precedent that those who engage in the sharing of copyrighted files will be tracked down and punished for their crimes.