RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: RIAA wins
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- The champagne corks will be popping in RIAA-land.
“The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $220,000 in damages against her.” ~ Associated Press.
“Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation’s first file-sharing case to go before a jury.” ~ Wired.
“After less than four hours of deliberations, a federal jury in Duluth, Minnesota, handed the RIAA a victory in the first file-sharing case to go to trial, finding that Jammie Thomas willfully infringed on the record labels’ copyrights, awarding them $222,000 in damages.” ~ Ars Technica.
“[Editorial opinion: I'm sorry to hear that Ms. Thomas lost, but I don't think the case is over by a long shot; the verdict - based as it upon an entirely erroneous jury instruction going to the very heart of the case - will almost definitely be set aside on appeal.-R.B.] ~ Recording Industry vs The People.
Winning the battle but losing the war
Twelve jurors have decided Jammie Thomas must pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA claimed she infringed by sharing them online, setting legal precedents the industry will be sure to use against other victims.
“In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant’s computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive,” said Wired, going on:
And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas’ share folder.
Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.
But as I posted a little while ago:
… if the jury does vote in favour of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG`s RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), the news will spread like wild-fire on- and offline and hatred of the RIAA and the companies which keep it alive will mushroom exponentially, with all that implies.
Few people who are familiar with the four-year sue `em all war believe the labels are justified in waging it and a win for the Big 4 could easily turn Thomas into a cause – a martyr, in effect – prompting a far more intensified and widespread boycott of corporate music product than exists at the moment.
Says Ars Technica:
The first case has gone to trial, and the verdict is in. The music labels now have a notch on their belt, while a woman who spent thousands of dollars on their product is now faced with a large judgment.
The RIAA hopes that this and the 20,000 other cases serve as a deterrent to would-be file-sharers, but the question of whether or not the music industry is engendering so much hostility and bad press with its campaign that it outweighs any short-term benefits remains. With a verdict in their favor, the RIAA hopes to ratchet the campaign of fear up a notch and says it will press forward with its legal campaign.
Justice? In America, just another meaningless word.
But although the RIAA has won this battle, it’s lost the war, irretrievably.
Meanwhile, it’ll be interesting to see who of the jury will be first to speak.
(Revised @ 3:33 pm Pacific)
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
It was also a jury who found O.J. not guilty.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Yes, unfortunately, it’s as I feared: this woman was indeed a massive online distributor of copyright material, wilfully stealing content.
The RIAAs bluff has been called and they obviously had the balls win this.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
okay. so lets ask a few questions:
the artists will receive how much of this money?
they literally suffered $150,000 of damage from just 25 songs?
when can we donate a dollar to her cause? (you know a site will pop up soon, i have a mind to build it tonight)
arg.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Something stinks here. I mean REALLY STINKS!
These are supposedly 12 ordinary people who sided with the RIAA? WTF?
Perhaps they were stooges? What about the fact that Sherman wasn’t allowed to testify and all the other indications that the RIAA were going to lose?
This was a setup, I’m sure of it. Those RIAA wankers must have paid MILLIONS to fix this.
October 4th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
We are watching here in Europe. The “far more intensified and widespread boycott of corporate music product than exists at the moment” will not just apply to America.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
I don’t think that the judge or the jurors are capable of understanding the technical evidence that may have been put forth that would cast doubt on the record companies claims. Your average computer user would’nt understand it never mind jurors who have never used a computer. Also the judges instructions to the jury made a conviction a forgone conclusion. This has appeal written all over it.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I wondering what the 24 artists think about their representative companies going after her. I am sure that $9,250 for each one of those songs is nothing to anyone on the RIAA’s side. So, the backlash will begin I am sure.
October 4th, 2007 at 5:46 pm
A dark day in the P2P world. This is sickening.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
The judge practically mandated the verdict for them, completely ignoring previous findings and dismissals for other lawsuits as well as common sense. Basically no different from having a bad law on the books and being required to follow it until it’s repealed. In this case it should be a very quick reversal for the appeal.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:19 pm
like it says on the main page – “the verdict – based as it upon an entirely erroneous jury instruction going to the very heart of the case – will almost definitely be set aside on appeal”.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Let’s think on how to euthanize the Organized Music faster to let it die sooner.
There should be as many as possible CD exchange sites created, one for every city, a-la Craigslist.
October 4th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
THE WORLD WILL ONLY TEACH THE HOLLYWOOD INDUSTRY EVEN MORE LESSONS!!! BY MORE AND MORE AND MORE FILESHERING INCREASE!!!!!!! If they were so smart THEY WOULD LOWER THEIR PRICCES ON MUSIC AND DVDS!!! Simple music CD still cost over 20 bucks (24.99) why in hell should i buy it when if they are strugling so much why not lower the prices to increse sales!!!!
October 4th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
WILL LENDING A CD BE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT?
“Twelve jurors have decided Jammie Thomas must pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs”
Evidently the judge instructed that “making available” (for others to copy) suffices for copyright infringement.
Unless the decision is overturned, lending a CD to a friend will be copyright infringement, as such an action is making the CD available for others to copy the CD.
If what you lend in a CD with one thousand (legally copied mp3) songs, at $9,250 per song, damages will be over $9 million, and the lendee may not have copied any songs.
This is indecent and the decision should be overturned on appeal.
BTW: In my case in federal US court, the judge said that making available only was not infringement even though the making available was the licensing of our songs to radio stations in exchange of money by someone who was not the owner of the songs. Per the judge, we had to prove that the licensed radio stations actually played the songs. What a riot!!!
October 4th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
The RIAA are like some brutal dictator who holds on to power through intimidation and threats and misinformation until enough people people rise up and overpower and piss on their body in the street.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
A real enemy for the RIAA cowards!
http://www.solarthermienator.com/files/44bb502fab8b049adce46f15933a3dea-6.html
October 4th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Now it is our turn to score. it is going to hurt. It’s going to rock. No justice no peace RIAA parasites. We are bringing the worm killers.
October 4th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
No one believed me when I told them the record industry was sueing it’s own customers. Now, finally, the word is out. At least two people I know are canceling their BMG music club subscription tomorrow.
It’s hard to believe that just because she had songs on her computer, she’s considered a massive distributor. Did I miss something ? Did they prove these songs were downloaded or uploaded ? Do they even know if these songs were from her own CD’s ?
My advice, don’t buy any RIAA member music. If the artists were concerned about their fans they would have united and spoken up. Shame on them, they will suffer the consequences. I surely would hate to be one of the 24 artists named in this court action. I wonder if they’ll ever see any of this money.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Wow $9250 per song. I guess I would owe the RIAA $555 million.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:28 pm
This case’s appeal is going to put a busted ostrich egg in the face of both the judge AND the RIAA. The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if someone makes a copy of a copyrighted item that you, the library, or a rental chain like Blockbuster lends or rents to them, THEY have committed the infringement. There is no feasible way to defeat this analogy. The actual copyright violation occurs not because of the (potentially accidental) availability of the file, but rather because the downloader, copier, or ripper willingly and intentionally chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption.
The jury has essentially made you liable for infringement if your friend borrows a CD from you and decides to rip it without your knowledge or consent before returning it.
I would expect Blockbuster to file an amicus brief for the appeal, because if this ruling is allowed to stand, Blockbuster is “making available” a TON of copyrighted media, and they commit copyright infringement with every rental that chooses to duplicate the rented item. They made it available, after all.
The utter stupidity of the instructions is easily found when the implications of those instructions are applied to all situations that would fall under the wording of those instructions, and that’s why this is going to be one hell of an EASY appeal.
October 4th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
The RIAA and the jurors who found her guilty are just demented, sick fucks.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Angry Offender: If Jammie appeals, she will fail. There’s no way the RIAA should have won this court case with the way the evidence was stacked against them. I reckon they have bought the judge and possibly intimidated the jury. They will buy the courts all the way up and get their precedent set in the Supreme Court if they need to, just like they did with Kazaa.
Also, it looks to me like they CAN argue “making available” with file sharing, but not with libraries or Blockbuster. The reason is simple: these official outlets have arranged licenses to lend the content out and the lendee agrees to borrow it without copying it. That they can then copy it behind their backs without getting caught is another matter. In the meantime the understanding is there that they wont, hence the lender is not responsible and the lendee is.
With file sharing, the files are made available with no prior agreement with the RIAA. Hence, there’s NO understanding that the files will be borrowed for a certain length of time only. Hence, in this scenario, the files are obviously being given away for keeps, hence the charges stick.
Unpalatable as that explanation is, I don’t see how she can wriggle out of that one. If you have an explanation that can trump this one I’d love to hear it. Then perhaps it can be used to defend the next filesharer that goes to court.
Of course, it’s completely wrong that the RIAA did not have to prove that actual harm had been caused by her activity (just like plaintiffs have to in every other type of case) and this is why I think the whole f* legal system has been bought by these goons, just like so many other areas of the American legal system and government.
In the end, I think that the RIAA will win the fight, as they are too rich and too powerful. The great unwashed will have been brainwashed by the lamescream media that “filesharing is wrong and dangerous!” and after a few more courtroom victories, people will really start to get scared and unauthorised file sharing will begin to decline and more people will simply buy from official download stores and Big Music will continue making shitloads of money selling crap.
It makes me wonder if this trend away from DRM in music is just temporary, eventually reversing, with the sheeple eagerly lapping up the DRM shit that is spoonfed to them.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:18 pm
The bought the judge to get this done! It is not possible to win this case with ervidence the presented. Unfortunatly for these criminals some people have decided that they will not wait for the Appeal to strike the RIAA. If I was them I would have whish to lose this case. It is too late.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The next move for her could be to BK chapter 7. This is not a big deal. And the RIAA get zip. I would appeal. Meanwhile I am going to intensify the boycott. next move for us: -50% music sale during the next 3 months. It will be interesting to see how long it take them to die off completly.
October 4th, 2007 at 9:28 pm
Free Thinker: While it may be true that stores and libraries may make arrangements with copyright holders to become “authorized lenders” of media containing the copyrighted content, a couple of other situations that lack such authorization remain unaddressed. One is the lending of music CDs to a friend. If you lend your legally purchased CD to a friend, that is clearly not copyright infringement–the original disc is temporarily not in your possession, and ignoring any other copies that you actually make use of during that time, no infringement is going on. If that friend decides to rip the CD, well…you “made it available” and under the instructions given to this jury, “making available for infringement” equals infringement, period.
Also, if I run a private web server that I access via dynamic DNS, and music is stored on that server (which is just on my home computer) and I set that server up solely for my own private use, but some people find my server and start snagging up all my songs without me really knowing that that is going on, according to this judge I’ve just committed copyright infringement, even though my intent was enabling myself to access my legally purchased music to listen to on other computers that don’t have my music on them.
Ultimately, the downloader is responsible, not the person “making files available.” Availability of something does not suddenly make it OK for others to take it. If you leave a book by a copying machine in your convenient store, and I walk up and start copying the book on the machine, I’m committing infringement but YOU ONLY “MADE THAT BOOK AVAILABLE TO ME.” MY ACTION was the infringing one, NOT yours.
I don’t know how many analogies I have to strike to get my point across, really. It’s hard to come up with really good situations that are the same as this one.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
Copyright infringement is what the Recording Industry says it is.. This is one more case in which the common person gets butt surfed by the system. In the police States of Amerika, there is no justice for the average person. We don’t only need new politicians and judges, we need a new government. I only hope that this woman will be able to declare bankruptcy and not have to pay the bastards a single dime. Maybe someone will pay the RIAA or its law firm a visit, locked and loaded.
October 5th, 2007 at 12:16 am
What that woman was charged was, making songs available for reproduction, as if she set her own record company or radio station and broadcasted those songs to general public. The sole purpose of existing for record companies is restricting availability of songs only to people who have payed for their reproduction. Unauthorised reproduction is a crime by the law. Change the law.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:56 am
“Also, it looks to me like they CAN argue âmaking availableâ with file sharing, but not with libraries or Blockbuster. The reason is simple: these official outlets have arranged licenses to lend the content out and the lendee agrees to borrow it without copying it.”
As to “the lendee agrees to borrow it without copying it.”, Iam not sure this s the case or if it were, if the agreement is valid or effect. If someone signed an agreemet at a video club 10 years ago, does the person remeber the details of the agreement? Then as to the “not copy” warning on DVDs, the warnings themselves may be ilegal. After all, some record companies admit that making a backup copy of a song CD or copying the songs to an mp3 playe may be fair use then making a copy of an owned DVD for backup purpose or to play the movie on a portble devce may also be fair use.
The reason for my example above, the lending of a CD to a friend was that in that situation the lender never agreed that he/she wuld not lend the CD to others.
As to libraries, there are so many book in libraries that are in the public domain (thus legally copyable) that library lendees are habitually copiers, sometimes massivley. Under such a scenario I doubt anyone signed anything agreeing not to copy what they borrow from a library.
BTW, my peronal observations lead me to beleive that there is far more lending and subsequent copying of music CDs tnan copying of rented or lent DVD movies.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:05 am
BOO! I think all of these douche bag bastards should be subject to bukkake.
October 5th, 2007 at 3:16 am
I wonder, were there any native americans in the jury?
Is this similar to the always predictable outcome when an all-white jury in the south heard a case against a black man?
Whatever hapenned to trial by peers, people like the acused?
Shame for America.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:12 am
I hate the RIAA, but figured they would win this case despite how everything seemed stacked against them. I’ve served as a juror in a rape trial and learned first hand how the court system is one big joke. The whole farce really opened my eyes. It is not about finding the truth at all. It is all about which side can do a better job of seducing a jury, a group of people that usually cannot really be considered the accused true peers when looked at more closely. In the end the truth ends up as being completely irrelevant, right along with the evidence no matter how much of it you may have. Sadly there really doesn’t seem to be a better way, so even though it is a terribly flawed system of justice, it’s all we have. Hopefully we’ll see a successful appeal soon, as that is about all that can be done at this point. Bend the system until it breaks I say.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:23 am
Reader’s Write Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 5:12 am
I hate the RIAA…
***************
Nice insight there. Incredible how the facts/truth is actually irrelevant! Likely the judge was paid off as I thought.
This convinces me more than ever that if she dares appeal, the RIAA are gonna force this all the way up to the Supreme Court and win there. At which point, we are all fucked and they stay in the money.
October 5th, 2007 at 5:34 am
Does anyone know what the 24 songs are that she has been ordered to pay for?
October 5th, 2007 at 6:58 am
*Guns N Roses “Welcome to the Jungle” and “November Rain.”
*Vanessa Williams “Save the Best for Last.”
*Janet Jackson “Let’s What Awhile.”
*Gloria Estefan “Here We Are,” “Coming Out of the Heart” and “Rhythm is Gonna Get You.”
*Goo Goo Dolls “Iris.”
*Journey “Faithfully” and “Don’t Stop Believing.”
*Sara McLachlan “Possession” and “Building a Mystery.”
*Aerosmith “Cryin’ ” *Linkin Park “One Step Closer.”
*Def Leppard “Pour Some Sugar on Me.”
*Reba McEntire “One Honest Heart.”
*Bryan Adams “Somebody.”
*No Doubt “Bathwater,” “Hella Good” and “Different People.”
*Sheryl Crow “Run Baby Run.”
*Richard Marx “Now and Forever.”
*Destiny’s Child “Bills, Bills, Bills.”
*Green Day “Basket Case.”
October 5th, 2007 at 7:12 am
Jon, this is a horrible moment for artists and computer users everywhere.
October 5th, 2007 at 7:20 am
RIAA should produce a two CD set with all these songs.
The title? Any of these would be fine:
Welcome to the RIAA Jungle
RIAA is Gonna Get You
Run Baby Run from RIAA
All profits from the sale of the record should be donated US legislature political campagns.
October 5th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The court systems are never frair. Look what Michael did to Terri Shavo.
Unless you started a Civil War you weren’t allowed to feed her and are forced to make her suffer.
All because he paid over 1 million dollars to the judge THE MURDER WAS LEGALLY DONE LIKE ADOLF HITLER WANTED.
Can anyone say civil war?
October 5th, 2007 at 8:51 am
An important constitutional issue is being ignored.
In the case whatever proof of infringement was obtained, if any, was obtained by RIAA after it had any proof of infringement and to get that proof an indivdual’s privacy was infringed. Today songs, tomorrow photographs, tomorrow books. A witch hunt.
Ok, Iam not a law enforcer and suspect my neighbor is somehow stealing from me and selling the stolen goods through the telephone, but I have no proof, just a suspicion. Can I get a court order that would allow me to wiretap the neighbor’s phone? obtain bank account information? depose him in court?
America is heading to a state where people are arrested, jailed, tortured, acused and found guilty without any proof whatsoever and then exposed to draconian sentences. Reminds me of fascists Hitler’s Germany, Pinochet’s Chile, Batista’s Cuba, Sha’s Iran, Saudis’ Arabia, Franco’s Spain, etc. Surprisingly most fascists have been supported by Americans. With such a history, fascism’s arrival in America was overdue. It has arrived.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:28 am
Is this going to make people want to pay music? Nooooooooooooope!
October 5th, 2007 at 9:35 am
“fascismâs arrival in America was overdue. It has arrived”
That’s ok. We have guns, we know how to use them, we have the best constitution to stick to and most of the army is on our side.
We will restore America!
October 5th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Oops I’m so mad I can’t type. It should have said:
Is this court case going to make people willing to pay for music? Noooooooooooooope!
Some of these songs were played on the radio:
Why should they care about someone downloading them for free when they transmit them for free in everybody’s homes for free?
Radio songs: *Guns N Roses âWelcome to the Jungleâ and âNovember Rain.â
*Vanessa Williams âSave the Best for Last.â
*Janet Jackson âLetâs What Awhile.â
*Gloria Estefan âHere We Are,â âComing Out of the Heartâ and âRhythm is Gonna Get You.â
*Goo Goo Dolls âIris.â
*Journey âFaithfullyâ and âDonât Stop Believing.â
*Sara McLachlan âPossessionâ and âBuilding a Mystery.â
Radio song: *Aerosmith âCryinâ â
*Linkin Park âOne Step Closer.â
Radio song: *Def Leppard âPour Some Sugar on Me.â
*Reba McEntire âOne Honest Heart.â
Radio song: *Bryan Adams âSomebody.â
*No Doubt âBathwater,â âHella Goodâ and âDifferent People.â
*Sheryl Crow âRun Baby Run.â
*Richard Marx âNow and Forever.â
*Destinyâs Child âBills, Bills, Bills.â
Radio song: *Green Day âBasket Case.â
Anybody else notice any songs the entertainment companies have given away for free?
October 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
” only hope that this woman will be able to declare bankruptcy and not have to pay the bastards a single dime.”
Yes! BK is a no brainer chapter 7 in this case. She can keep her car and her home if she owe one because it is always excluded from the BK. She need a decent attorney for that but I am sure she is well equiped right now.
But she should wait until the case settle completly and all the claims are on the table. Also the court typically can not force her to pay so it will go to collection and she can drag this for year if she had too. Personally I will appeal to the end and BK if I lose.
If you think a BK can stop someone from geting credit you are wrong. I know people going BK chapt7 and buy a home with a mortgage the next month! Beside in this case the reason for the BK is obviously not her fault. It should be a no brainer.
October 5th, 2007 at 9:54 am
It’s OK to get drunk and kill people, but DON’T YOU DARE SHARE MUSIC! What a fucked up “justice” system.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=BLACKWATER+DRUNK&btnG=Google+Search
October 5th, 2007 at 10:09 am
She gambled, and she lost. I guess the RIAA had a “stronger” case, but then again when your a single mum, effective lawyers are hard to com by for a cut price. How she’ll be able to pay the damages is beyond me though, but I would like to find out.
October 5th, 2007 at 10:30 am
The RIAA did not win anything positive from this ruling. They are destroying a single mom’s family for what? I am boycotting teh music indusrtry until they take at least 3 zeroes off her fine. A classic example of the RIAA winning the battle but losing the war. I hope people all over the world will join in a boycott of music products and that their sales figures drop like a lead balloon.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:26 am
The RIAA will lose a lot more than the $222k they win from this judgement from all the music fans they just pissed off.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:31 am
Wow, I’m very disgusted at this ruling.
I thought at the very least, the jury would understand that without evidence to prove anything, you can’t assume this person did anything at all wrong!
I wouldn’t be surprised if the RIAA hand picked the jury just so they’d be sure to win.
As blind users, we are forced in to what the **AA’s consider illegal distribution, because every single one of the major label supported music stores are almost entirely inaccessible to blind computer users. I’ve personally tried to use Itunes on the pC, as well as Napster, and even Rhapsody a couple years back, and in all cases I came away very disgusted at the lack of accessibility. In some cases you can search for tracks but not purchase them, and in other cases you can’t even use the software at all!
then of course there’s the whole DRM issue, which essentially restricts you to playing the music using the devices and operating systems they say you can!
Excuse me, but if I’m going to pay for something, I should be the one to decide how often and on what device I play it! If you’re going to infest files with rediculous restrictions such as only being able to play the song on approved devices or the like, then offer the content for free!
That’s the only way I can even remotely consider being able to allow DRM on my computer. Offer the content for free with DRM, then if one wants to pay for it, they can get a non-DRM’d version of the track or album they seek, which they can then do with as they please, after all they did pay for it.
Anyway, I can’t help but wonder now if the consumer is hopeless to do anything against the evil industry. Will it be possible to have a consumer victory for a change instead of industry victories? Do they actually think they are going to put several milion people in prison for something as harmless as sharing audio/video content.
I sure hope that somehow these music stores can be forced in to being blind user friendly, it can’t be that hard.
Sorry for the long rant, I’m just truly disgusted by this outrageous **AA Victory!
Monty
October 5th, 2007 at 12:57 pm
Thank you justice system. This poor single mother of two is now ruined for the rest of her life while say, R. Kelly has been putting off his pedo-trail for 5 or 6 years now. Awesome. Who’s proud to be an American?
October 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
This sends a strong message to people that they cannot use other peoples works without permission. Making a copy for yourself or a friend is one thing but putting it on a P2P Network is distribution not Fair Use! The “Single Mother” is the one who brought about her problems! Of course now she is the “victim” to people who are not music fans and do not respect artist. If you are so cheap that you cannot spend $10 on a CD or download then you are pretty pathetic. THis goes right back to what I call the era of entitlement. People think they can do what they want when they want without regard to other people. Content is produced by people who make a living from their art. Ask steve jobs to make all of his ipods one price or give them away for free! Without music who would need a F**king Ipod.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Ms. Thomas’ lawyer needs to set-up a public fund that people can make donations to help out. I’ll gladly kick in some of my money; And if everyone else who ever downloaded a song for free or made an mp3 for a friend chips in a dollar, she’ll have no problem paying that fine.
Record labels are dinosaurs. From now on everyone should just get there music directly form the artists and eliminate those blood-sucker completely.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Evidently the judge instructed that âmaking availableâ (for others to copy) suffices for copyright infringement.
I guess every time I open my front door, I am making available my CD collection and therefore causing copyright infringement.
What idiots.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
I’m confused. I’ve heard that she made her downloads available as payable If that’s the case, then she deserves what she got.
If that is NOT the case, the jurors need to be seriously reeducated on what the actual cost per song is and it ain’t in the 3 digits, let alone 4-5 digits per song.
October 5th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Edward Spielman Says:
October 5th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
lol, you are talking about the poor artists losing their money? you think any of this judgement will be going to these poor artists you speak of?
you are naive!
October 5th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Cassie Says: —
as someone said earlier, by your definition, by making song available, you can now get sued for lending a CD to a friend
October 5th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
I just don’t get why the RIAA thinks that they can just go around accusing people of downloading music and then fine them this much money for 25 songs. Read this if you want another opinion, I like it.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Jon, I just heard the CBC here on the island with Jeremy DeBeer. Check it out if you can
October 5th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
This had to happen, why is everyone so suprised?
When you have 20,000 cases running you think the one they do let to go to jury is one they will lose?
I bet more money was spent on reseaching defence lawyers, judges, defendants and eveidence to pick the combination in a case most favourable than what was spent on the case itself.
October 5th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Thats interesting that Sara McLachlan is on the label Nettwerk which has been against sueing fans.
October 6th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Still do not dettle! Do not settle do not settle! If it goes to trial and if you lose just BK chapter 7 and the RIAA got ZIP!
FUCK THE PARASITES!
October 6th, 2007 at 12:41 am
I remember as a kid having a blank cassette and a tape deck sitting around waiting for my favorite song to come on the radio, getting excited when it came on, then getting frustrated because the DJ wouldn’t shut up, hitting record and having my favorite song on a cassette, pretty soon I’d have a full tape of my favorite songs. If I really, really liked a song or a group, I’d buy the cassette at the store with my allowance. Had a pretty big music collection, both radio recordings and commercial. I remember how cool it was in the summer to meet up with my cousins and bring our cassette tapes to swap and make copies. Don’t recall anyone going crazy or even thinking I was doing something wrong at the time. Today is a different story, the RIAA is seeing to that.
I remember as a kid having a VCR and getting excited when the new TV Guide would show up in the mailbox, I would look to see what new movies would premiere on HBO. It didn’t take long and I had boxes and boxes of VCR tapes full of movies recorded off HBO. Three movies to a tape. If I really, really liked a movie and wanted premium quality, I would buy the movie at the store with my allowance. Had a pretty big collection, both HBO recordings and commercial. Don’t recall anyone going crazy or even thinking I was doing something wrong at the time. Today is a different story, the MPAA is seeing to that.
What about used CD stores? Is that copyright infringement? What about people selling old CDs in a yard sale or at a flea market? Is that copyright infringement? What about corny teenagers making “Mix Tapes” for their boyfriend/girlfriend? Is that copyright infringement? The music/movie industry thrived for decades before the MP/RIAA decided to make their own consumers into what they consider criminals. The industry is suffering financially because of their own bully tactics, not “piracy”. Was I a pirate back when I was a kid taping songs off the radio onto my cassette deck? I don’t recall anyone considering that piracy, I sure didn’t feel like a pirate, still don’t. But if they are going to brand me a pirate, I’m gonna be an angry one.
This case has appeal written all over it.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:11 am
Edward Spielman said:
“The âSingle Motherâ is the one who brought about her problems! Of course now she is the âvictimâ to people who are not music fans and do not respect artist.”
Respect artist??? Please, this has little to do with artists such as me. I’m a n artist and “my label” does not respect my wish that my fans (anyone who copies one of my songs, authorized or not) not be sued for having copied one of my songs. Having spoken to many artists like myself, I know we are split about the issue of suing the fans and customers, but the majority, the same majority that is hardly paid anything by the labels is upset about what the labels are doing.
As to respect for artis, do you know tht when a label sells our recordings to another label, usually for a fat profit, we artists do not share in the proceeds. The labels say we only are paid from the (highly undereported) sale of records in the stores. What a crap.
Please think before speaking on our behalf, Edward Spielman.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:38 am
SOMETHING IS AWFULLY WRONG
An important question that must be answere is who are the people that write the laws and sit as judges.
The american Copyright Act allowing an award of $150,000 in damages for the act of copying one song even of the actual damages are ZERO, as would be the case if the copied song could not have been purchased in the store for whatever reason by the infringer.
This is like allowing a lifetime jail sentence for taking an old newspaper from a doctor’s office, which is technically theft. Remeber iwhen in California a hungry deambulant got a lifetime jail sentence for not paying a slice of pizza under the absurd three strike rule?
In a nation where sentences built into the law and which are discretionary with the judge or the jury, is like giving atomic bombs to soldiers or a brain damaged president to use as they please, something is awfully wrong.
I hope that Jammie Thomas’s lwayers can still argue the unconstitutionality of the copyright law statutory damages clause. Of course they had to argue this in the case and if it was not argued, the appeals court may not take up the issue. If that is the case, the appeal should be won because the judges’s wrong “make available” instructions are flawed to the core. Of course, appeal courts and Supreme courts are sometimes corrupt too. Just remeber when slavery was “constitutional” in the “land of freedom”, America.
October 6th, 2007 at 10:52 am
i am flabbergasted.
when i buy CDs. something i will not do again, i pass them around among the family and friends, just as these do with me, so they can enjoy the music, without paying for it. i have never her that this conduct is copyright infringement.
can someobe explai why is it that doing the same thing electronically is a crime and why is that justified?
October 6th, 2007 at 11:45 am
to flabbergasted
Waht you do, sharing CDs is called that, sharing. It was always legal. Even though NO LAW HAS CHANGED changed in close to 100 years in the amrican copyright law. Sharing is now a crime.
My explanation is that laws are meaningless if they are allowed to drift in their meaning and interpretation by judges and juries and judges and juries can hardly understand the laws made confusing by the many contadictory interpretations made in each case involving the law. That is why making available, as you did is one day legal and ilegal the next,
October 6th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Someone should publish the address of the case judge and the US Supreme Court Chief Judge and then everone shouls send a letter with all the messages here. Maybe then they will wake up to reality and to the real possibility of a revolution.
October 6th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Some should find out what those artists think about her having to pay 9250 for their 99cent song.
October 6th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
If iTunes sells each of these songs at retail for $0.99, meaning that one sold copy of each song has a real market value of $0.99, then how did the RIAA prove that this woman sent ~9,343 copies per song to people who had not legitimately purchased the songs in a different format such as a CD?
Because that’s what the jury is saying with this verdict: that RIAA’s damages are $9,250 per song, which is ~9,343 iTunes music store sales. Cut the Apple margins out and the required number would be even higher.
They didn’t prove that she knowingly and willingly engaged in activities that violate copyright law. “Making available” is not enumerated in copyright law as a violation of said law, therefore “making available” is by default legal. If she actually encouraged file transfers from her computer to others, or initiated those transfers herself, she’d be 100% on the hook for it and I’d say she deserved to pay for each one of those copies…but even under civil law, there is a requirement that “clear and convincing” proof of the alleged damages be shown, otherwise the suit is ALWAYS TOSSED because “the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
So, where in this suit did RIAA prove that they suffered ANY actual damages, or more importantly, that copyright law AS IT IS WRITTEN was violated?
And the judge’s instructions are screwed by default simply because his instructions tell the jury to find her guilty for violating a part of the law that does not exist.
October 7th, 2007 at 4:56 am
guys, instead of worrying about getting this insane punishment theres a better thing to do with less punishment that can actualy help..
break both arms off on everyone associated with RIAA, punishment is way lower then if you would get cought sharing music… thats how INSANE the judgement is, so go and break their arms and beat them up for life…
October 7th, 2007 at 8:50 am
“And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomasâ share folder.
Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files.”
The RIAA has to prove nearly nothing and they win?
What kind of f*cked up world are we living in? I mean no real ill-feelings to those involved in this decision, but this is an absolutely insane judgement. I tell you, the one thing I would instantly recommend would be a persistent request for evidence of where that settlement money is going – how artists are being reimbursed for their ‘losses’.
October 8th, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Another problem is that they weren’t even required to prove it was her that was downloading the songs. Her IP address was accepted as irrefutable proof. And I can’t believe that she’s actually guilty and yet went to fight one of the largest corporations in the world in a court battle. Nobody is that stupid.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:08 am
The comparisons between two news stories last week struck me as rather telling. You probably saw some of the coverage about a jury decision ordering a Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 for infringing copyright on 24 songs. But you may have missed the FTC’s announcement of its successful action against a spyware outfit that’s going to cost the offenders $330,000 … of the $3,595,925 in illicit revenue they earned from their scam. Gee, what message does that send?
The full article here:
http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/10/spyware_and_cop.html
October 11th, 2007 at 4:46 am
I cant believe all the new program out that help people share folders!
Windows Live you can share folders between your friends which would more then likely have music in it.
Winamp has a new feature called Winamp Remote in which you can access your music and videos on your computer from anywhere and have them streamed to you. Even on your cell!!! And you can add friends to it and they can listen to yours and you can listen to theirs.
O if i share a picture of Mickey Mouse am I infringing on the copyright of said picture?
As far as Im concerned if you personally rip a cd and upload it for others I would think that is more in the wrong then downloading something from the net and leaving it in the default folder it goes into. Especially when it is not for monitary gain. I wont accept money for music I find for people. I always tell them, if you like the tunes buy the cd or check out a show. I use to have a myspace that was to help support local music but sadly couldnt continue to run it due to lack of time.