Comments on: Will Jammie Thomas be found guilty?

By: Gringo

Gringo — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 17:33:10 +0000

You know what ? this is a good thing.
for sure her 2 childs will neverever buy anymore any craps from the mafia of america and probably the family friends will do the same.

anyhow, did someone know the names of the jurors ? Did they have an internet connection ? Did they ever downloaded anything from the net ? What they will do if they are sued for the same stupid reason ? Just some question…

By: bo

bo — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:20:35 +0000

adamos, read the details.

yep, those thousands of dollars she spent on music sure was theft. and the fact she was often seen ripping her hundreds of legal cd’s onto her computer is perfectly illegal too. what a great and moral verdict. sue your customers for giving you money. brilliant strategy.

nothing was proved, so much for our legal system. innocent until proven guilty (as long as the plaintiff has tons of money to spend against you)

By: marked1234

marked1234 — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:30:52 +0000

Readers Write is right! The whole thing is dumb I dont see anyway that the record company can ever lose either you pay the first fee or you go to court and pay even more money. Read this a good quality opinion on the matter.

By: Adamos

Adamos — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 16:13:40 +0000

Correct decision. It’s theft and we all know it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:06:54 +0000

$9, 250 per song?

A quarter of a million dollars in total?

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7029229.stm)

I don’t see how anyone working as a lawyer for the record companies can sleep at night. Oh yeah, because they’re earning millions of dollars. This hasn’t got anything to do with the money, it must surely just be for the media to scare the living daylights out of everyone else.

That rulijg by the judge is total, f****g rubbish. ‘available for e-distribution’ is one thing; proof of someone actually downloading is another; therefore the industry has absolutely zero proof that it has lost any money from this.

Total, absolute ba*tards.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 07:31:15 +0000

http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/34209/118/

its so insane! something is seriously wrong.. either the judge was bought or the jury, no way a sane judge would do that!

other times they basicly gotten thrown out of court and this time was no different, yet they won bigtime???? something was done…

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 00:06:55 +0000

I predict overturn on appeal or declared a mistrial for inappropriate jury instruction.

By: bo

bo — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:45:45 +0000

its over. she lost. i cant believe it

ars technica on the front page.

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:30:44 +0000

How ??

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071004-debate-over-making-available-jury-instruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html

The making available argument was pretty critical. to quote the updated article …

” Toder disagreed, but at the end, Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the “act of making available for electronic distribution… violates the copyright owner’s exclusive copyright.” That decision should make it easier for the jury to find Thomas liable. ”

Utter Bull crap.

It’s time to seriously investigate just what connections this judge has with the industry.

Does he have record contract like Judge Richard Owen ??

By: bo

bo — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:26:23 +0000

but that sure sounds ominous

By: Jon

Jon — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:20:42 +0000

It isn’t, yet …

By: bo

bo — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:19:55 +0000

wtf…

how can this be?