First Jammie Thomas juror speaks out
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Although the RIAA has won this battle, it’s lost the war, irretrievably, p2pnet posted when the news broke that a Minnesota jury had come down on the side of the corporate music industry in the Jammie Thomas file sharing trial.
“Meanwhile, it’ll be interesting to see who of the jury will be first to speak,” we added.
Now we know.
It’s ex-juror Michael Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth who told Wired‘s Threat Level jurors found Thomas’ claim that she was the victim of a spoof, “unbelievable,” going on:
“She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars,” Hegg said. “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding’.”
“She’s a liar,” added Hegg.
He also said the jury would have found Thomas, pictured on the right with her lawyer, Brian Toder, liable, “even if the plaintiffs had been required to establish that Kazaa users had actually downloaded the music”.
According to Wired, “It would have been a lot harder to make the decision,” he said. “Yes, we would have reached the same result.”
The story goes on:
Hegg added that the jury believed Thomas’ liability was magnified because she turned over to RIAA investigators a different hard drive than the one used to share music.
“She lied,” he said. “There was no defense. Her defense sucked.”
He also emphasised Thomas’ Kazaa account username, Tereastarr, was the same as her email, online shopping, online dating and MySpace account usernames.
Added Hegg:
“I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We’re not that stupid up here,” he said. “I don’t know what the fuck she was thinking, to tell you the truth.”
So who’ll be the next juror to speak?
Stay tuned.
Also See:
p2pnet – RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: RIAA wins, October 4, 2007
Wired – RIAA Juror: ‘We Wanted to Send a Message’, October 9, 2007
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 9th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
As much as I wanted the jury to find her not guilty, her argument that hackers hijacked her IP address was absolutely ridiculous. The who IP spoofing angle was just hard to swallow.
Her lawyers should have attacked the “making available” argument, they would have stood a better chance. But I agree with the juror…now it will be that much more difficult to have this verdict overturned…
October 9th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
and another thing…these intext ads are really annoying.
October 9th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
You have never said what you think about this Jon?
October 9th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
On the text ads, go here – http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13456
On this story, I’ve spoken to quite a few RIAA victims and I believe every one of them.
But I haven’t spoken to Jammie Thomas and I’d want to hear her side of it.
Cheers!
October 9th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
until p2p is proven 100% legal in canada beyond shadow of a doubt i will stick to legal music subscriptions … i am all for p2p but i want the proper authorities to 100% endorse it as legal. eg vlountary isp tax etc
October 9th, 2007 at 2:44 pm
Downloading for personal use IS 100% legal in Canada, and that’s without the shadow of a doubt.
I edited out your reference to a ‘legal’ download service because frankly, I don’t know if your post is genuine or another attempt at advertising said ‘service’.
Your post was the second to mention it. I deleted the other.
Cheers!
October 9th, 2007 at 2:47 pm
I think all jurors’ homes should be raided just for the sake of knowing they judged someone having the moral right to do so, or would you find some warez laying around if you did search their homes? One thing’s for certain, somebody’s got to get his/her ass kicked for all this bullshit, somebody on the corporations’ side that is.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
i think its scary that people like this can decide the fate of others.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Lets just hope this juror never reproduces! What an idiot. He doesn’t seem to realise these are greedy corporations attacking the public. I guess ignorance is bliss in his case.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
Until the CRIA admits it’s legal than saying it’s legal is 100% confirmed by all involved. I want the Governmnet to say its legal and have the CRIA say we don’t like it but it is.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
I need an edit button. anyway what i mean is I want all involved .gov, artists, CRIA, labels etc to agree that P2P is failrly compensated and legal beofe I go back to it. To many people say it is and an equal number say it isn’t. I don’t want to risk depriving someone of the right to sell their product.
I am not paid by the “service” I just feel it’s a good deal. People get access to lots of music at a fairly meager amount compared to buying.
When P2P’s legality is uncontested than I will go back to it.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
To David B:
This is exactly what the RIAA wants. Don’t allow them to subjugate you.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:38 pm
Give me proof then. Has the Copyright Board of canada explicitly give the green light in exact words? Has a Bill been passed into law? Maybe I missed it. As soon as I read in explicit words from someone who has undeniable authority and can not be legally challenged than I will download like hundreds of songs a day with Frostwire. I want someone to show me who said it’s 100% legal and why this now law of the land.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
How she could have been unknowingly sharing files:
1. Hacker gains access to computer
2. Hacker sets up proxy or auto p2p downloader
3. Hacker downloads files from her without risking himself to p2p networks
4. Hacker erases logs
Since she got rid of hard drive (right?) it could have happened and the evidence was lost since hard drive lost (or if hard drive not lost, logs removed by hacker). Though unlikely, is very possible.
October 9th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
and then the hacker set up a hotmasil account with her user name and made a myspace profile with the same username? possibble but unlikely
October 9th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
david in that scenario it would be more likely that a hacker set up the Kazaa account and used information from her pc for it. and its not so “unlikely” as some think, just look how many botnets there are and zombie machines, your email spam and all kinds of stuff is mostly coming from home users machines that are hijacked.
funny enough most viruses are made in US
not china/korea/taiwan etc. that has been thinked about before. also US dont have good protection, and most email spam comes from US from hijacked home users.
so its not so unlikely as you guys (??? included) might think its actualy very possible and could have been the case
most dont know that their computer is doing things in the background due to a virus/trojan/malware/adware/whatever you name it.
im looking forward for more info
October 9th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
I did not say it was unlikely because the fact that its not possible and could have been registered like that, that is definitely possible as I said. The unlikely comes from the part that she got rid of her hard drive, making her look and seem guilty, for what reason is there to throw away your hard drive if you didnt do anything?
October 9th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
Stell worker in Minesota hum? Clearly Technically challenged!
October 9th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Said juror is a idiot.
The harddrive she turned over was the harddrive that was installed when suit was filed. Replaced 2 weeks before the suit.
That was the testimony from the Geek Squad or whomever tech person.
Wish I was a juror on a case like this.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Yes, it is terribly difficult to use a fake out people, by using a
name they have seen used.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Do tell ?
October 9th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Sorry,
the above 2 posts were mine.
Just demonstrating a point.
I could just as easily use that name on Kazaa, or ANY other
service I want.
Imagine someone using a name that they have seen a lot of, to DL kiddie porn or engage in other
illegal activities.
What if they use the name David b ?
This trial shows that no proof is necessary to convict.
” âI think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. Weâre not that stupid up here,â he said. âI donât know what the fuck she was thinking, to tell you the truth.â
It also shows that a jury in Duluth can, indeed , be THAT stupid. This guy just proved it.
That’s what the fuck I think.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
I can’t help but wondering about the comment:
âI think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. Weâre not that stupid up here,â
…because I think that this decision proved just the oppisite- that the jury from Deluth is VERY naive, and doesn’t bother to follow the facts.
Whether or not her IP address was spoofed or not, that fact that IP addresses do not equil a person, was completely overlooked, as well as the fact that most of the evedence against her was cercumstantial. And to top that off, what ever happened to the bit about “proven beyond a shadow of doubt”? If the jury felt that the RIAA’s case was prooved beyond a shadow of doubt, then I am afraid that they are a bunch of naive people who are likely to believe in anything they are spoon fed by athority.
Just my Two cents
October 9th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
It’s obvious why she was convicted: the RIAA needed to set their much-needed precedent, no matter what. The judge was bought from what I understand…
They’ve now proved that they don’t really need much evidence to get you, thankfully. Next time someone gets a Settlement Offer, they should just take it and shut the fuck up. Innocence or potential innocence is no excuse, it just inconveniences the music industry when trying to force their business model on the consumer; they must prevail.
Who gives a shit whether it was actually her, a friend or some hacker that did the downloading? It’s completely irrelevant. The IP address pointed to her internet account, so she should be made to pay and she has.
Her appeal will fail, just you watch.
Frankly, the award should have been for $440K or more, not the paltry $220K… and she should be made to pay every damn dollar of it.
October 10th, 2007 at 2:21 am
lol power to the little guy you contradict yourself and your name is in violation with your ideas kinda badly…
but yea why not make them pay 2 billion dollars next time, i mean whe need to set an examble! screw her live and her 2 kids!
October 10th, 2007 at 3:58 am
“Power to the little guy” is being sarcastic, “reader’s write”.
October 10th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Isn’t Kazaa owned by Bertelsmann? Otherwise known as BMG, or Sony BMG? Did they sold it to someone else since?
Also didn’t Kazaa paid over 300 millions$ to the RIAA for past and future damage?
I just had a thought this women has been accused of using a system owned by the accusers themselves… and they won’t shut this milking cow down.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Its a Civil trial. From what i remember about civil law from the OJ trial, the burden of proof isnt as high as criminal.
example : Criminal – If the glove dont fit, ya gotta aquit.
: Civil – If the glove dont fit, his hand have must have gotten fatter or the gloves have shrunk. hes still guilty.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Kazaa is owned by Australia’s Sharman Networks.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:48 am
anon Says:
October 10th, 2007 at 3:58 am
âPower to the little guyâ is being sarcastic, âreaderâs writeâ.
************************
Yup, I was. Well spotted lol
If you think about it though, the bastards at the RIAA likely do think like that and I was just making a cutting parody of it.
October 10th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
I used to buy music, wish I had NEVER given those ungrateful SOBs a penny. Those days have been long over for four years. After this, I’ll NEVER buy RIAA brand music at any price. I’ll find something else to do.
That goes for MPAA movies, and BSA software!
October 11th, 2007 at 11:02 am
“She’s a liar. We wanted to send a message. I don’t know what the fuck she was thinking.
(I’ve edited out Hegg’s personal info posted in this comment —- Jon)
October 11th, 2007 at 4:12 pm
Jon , you may want to delete the above post with the a-holes name and addy.
While that information MAY be publicly available. this COULD possibly create
liability for you by having it here.
As much as I think that hegg is an asshole, this may cross a line.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Hey Dred:
See above, done because I’d do the same for anyone, liked or otherwise. But thanks for the thought.
Cheers!
October 15th, 2007 at 6:59 am
Are you people all retarded? I’m not justifying the judgement against her, or the RIAA’s actions, but she’s obviously a liar.