Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words
p2pnet news special | RIAA News:- Through their RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America), BPI (British Phonographic Industry), IFPI (International Federation of Phonographic Industry), CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association) and all the other so-called trade organisations strategically sited in major cities around the world, the members of the Big 4 organised music cartel are running a hugely expensive international disinformation campaign (a charitable description) designed to show they’re being “devastated” (their word) by their own customers, whom they’re calling criminals and thieves, even though no crime has been committed and nothing has been stolen.
These people are massive online illegal distributors of copyrighted music causing record industry support workers to be thrown onto the streets, out of work, and who are costing the labels billions of dollars in lost profits, say Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US).
In America, and an estimated 30,000 people, some of them very young children, had been subpoenaed by the RIAA, accused of being file sharing criminals.
It’s, “no secret that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has responded to the growth of online file sharing with a wave of copyright infringement litigation,” wrote James Alonso, Marc Friedenberg, Michael Nguyen, Shawn Oakley and Sarah Calvert from The Columbia Science & Technology Law Review.
“Often, the individuals targeted by the RIAA fear the overwhelming costs of defending themselves in court, and many have agreed to pay large settlements.”
Often, but not always.
Now, inspired by the examples of people such as the five very reluctant heroines mentioned below, increasing numbers of victims are deciding not to let themselves be terrorised into settling.
The five, courageous in every sense of the word, are:
- Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of five children, two of whom have now become RIAA targets
- Rae-Jay Schwartz, another mother, bound to a wheelchair by multiple sclerosis, the terrible central nervous system disease
- Marie Lindor, a 57-year-old home health aid whose knowledge of computers and computer systems is zero
- Tanya Andersen, a disabled mother living off a disability pension
- Jammie Thomas, a young mother of two from Minnesota
But it’s Thomas, the first of the American RIAA victims to actually appear in court, who’s caught the attention of the international mainstream media for more than just a day or two.
Horrified by the negative (for them) PR the case has been generating, using their connections, political power and influence, the labels are doing their best to distort facts and spin Thomas as a cold schemer whose depredations forced the RIAA to take her to court.
Cary Sherman, the organisation’s chief spin doctor, said he was “surprised it took this long for one of the industry lawsuits to go to trial” when in fact, the organisation has done everything it can to stop any of these cases actually reaching a judge and jury.
Thomas has also achieved two other firsts:
As far as I know, she’s the first to launch her own forum, and for the first time since she was forced into the limelight, she’s telling her own story, in her own words.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
My Story
By Jammie Thomas
A lot of misinformation has been printed concerning my case, my family, my living situation, and me personally. I welcome this opportunity to set the record straight. As most already know, I was sued by RIAA (actually by some of the individual recording labels that make up the RIAA) and I lost.
First, I want to tell you all about me before we dissect my case and what went wrong.
‘I never wanted this much notoriety, ever’
I am a single mother of 2 beautiful boys; Tyler who is 13 and Triston, who is 11. These two are my life and they’re the reason why I do anything. It is also because of these two I decided to fight back against the RIAA. After I received the various letters from both my ISP and the RIAA, I made up my mind I was not going to be bullied into paying for something I didn’t do. My father always taught me to stand up and fight for what I believe in and I figured what better way to teach my boys this same lesson but through example.
My family have been my most staunch supporters through this entire situation. My parents even helped me secure a loan for the retainer money for my attorney when this first started. All of my family wanted to be at the courthouse during the trial, but after I saw the news articles that happened the day before the trial started, I asked them to stay away, to try and shield them from what I was about to go through.
After I was contacted by the RIAA, I started researching these cases hoping to find answers to why this was happening and what I could do to stop it. I came across websites that would become one some of the biggest assistant in my own case. These site are Recording Industry vs. The People, a blog written by an attorney, Mr. Ray Beckerman, who handles similar cases in New York, and p2pnet.net. It is also because of Mr. Beckerman I was able to find Mr. Brian Toder, my attorney in Minnesota.
Mr. Beckerman’s site chronicles cases of everyday people being sued by the RIAA and a lot of these cases are very similar to mine. The first case I read about was Patty Santangelo. She is also a single mother who decided to fight back. Recently, she had her case dismissed with prejudice, granting her the victor and now eligible for her attorney’s fees and court costs.
I’m very excited for her.
Another case I learned of was Tanya Anderson. Ms. Anderson is also a single mother who decided she was not going to be bullied into paying for something she didn’t do. And Ms. Anderson recently won her case against the RIAA just as Ms. Santangelo did. I would love to suggest a pattern is emerging – 3 cases of single moms refusing to pay the RIAA. But considering over 26,000 people received what the RIAA calls ‘pre-suit settlement letters’, I find it highly unlikely all of those are single parents.
After reading about these cases and others more dire than mine, including the suit against a woman with multiple sclerosis who has never even used a computer, many cases against teens and pre-teens, even a case against a deceased elderly woman, I became rather enraged. My initial reaction was how dare they? I also thought how could they get away with this type of extortion here, in America? The more I read, the more sick and disgusted I became. I knew after this I would not ever settle, no matter how bad my situation became.
I never dreamt my case would actually make it to court. I figured the RIAA had run from every case that was even close to going before a jury and they would do the same thing with my case. Yeah, I was wrong. My attorney kept warning me all along I might be the first case to ever go to court, but I was naïve and didn’t want to see the bigger picture. A cold splash of reality wakes anyone up and the judgment against me was that splash I seemed to need.
I also never dreamt how large of a story my case would become. Before I went to court, no one except those close to me knew of this situation I was dealing with. Now, I can Google my name and read articles about me. A very odd and surreal feeling for me as I never wanted this much notoriety, ever. Unfortunately, a lot of the articles I’ve read are full of half-truths, conjectures, and right out lies. I can understand media outlets having a deadline to meet, but I cannot understand media outlets filling the holes in their stories with incorrect information.
‘Best Buy made the decision to replace the hard drive’
I would like to now talk about some of that incorrect information which has plagued news articles and comments. First, I will finally set straight the issue with my computer hard drive, when it was replaced, why it was replaced, who replaced it and what might have happened to the old drive. I have read many comments and articles that I had my hard drive replaced after I learned of my suit. This could not be further from the truth. What most people don’t know, if I did have my hard drive replaced after I was served the initial complaint to this suit, that would be considered spoliation of evidence, which is a criminally prosecutable offense. All the following dates, keep in mind so you can see the timeline yourself.
The day MediaSentry (the RIAAs ‘investigative’ company) said I was caught illegally sharing songs over KaZaa was February 21, 2005. My computer crashed approximately 2 weeks later. The only reason I know why it crashed is this: my boys were playing a video game and in the middle of some epic battle on their game, the computer froze up, then the screen went black, and in my child’s frustration, the side of the computer was smacked. After that, the computer would not load and I would receive error messages.
I brought my computer into Best Buy for repairs on March 7, 2005. Remember, I brought it in for repairs under the extended warranty, not to have the hard drive replaced. And if anyone who has used a large chain electronic store to repair their electrical equipment knows, these companies do not replace hard drives on the whim of the customer if they have to pay for the hard drive replacement covered under warranty. They try to do whatever is cheaper for the company, which normally means fixing the issues with the hard drive. With my hard drive, the issues couldn’t be fixed so Best Buy, not me but Best Buy, made the decision to replace the hard drive.
The RIAA didn’t subpoena my personal information from Charter until late April 2005, almost 2 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. As with all RIAA subpoenas to ISPs, I was not notified of the court date when the subpoena was issued. I was only notified after Charter Communications was served with the subpoena. This letter came late April 2005, again 2 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. I didn’t officially hear from the RIAA until late August 2005, almost 6 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. The lawsuit itself wasn’t officially started until April 2006, over 1 year AFTER my hard drive was replaced.
As you can see, I did not replace my hard drive to hide any evidence of anything. The replacement wasn’t my choice and I would have to be psychic to know 2 months in advance my personal information was going to be subpoenaed and a year later, I would be sued.
Yes, all this information was given to the jury during the trial. The main problem that arose concerning my hard drive was the date I gave my attorney for when the hard drive was replaced. I didn’t check the records for Best Buy before I gave my hard drive to Mr. Toder, so when I told him the hard drive had been replaced, the date I gave was January or February of 2004. Obviously, after we received all the information from Best Buy, we saw that the hard drive was replaced in March 2005. We also found out I didn’t even own the computer until March 2004, one month after the date I told my attorney.
This wouldn’t be the first time I was off by a year on my dates.
During my deposition, I was off by one year on the date I purchased my computer (I said early spring 2003 when it was early spring 2004), the date my hard drive was replaced (I said 2004 when it was 2005) and when I finished ripping all the music to my computer (I said the fall of 2005 when it was the fall of 2006) to only name a few. I was basing everything off my memory, without taking into consideration as stressed as I was, my memory wasn’t what I thought it was. I have learned a hard lesson as the jury was not able to see my deposition transcript. I now know to check and double check everything and if I haven’t, my answer will be ‘I don’t know.’
Another rumor I would like to put to rest is the question why didn’t I buy the music since it is offered for less than a dollar per song on sites like I-tunes? To be completely honest with you, I already own those songs they accused me of ‘making available’ on KaZaa. I own over 240 CDs I have purchased throughout my life, most while I worked at Best Buy when I was in college. Their employee discount is amazing!
Anyway, on these CDs are almost 3,000 songs, which in turn are on my computer right now. I have purchased additional songs from Walmart.com. So in total, I own roughly 3,000 individual songs, all legally purchased.
‘I can look back now and see many things I could have or should have done differently’
Now on to my defense during the trial. A lot of people have said I should not have used a ‘spoofing’ defense, especially without an expert to testify and give the details.
First, I did not use a ‘spoofing’ defense. That term was not even mentioned during my trial until after the judge himself asked one of the witnesses what spoofing was. I never presented a defense someone spoofed my information. My defense was based around the facts an IP address does not identify a person, there was no trace of KaZaa or any peer to peer software on any computer I owned, not a single witness could testify they could identify who was online making song files available, there was no witness who could testify they ever saw me use or talk about any peer to peer software, and there was not a single person who could identify me as the person caught on February 21, 2005 sharing files through KaZaa. Yes, my attorney mentioned certain computer terms during the trial, but I have no idea what any of those terms are.
Second, I did have an expert. This expert did inspect my computer and was going to testify for me at trial. That was originally the plan, until I couldn’t come up with the money for my expert during the trial. Another thing most people don’t know is the defendant is responsible for paying expert witnesses their hourly rate during the trial and providing for their food and board while at the trial. My attorney was able to secure that expert witness at a very reasonable rate, but I wasn’t able to afford this rate during the entire trial.
As for what’s next, my attorney filed a motion to have the verdict thrown out or to have the judgment reduced based on the constitutionality of the judgment. This is not an appeal, this is a post trial motion. We are currently waiting for the plaintiffs to file their response to our motion. The judge will not make a decision on that motion until after the plaintiffs have filed. The timeline for appeals is we have 30 days after the judge decides all post trial motions before we file any appeals. The legal aspects of this case are questions for my attorney and I will always refer those kinds of questions to him. I do know personally I cannot allow my case to end this way, with this judgment. My case will be used as a sledgehammer by the RIAA to force other people caught in the RIAA’s driftnets to settle, even if they are or are not guilty of illegally sharing music online.
Considering hindsight is always 20/20, I can look back now and see many things I could have or should have done differently. I could have settled before I was even sued. I could have settled many times before the case went to trial. I could have worked harder to find a way to afford the things I needed at trial. But I refuse to live life regretting could haves or would have or should haves.
The one piece of advice I can give to anyone who finds themselves being sued or threatened to be sued by the RIAA is to fight back.
The more people fight back against these cases, the more expensive it will be for the RIAA to bring these suits and the less resources the RIAA will have to use against others.
I was found liable of copyright infringement without the plaintiffs having to prove I downloaded anything, without having to prove I was aware of any file sharing taking place on my computer or within my home, without having to prove I owned a copy of KaZaa, without having to prove any files were shared with anyone from my computer and without having to prove who was on the computer the night of February 21, 2005.
This doesn’t seem fair and it’s what keeps me going in my fight.
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 the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 2nd, 2007 at 4:54 pm
A note to Jammie
Stupid as the system is, it must somehow be defeated, and persons like you and the others that have stood up and fought are the ones that will do it. A COURT SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS SOME TO DO AS THEY PLEASE AND TO SUE ANYONE FOR INMORAL REASONS CANNOT STAND FOR LONG.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:42 pm
This RIAA pigs always use the most vunerable victims, those that don’t have the money to defend themselve properly and those that they thing are the least likely to fight just like rapists and burglars looking for victims: Single mother for exemple.
However we have the right and the duty to defend ourselve and our societies. Some people do this with the law somme people don’t.
The more they corrupt the system, the more they shit lie and manipulate, the more likely people will settle they score by themsleve and the more dangerous it is for them. There is not free lunch RIAA pigs and sooner or rather latter you will pay for your crimes. The shit that you use as brain will hit the fan.
November 2nd, 2007 at 5:58 pm
“I could have settled before I was even sued”
NEVER! Never settle! You were right not to settle.
If you settle it would have cost you at least 3k, money that would have help them sue somebody else.
OK! they think they win 250K? DO NOT PAY! NEVER PAY! Organize your insolvancy. BK chapter 7 if you have too with the help of a good BK attorney. They can not do anything about it/ They can not take your home if you owe one they can not take your car. They are screw! And let the world know that they did not got anything from you save for the attorney fee they have to pay because you would have put their attorney fee they are trying to make you pay into the BK.
Important: You have to wait untill they billed you with every thing the law will allow you to bill you for before you go BK. (Be ready because these bastars are going to use all the nasty tricks they have in their ganster hats!)
November 2nd, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Meanwhile the boycott is expending and the downloading is accelerating.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:12 am
I’m trying very hard to see this from the jury’s point of view. The RIAA says something like, “We found your IP address and your username making these 24 songs available.” And her defense is, “an IP address does not identify a person, and there was no trace of KaZaa on the shiny new hard drive I gave you.”
I think I see why she lost the trial now.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:28 am
THINK
“I think I see why she lost the trial now.”
I think I see now why Washington and a whole bunch of “freedom fighters” had slaves.
I think I see now why the whites took everything away from the Indians.
I think I see now why an Atomic bomb was dropped over Japan.
I think I see now why Bush is in Irak.
I think I see now why Bush doesn’t like Castro but loves the king-dictaor in Saudi Arabia.
I think I see now why RIAA sues everyone in sight they think, without good evidence, may have copied songs, which is what RIAA does, copy songs.
THINK
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:58 am
Nice poem
November 3rd, 2007 at 12:05 pm
” Iâm trying very hard to see this from the juryâs point of view. The RIAA says something like, âWe found your IP address and your username making these 24 songs available.â And her defense is, âan IP address does not identify a person, and there was no trace of KaZaa on the shiny new hard drive I gave you.â
I think I see why she lost the trial now ”
Posted from the article for the reading comprehension challenged.
” I brought my computer into Best Buy for repairs on March 7, 2005. Remember, I brought it in for repairs under the extended warranty, not to have the hard drive replaced. And if anyone who has used a large chain electronic store to repair their electrical equipment knows, these companies do not replace hard drives on the whim of the customer if they have to pay for the hard drive replacement covered under warranty. They try to do whatever is cheaper for the company, which normally means fixing the issues with the hard drive. With my hard drive, the issues couldnât be fixed so Best Buy, not me but Best Buy, made the decision to replace the hard drive.
The RIAA didnât subpoena my personal information from Charter until late April 2005, almost 2 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. As with all RIAA subpoenas to ISPs, I was not notified of the court date when the subpoena was issued. I was only notified after Charter Communications was served with the subpoena. This letter came late April 2005, again 2 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. I didnât officially hear from the RIAA until late August 2005, almost 6 months AFTER my hard drive was replaced. The lawsuit itself wasnât officially started until April 2006, over 1 year AFTER my hard drive was replaced.
As you can see, I did not replace my hard drive to hide any evidence of anything. The replacement wasnât my choice and I would have to be psychic to know 2 months in advance my personal information was going to be subpoenaed and a year later, I would be sued. ”
And since anyone can use any username they wish on Kazaa anyway, the username
means nothing.
For example, If a Kazaa user that thinks Robert Chapin is a jerk, they can use the name
RobertChapin on Kazaa. If this trial is used as precedent, I guess that means Robert Chapin
is screwed. After all, it’s the name you use , right, so it must be you .. right ?
The Jury ignored the timeline, ignored the utter lack of ANY concrete evidence.
RIAA says guilty, so it must be so.
I REALLY wish I had been on that jury, but that would never happen.
The RIAA insured that the people they put on it had the APPEARANCE of tech savvy,
( IPOD owners AOL users etc .. ) while knowing they were technologically ignorant.
November 3rd, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Let them sue me. I’m on SSI and that cannot legally be garnished. The RIAA will be long since a bad memory before they get anything from me.
November 3rd, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Look, I want to have sympathy. I really do!
But when you can’t be bothered to verify your timeline BEFORE giving a deposition and BEFORE talking to an attorney, then
there isn’t much that can be done. If wrong dates are given initially and then you change your story, it’s going to look very
shady. It almost sounds like you didn’t take any of this seriously until it came time for trial.
Sorry all this happened to you, and I do believe you are innocent of these charges.
However in this case, you have paid a stupid tax.
Let this be a lesson to everyone else: Take ALL legal matters seriously, whether you believe it will go to trial or not!
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
This message is for READER’S WRITE. I posted this in the title “HOLLYWOOD BANS CANADA”, but reposted here as this article is brand new.
I am Canadian, and after reading article after article and then your comments afterwards I just have one thing to say. YOU ROCK!
Is it that we are not (yet) under the US’s thumb or the 51st state yet, that the RIAA and MPAA feel they need to make Canadians look like the worst criminals in human history? Don’t they see we are a peace loving country that believes in peaceKEEPING, not peaceMAKING. Besides, we get ripped off royally for anything we buy. Especially anything electronic, including DVDs and CDs.
Now that the Canadian dollar is on par with the US dollar, the G.W. Harper government is scrambling to come up with reasons why we pay so much. We even have some kind of SPECIAL TAX on our blank optical media because we are such supposed pirates!!!! LOL
I salute you READER’S WRITE and I really hope you get a chance to read this comment.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:39 pm
>For example, If a Kazaa user that thinks Robert Chapin is a jerk, they can use the name RobertChapin on Kazaa. If this trial is used as precedent, I guess that means Robert Chapin is screwed.
Assuming that user had MITM access to fake my IP address, and assuming I used the same defense as Ms. Thomas, then yes of course I’d be pretty well screwed.
>The Jury ignored the timeline
No, the jury was on top of things, I’d say. It was Ms. Thomas who used (and continues to use) the shiny new hard drive in her defense. It’s not that it makes her look guilty, it’s that the argument is so irrelevant.
>ignored the utter lack of ANY concrete evidence.
I agree on that point. I’m still not clear about what she was found guilty of. Due to all the biased reporting, I haven’t heard enough about the prosecution to know what she was up against.
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I just want to say thank you for telling your story. You are extremely brave for standing up for your rights, particularly against something like the RIAA which has ‘unlimited’ resources when compared to the average person. The tide does seem to be turning against the RIAA. slowly yet surely, and it is people like you that make that possible. Thank you again for fighting for what you believe in.
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Here’s another example – I share files all the time using the misconfigured router of my next door neighbor. I don’t even know which neighbor it is – I just connect via wi-fi and off we go!
November 3rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
There is a very old military advice that says: Pick only the battles you can win.
You were obviously not in a position to win this battle so you should have avoided fighting. This is exactly what organizations like RIAA speculates in, most people will not have the resources available to put up a fair legal fight.
Yes it sucks, but this is the way the legal system works… Don’t you ever believe it’s about justice (or even facts).
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:22 pm
When will RIAA realise , that policing NEVER works if people fundamentally disagree with the idea behind that policing….
And why must people like Jamie Thomas pay the price for RIAA’s incompetence to notice this simple fact. Such phenomenon do not last, I am sure – revolutions occur.
I am thinking about starting a community that will boycott all music unless it is made available to people on the web in some kind of format (even if it is a format that cannot be reproduced, easily), perhaps one that is not as optimal. I believe that if people demanded this, most musicians would do it (some already do). That way, RIAA gets screwed. True patrons will always pay for the music in pristine format, much like so many people still buy vinyl records for the nostalgic or novelty value.
November 3rd, 2007 at 7:42 pm
/.
Sweet.
Liam
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I want to feel sorry for Ms. Thomas, but I just can’t. Saying that an IP address doesn’t point to a person is funny, except that you only had one computer and no wireless (as has been previously reported). Your ISP went through their logs and found the IP address in question as being assigned to your account with them. A single IP address tied to a single computer is pretty good evidence if you ask me.
Then there’s the issue of your username. Is it sheer coincidence that the KaZaA username sharing the files in question just so happened to be the same exact username that you use for your email and online shopping and dating sites (again as previously reported)?
Finally, this timeline issue. You sound really dumb trying to backpedal with screwing up the dates. If you’re going to talk to an attorney, you damn well better have the dates 100% correct or else you’re going to be hung to dry.
The jury is a non-issue. In the USA, both the plaintiffs and the DEFENDANTS get to question the jury and have to agree on them before the trial can commence. Either your attorney is a complete moron or you really were guilty of what they claimed. My guess is the latter considering a jury of YOUR PEERS (not RIAA schmucks) ruled against you. My advice to you, since you’re trying to have the verdict overturned (ruled unconstitutional? on what grounds?), is to either get a new attorney or stop talking about your case until it’s finished. You’re making it worse for yourself. Remember, the jury could have awarded up to $150k PER SONG. At 24 songs, that’s over $3 million. They went easy on you.
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:31 pm
A leopard doesn’t change it’s spots. Even with the adjusted timeline, the new hard drive was in use for six months before recieving the official notification from the RIAA. IF Jammie was the notorious file distributor that they painted, Kazaa would have been one of the first things reinstalled after the hard drive crash. The new hard drive still should have been able to be used to get a not guilty verdct.
November 3rd, 2007 at 9:33 pm
I’m not sure how it works, but if you read, it was only 2 months afterwards that the ISP received a subpoena for her information. I don’t know if there’s a statute of limitations that would have played a part here, but 6 months is usually well within any limits. I don’t see how it matters if it was 6 months or a year.
If the new hard drive should have been used, why wasn’t it? Perhaps she didn’t download KaZaA to begin with. Perhaps it was one of her sons. Maybe they never got around to it (perhaps after breaking the previous hard drive, they were punished).
Did anyone notice how she conveniently left out the strange coincidence of the KaZaA username that was exactly the same as her email username? That seemed a bit odd if you ask me. Too many things in this case point directly at her to convince me that she didn’t do it. I’ve heard from people who actually sat and watched every day of this case and they came out with the view that she was definitely guilty.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:30 pm
Mr. Rizzo,
You are obviously an idiot as you state her attorney had the right to get rid of the jurors. In a civil suit, attorney’s are allowed to get rid of only 2 jurors a piece. What this means, her attorney could only get rid of the two worst jurors for her case, not all of them. Please read about this before you make any more idiotic statements.
Also, computers have names for users. So, say your computer is named JimRizzo. If KaZaa is installed on your computer, the default name KaZaa uses is your computer’s user name. So, your computer could have KaZaa installed without your knowledge, sharing songs online from your machine, again without your knowledge, with your computers user name of JimRizzo as the user name on KaZaa. If you were caught by RIAA, they would have your IP address AND your well known and used user name, all without your knowledge that anything has happened. Would you pay them then? Didn’t think so.
November 3rd, 2007 at 10:32 pm
The new hard drive was used and the RIAAs expert testified he DID NOT find any evidence of KaZaa or any other p2p software on her computer.
November 3rd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Obviously they found one that was guilty in this case. With their flimsy evidence even someone this guilty should ahve been able to find an out though. None of this excuses RIAAs absurd valuations and extortion tactics.
No reasonable person can read her own words and believe not only did she use Kazzas, she knew she was using Kazaa.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:25 am
Anyone know how much the RIAA payed the judge?
November 4th, 2007 at 6:45 am
If Mr. Sherman appears on a sidewalk some morning strangled with his own guts, think anyone will care? You don’t need lawyers, just a long sharp knife.
November 4th, 2007 at 8:15 am
“I couldnât come up with the money for my expert during the trial”
I can see why she lost the trial too.
Get real, folks: Jammie Thomas brought this upon herself.
The Jury thought her defense was stupid and fake, and fined her for wasting everyone’s time.
Moral? Don’t try and make a monkey out of your fellow citizens.
November 4th, 2007 at 9:10 am
@ Jim Rizzo
To say that, “they went easy on you.” because they didn’t charge her 150K each song is a joke. Do you really think they (the RIAA) lost 150K from each song? Is each song worth that much? I didn’t think so either.
Think before you speak, and save us all the trouble of correcting you next time,
Liam
November 4th, 2007 at 9:27 am
In my opinion, losing the case was a blessing in disguise. Just the after-trial motion alone to challenge the constitutionality of the award is a huge blow to the RIAA. They now have to provide counter arguments as to why the damages should not be limited to some tiny sum such as $24.00.
This really puts the RIAA in a difficult situation. If they “win”, these counter arguments will probably be examined on appeal up to the Supreme Court, and it is very likely that flaws in their arguments or in the underlying DMCA law will be exposed. If they lose, then a precedent has been set that limits damages to almost nothing. Either way, it’s bad news for the RIAA.
And, regardless of the size of the damages, RIAA then has to legally defend linking ISP numbers back to Jamie. This also is unlikely to stand up to higher court scrutiny. So by losing, Jammie may ultimately end up being the person who brings the RIAA down!
November 4th, 2007 at 11:02 am
As I have said in the past, no matter how hard P2PNet and uninformed sites like it try to present people such as Ms. Thomas as ‘victims’, the truth will out.
The music industry is doing nothing more than trying to protect itself, its artists and the people who work for it.
No amount of hysterical ranting will change that.
November 4th, 2007 at 11:09 am
Reader’s Write fantasized:
“So, your computer could have KaZaa installed without your knowledge, sharing songs online from your machine, again without your knowledge, with your computers user name of JimRizzo as the user name on KaZaa. If you were caught by RIAA, they would have your IP address AND your well known and used user name, all without your knowledge that anything has happened. Would you pay them then? Didnât think so.”
You obviously have no idea how ridiculous that scenario is. Major pieces of software installing themselves and sharing songs across the Internet. That happens on my computer all the time – not. Or maybe you’re inferring that someone ‘hijacked her computer’ just to share some songs after somehow installing Kazaa? Don’t be as stupid as you are.
Despite all the flim-flam and blatant lies, anyone with a brain knows that she (either her or one of her kids) is guilty. The big question is why anyone would choose to go up against music industry proponents in court without a credible defense and with a stack of incriminating evidence pointing straight at them? Oh, that’s right, this was never actually expected to reach a trial, except that the record companies new it was a gift and that they couldn’t lose. Bluff called!
If you’re going to push for your day in court over something, make sure you have some kind of a case to argue.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
The RIAA is going to cause a lot of grief for a lot of people for some time … but eventually “What Goes Around Comes Around” … However that is little consolation when you are on the losing end of the ‘legal’ stick being used such as is the case with Jammie Thomas…
We have a ‘Corporate Friendly’ government in power in Canada right now who are desperately trying to “Americanize” the laws regarding file sharing and adherence to WIPO protocols that are a most ugly expansion of capitalist greed … and thus I do suspect that an RIAA Mafia will soon have a ‘Canadian Branch Office’ doing the same sort of extortion on this side of the 49th …
The problem for the greedy copyright clutches of the RIAA is that the digital Gutenberg is here and now … ‘The Prelateâs in the Media Monastery’ and the underlings and lackeyâs attending to the ‘Congressional Court’ have not yet come to the realization that their day has indeed long since come and gone. Too bad that a few thousand American citizens are getting bilked of thousands by coercion and threats
The age of the “Digital Gutenberg’ is at hand … There is no turning back the hands of the clock … that which can be digitized will be digitized …
Those who sought to secure a monopoly on intangibles are doomed to the dustbin (delete bin) of history … be they words, images, music, ideas or absurdities all is now ‘bread upon the waters’ of a larger sea that is not delimited by some shifting antiquarian shores monitored by varied corporate entities such as the RIAA or MPPA seeking lucre from lascivious legal practices …
‘Acquisitive Artists’ also will need to get over it in these changed times and only expect to receive compensation for their labour, tangible productivity, solid assets and naught else … That which is incorporeal is not ‘property’ … evolution has taught certain of our species this lesson sometime ago … a lesson now being learned by others reluctantly.
The majority of the people that I have come in contact with in Europe and North America continue to download their music for free by using the readily available applications. That is the reality that is deftly avoided by all such ‘pronouncements’ by the corporate “Non-Technorati” of the music oligarchy that refuse to acknowledge the reality of this the age of the âDigital Gutenbergâ
Arguments about theft, piracy, morality and ownership seem to have little sway on those who can and therefore will obtain music and/or any digital content in the cheapest manner possible ergo human nature continues to be quite normal in all spheres of our lives including using computers and associated technology to obtain that which is desired. You can disagree with the actions of tens of millions of people but regardless it is happening and the rate for such acquisition has hardly skipped a beat despite the actions of the RIAA and other such entities.
How long the music industry can maintain its current crumbling structure has yet to be seen ? but there are those of us who watch with fascination the twisted and convoluted contortions they are now undertaking to maintain a fossilized market model.
November 4th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
âthus I do suspect that an RIAA Mafia will soon have a âCanadian Branch Officeâ doing the same sort of extortion on this side of the 49thâ
They already have one. Itâs called the CRIA (Canadian Recording Industry Association of America).
And to Barney Mushroom, love the name. Makes me think of someone who lives permanently in the dark, covered in â¦.
Anyhow, âflim-flam and blatant liesâ? Theyâre essential corporate music tools, ie, Cary Shermanâs statement that the lawsuits are just âtough loveâ ââ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13700
However, come to think of it, thatâs not even flam-flam. Itâs pure bull-shit.
Meanwhile, Iâve spoken to Jammie and as I say in the intro, sheâs in the same gutsy league as Patti, Rae-Jay, Marie and Tanya. I admire them tremendously.
Cheers!
November 4th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
PS: We were alluding to a possible replacement of the CRIA as the Canadian extension of the powers that be by a more robust body well funded from the U.S. head office!
Fortunately so far that organization (CRIA) has proven that it is led by incompetents and the ruling by Judge Finkenstein temporarily stopped them in their tracks … hence the first attempt at extortion was foiled by wise jurisprudence up here north of the 49th.
Keep up the good work ..
November 4th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I don’t think the RIAA lost $150k per track, but that’s the law. It needs to be changed, but that is through Congress, not testing your fate in a civil suit.
Also, the number of jurors that can be omitted depends on the state. In mine, that number is limited to only 2 for any reason at all and an unlimited number for reasons of obvious conflict. The RIAA was able to only omit 2 jurors as well. I don’t see how that’s stacking the jury. You are truly a moron if you think the RIAA hand picked all the jurors and the defendant was only able to omit 2. The way a jury is picked is completely random. After that, the lawyers get to question them and toss out the ones they don’t feel are fit. The jury in this case was not stacked and she had just as good a chance as anyone in this case holding everything else equal.
I also know how KaZaA works. Her username was published in other articles and it is not her name or something obvious or random. You can change your KaZaA username (and actually I believe the default is anonymous@KaZaA, not the name of your computer). Her KaZaA was an exact match for her email address. I don’t think that’s by coincidence. You are really showing your ignorance about how computers work and about how IP addresses work. ISP’s generally have a log of the IP addresses that are assigned and which computers they are assigned to. They know the MAC/Hardware address of the cable/DSL modem that each customer is given. They can easily figure out who the IP address belonged to. In the case of a person with 1 computer, that IP address belongs to that person, no questions. It has been published that she had no router, not even one without wireless. That means that the IP address belonged specifically to her computer.
Finally, to say that KaZaA magically appears on a computer is ridiculous. I know what goes on my computer and what comes off my computer. She has 2 sons, both at ages where they have probably heard of KaZaA. It sounds like she didn’t have the computer locked down enough so that they were unable to install software. If that’s the case, it’s just bad parenting and she’s paying a huge price for it. I know how computers work. I work with them and networking for a living. I have spoken with people who actually watched the case (they were in the courtroom for the duration) who are in the same line of business as me. They agree with me that there’s no way she didn’t do it, unless she had the absolute worst lawyer. Based on the evidence against her, he should have advised her to settle, but that didn’t happen. It’s different if things weren’t pointing so closely to her, but the case of the usernames especially makes that quite difficult to argue.
November 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Hey Jim:
Your record is stuck on the same track. But it is easy to see why RIAA survives. With people like you around to help out, no problem.
You now accuse her of “bad parenting”. You are starting to look like you are an RIAA hack.
November 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Fuck Cary Sherman maybe I’ll bust a cap in his punk ass for the pleasure of it and then laugh my fucking ass off afterwards because the fact is if he thinks he cannot be gotten to he is a BIGGER F’N FOOL then he thinks. Anyone can be gotten to and permanetely silenced if that is the end goal and it don’t matter if you have a 1000 pig security team or not. Sooner or later someone is going to take that fat faggot Cary Sherman the fuck out and when it happens I will be laughing my fucking ass off and so will everyone else who hates the RIAA. And if you don’t agree with me then you are as much a FOOL as Cary Sherman is whether you admit it or not you ASSCLOWN.
@JimRizzo The only thing I got to say to you is you must be Cary Sherman’s FAGBOY lover since you obviously have your head shoved so far up your fucking ass that it would take a miracle or an act of GOD to be able to remove it. Maybe you ought to go and suck off all the RIAA and MPAA dicks since you obviously are in league with their candy asses. You need to understand 1 F’N thing monkeyboy and that is that file sharing will never be STOPPED and it don’t matter how hard they try or what STUPID ass laws they try to pass to prevent it or hacking DVD’s or HD-DVD’s or Blu Ray; the simple fact is that guys like me live every F’N day to get as much as we can for free and give away as much as we can for FREE and to hell with the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, FBI, CIA, US Government or anyone who dont like it and the only way they will ever be able to stop me from file sharing is to KILL me cause I will give up my PC’s to the pigs when they pry my COLD DEAD FINGERS from around them. If they show up at my door even with a search warrant or a warrant for my arrest the only way Im leaving my home and computers is in a body bag and trust me on this before that happens there will be some pigs joining me in F’N hell because I am an american who believes in owning guns and I have plenty of them for protection here along with custom made armor piercing rounds that kevlar cannot stop so if they think they can take me easily they are fools and will be committing F’N suicide so if you dumb fucks want some then come get some otherwise do the world a favor and STFU assclowns. Now let the flaming begin because obviously this comment will piss off some people but personally I don’t give a fuck what any of you RIAA supporters think because you are all F’N idiots who are nothing but corporate ass kissers and that’s the bottomline cause FuckTheRIAA said so!!!
November 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
I don’t even know why I bother responding anymore. What Jammie Thomas did was against the law. She suffered the consequences.
I, personally, have been running my own successful boycott of the RIAA for quite some time now, with a few exceptions of bands that I really happen to enjoy (The Flaming Lips and Page McConnell’s latest albums are the only 2 RIAA CD’s I have purchased in a couple years, and I buy a lot of music). I don’t promote file sharing or pirating music. It’s against the law and I think anyone who does promote it is a royal asshole (sounds like a few of you are included in the group too). Following the law does not make one a corporate ass kisser. People who download the shitty music that the RIAA has been putting out are not doing anything to hurt them. In fact, you’re doing the exact opposite. It won’t be until the majority of people who listen to music stop listening and stop buying and stop downloading music from the RIAA that they’ll actually see the writing on the wall and realize that their time has come. Until then, they’ll continue suing all you idiotic file sharers and winning. This case was proof that they can and will continue when they have good evidence, which they did. Ask any legal expert on this one. I have not read one thing about this case (and I have been following it pretty extensively) that shows me what the RIAA did to manipulate the law, the evidence, or the jury. If you think they did, feel free to show me the proof. The only thing that was questionable was the juror instructions that said that they only had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant made the files available. They did not have to prove that any distribution actually took place. If her lawyer was intelligent enough, he should have taken issue with that instruction and had it removed. He did not and the jury followed the instructions they were given, and rightfully, found Ms. Thomas at fault.
I hate the RIAA, but I don’t think Jammie Thomas is doing any one of us a service by continuing this fight. If anything, she’s going to make it worse for all of us, including any of you moronic file sharers who will try to fight the “system”. The only fight that you stand a chance to win is through congress. Get them to change copyright law so it’s a bit more fair and then, perhaps, you’ll see some change. Much of the music that is being shared today should be in the public domain. It’s through the broken copyright laws that it is not. The best way to change that is through Congress.
November 4th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Spoken like a true R.I.A.A. supporter trying to pretend not to be.
November 4th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
Last time I checked, just because it is law, does not make it constitutional. How many other laws have been challenged and changed due to unconstitutionality? Brown vs. Board of Education comes to mind. Roe vs. Wade comes to mind. Come on people, I know you can list more. The easiest way for a person to have a law changed is to be sued or to sue and have the law declared unconstitutional. If the stautory damages are declared unconstitutional as her attorney is asking the courts to consider right now, what does that do for all of the RIAA lawsuits? Do you honestly think if someone receives a letter in the mail from the RIAA demanding settlement money in the thousands, that the recipients of those letters will pay that after hearing the amount is based off an unconstitutional law? Yes, her losing is a blessing in disguise as another Reader’s Write puts it. You just have to be able to see the bigger picture, which some here, I don’t think they even know how to see past their own noses.
November 4th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Copyright law might change (and I think it should), the damages might be reduced, but that doesn’t make her any more innocent.
Copyright law, however, is not going away. This lawsuit and any others brought up by the RIAA are not going to completely remove copyright law, nor should they. Copyright law is necessary. There are ways to get music for free (or really cheaply) without having to download illegally and infringe on someone’s copyright. However, those methods may not get you most mainstream music (though some will).
My issue is not with copyright law changing but with Ms. Thomas trying to change her story to make her sound completely innocent. Unfortunately, her story doesn’t come close to the damaging evidence against her. And I will say it again, it is very unfortunate that this happened, but I still don’t think she is as innocent as she is trying to make it seem. Her lawyer had the chance to affect the jury and he also had the chance to fight the jury instructions that the RIAA set in place. He didn’t do that. He allowed them to go forth and create the instructions that said simply making available the songs is copyright infringement. That allowed them to only prove that the songs were made available and not have to prove that anyone actually downloaded them. That was the single most damaging part of the whole case. If they had to prove that the songs were actually downloaded, they wouldn’t have won.
And it should also be known that one of the jurors came out in an interview and said that not one juror felt that she was innocent (the main reason being the IP address coupled with her username). The only disagreement they had was on how much money she should pay up. One of them wanted her to pay the full $150k per track. Another wanted her to pay the minimum. The $9250 was a compromise. I do think it’s a lot of money for what she did. The punishment does not match the crime. However, I still think she should pay some sort of penalty for this. I also think that simply making the songs available should not be considered a crime unless they are actually downloaded. In which case, she should pay $1 per track per download (the “lost revenue” on say iTunes) plus an additional penalty per download on top of that, say $100 plus a fee for general damages, let’s make it $1000, plus attorney’s fees. So if she had 24 tracks available and each track was downloaded twice, that’s $48 to cover the downloads plus $480 in penalties. That would make it $1528 plus the court fees and attorney’s fees. That’s much more in line with the crime than the $222k that the RIAA was awarded. It might seem like a lot, but the RIAA would be forced to make it worth the defendant’s while to settle out of court, probably to the tune of a few hundred dollars rather than the $2k-5k they ask for now.
And if the law is ruled unconstitutional (which I don’t think it will be aside from the penalties), they’ll only have to change the settlement amounts for which they ask. There will always be penalties and they will always be much greater than the actual potential lost revenue (which is generally $1 per track per download). Reason being that unless the penalty is greater than the actual potential lost revenue, there’s no deterrent, which I completely agree with (and again, I do also agree with many of you that the penalties do not fit the crime).
November 4th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Jim Rizzo: you are off again on your information. Her attorney DID argue against the jury instruction. The judge decided in the end to change it to making available. Please show us where you found your information showing her attorney didn’t argue for it to say they had to prove an actually download took place.
Secondly, her motion before the courts now is not that copyright law itself is unconstitutional, but the amount of statutory damages is unconstitutional. If I’ve read the motion correctly (and please go read it yourself before you make anymore asinine comments
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/minnesota/mndce/0:2006cv01497/82850/109/0.html) punitive damages are considered constitutional if the award is between 1 to 9 times the actual damages inflicted. Considering the plaintiffs were not required to show any actual songs were downloaded by anyone, the amount of actual damages for the plaintiffs is approximately $0.70 per song. Multiply that by 24 songs and you get $16.80 actual damages. Multiply this number by the maximum constitutionally allowed 9 times and you get $151.20. Tell me how $222,000 is not unconstitutional when the maximum allowed constitutionally is $151.20?
And lastly, how is Jammie Thomas trying to change her story? She has said from day one she did not do this and you’re now saying she’s changing her story to say she did not do this? Does that make sense to anyone else here? Sure, she’s explaining some of the incorrect information printed in the media, but her explaining this information (which you can again go read in her docket http://news.justia.com/cases/239134/), the same information that was given to the jury, how is she changing her story? Oh, and how much is the RIAA paying you again to spout their incorrect version of the events?
November 5th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Reader’s Write Says:
The U.S. constitution gives congress the right to set terms and the law regarding copyright. Jim is correct on his assessment of how much the jury could have found for. You have a point that the RIAA was not harmed for $100,000+ per song, but that is a different discussion.
I am aware of no court that has ever declared copyright unconstitutional or declared the fines for copyright violation to be excessive. The amount of damages as given down was within the parameters of the statute. I have no idea how one would go about getting this overturned as unconstitutional. It actually sounds kinda absurd to me.
Her best chance in this case was to have her ducks in a row from the beginning. These cases are winnable, but changing the timeline on the stand is an invitation for the plaintiff’s attorney to introduce your deposition into evidence and proceed to skullf*ck you with it.
November 5th, 2007 at 1:31 am
This is definitely a very touchy and flame infested thread. I’d have to say from our perspective the sanest commentary has been by Scott, Jim Rizzo, and Barry Ward. A few things are clear to us, from observing this case as it’s progressed.
1). The plaintiff (and her attorney) made some key and obvious mistakes that made the case unwinnable. Primarily the back-pedaling on timelines, and the ridiculous jury instruction being allowed without a fight (which in and of itself practically handed the case to the RIAA).
2). Far more is being made about this case as a potential one for setting legal precedent (either for or against p2p) than it warrants. The vast majority of what’s taking place on either side of the issue is “noise” for the purpose of winning hearts and minds. The noise level has brought this case to the fore, rather than the case itself having any particularly special importance. For the flame happy fanboys of the thread, no I’m most definitely not an RIAA shill. I’m an ardent critic and opponent of the RIAA, the MPAA, and the U.S. DMCA. Ever had the RIAA contact you personally over an article you’ve written they didn’t like? I have. Regardless, this case is hardly worthy of any real notoriety on technical or legal grounds. Sure, fighting the good fight feels good. It’s damn sexy to “fight for what you believe” or to “save the world” or any other colorful metaphor you’d like to interject. This case though doesn’t have any merit worth rallying behind from a precedent setting standpoint on either side of the issue. Emotional outcries do not foster change in and of themselves.
3). Fighting p2p in this age, is like plugging a 200 meter wide breach in the Hoover Dam with a cotton swab. There was a time, before the Gutenburg press, when it was actionable and punishable to write certain things at all in some areas of Europe. The crime was often merely being literate enough to write, not necessarily what you may have been writing about. In other words, what is and is not considered morally “right”, is often a fluid thing that changes with the advancement of history.
We here still see the changes Barry Ward implies coming to pass, if for no other reason than their historical inevitability. Having said that, this particular case will likely not have any meaningful effect on the situation. It’s more noise than substance.
November 5th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Jammie Thomas’ defence was just not good enough:
a) Kazaa user name = Nick name she is usually using
b) IP address = her cable modem
c) She was writing an essay on Napster, now she is claiming she doesn’t even know what Kazaa is
d) 3000 MP3s on her new HD
She didn’t come up with any credible explanation for any of those things. If she could have come up with hard facts, like “I can proof that I was on holiday during the time MediaSentry intruded my computer, someone else must have used it” or “I have a wireless modem and my neighbours might have used it”. But all she says is “IP addresses can be spoofed, user names can be spoofed, I don’t know what Kazaa is”. Not very credible to the jury.
The only chance I see for her is that RIAA can’t proof that actually anybody downloaded anything from her HD (except MediaSentry). Is she guilty if she publishes any copyrighted songs or is she only guilty if someone downloads anything from her. It will be interesting to see the outcome.
November 5th, 2007 at 7:57 am
All of the above commentary has been very interesting to say the least! While I see no need in repeating what anyone else has said, let me instead directly address Xenia.
You said:
a) Kazaa user name = Nick name she is usually using
b) IP address = her cable modem
c) She was writing an essay on Napster, now she is claiming she doesnât even know what Kazaa is
d) 3000 MP3s on her new HD
My Reply:
a)I’ll repeat the argument made 1000 times before me for this, a user name is just letters and text. Any person can use any username they wish. Also having a username in Kazaa doesn’t prove that she downloaded files or shared them with Kazaa. If it is true that Kazaa takes the name of your computer, that would also explain a lot.
b) You are kidding right? I highly recommend that you check out my short article Titled: “RIAA wrongly accuse you? Hereâs how you fight them.” (http://www.liamjewell.com/wordpress/?p=46) You may also check out any one of the numerous articles available here on p2pnet which discuss how an IP address in no way identifies an individual person.
c) I’ll give that one to you, but that still in no way proves she downloaded or uploaded any songs with Kazaa.
d) 3,000 MP3′s which they proved in court could have been ripped from all of the CD’s she owned. There was also testimony from Best Buy that she came in almost weekly buying new music CD’s. That would definitely explain why they were on her computer. As a legal backup.
I just wish some people would examine the FACTS before they go ahead and spout their opinions.
Not trying to start a mini-flame war here, just stating the facts. If you reply in a rude manner, I will not respond.
my 2 cents,
Liam
November 5th, 2007 at 9:45 am
All of this could stop easily. Here’s the easy method:
1) Turn off the radio. Never listen again until injustice like this is thrown out of court.
2) Never buy another CD. Stop listening to music. Again, stop until this crap is thrown out of court.
Make no doubt about it, if music, whether you purchased it or not (think I’m kidding? Read the story above again), is going to ruin our lives, we don’t need it. The recording industry cannot afford for consumers to simply say “No, we’ve had enough, keep your music”. The lawsuits would stop almost immediately, and the laws would change.
Think about it.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:06 am
Liam:
The stuff that Xenia said (with the exception of D) is valid. Yes, the argument has been made that a username is just a bunch of letters and numbers. However, the username that Ms. Thomas uses for email and for other websites are an exact match to the username in question that was found sharing the files on KaZaA. Sure, I guess you can argue that it’s purely coincidence, but that’s a pretty strange coincidence if you ask me.
Second, the IP address identifies a network device (NIC, cable modem, DSL modem, etc). Ms. Thomas did not have a router plugged into her cable modem. The IP address that the RIAA found sharing the files was handed over to the owner of the IP address (Ms. Thomas’s ISP) who then went through their logs and found out who that IP address was assigned to on the date and time in question. That’s how an IP address can lead you to a person. Sure, the ISP could be missing the logs or have the logs incorrect, but to the best of their knowledge that’s how it worked. It would be up to Ms. Thomas to prove otherwise. I read your article. Unfortunately, you are incorrect about certain assumptions. Yes, most IP addresses are dynamic, meaning they can change. However, in an “always on” environment, the IP address is not likely to change. The way DHCP works is that you get an IP address with a certain lease period. This period is arbitrary and up to the ISP (in your case, it’s 24 hours). However, under most circumstances, when the lease is renewed (anytime you restart the network connection, in her case power cycling the cable modem), it will generally give you the same IP address if the lease on that IP has not expired. If the lease expiration time comes and the computer is currently connected, it will likely give you the same IP address. Now, ISP’s (including your college) generally keep logs. The DHCP server keeps a lot of everytime it assigns an IP address, correlating that IP address with a device’s hardware or MAC address (Windows calls it the Physical Address). The ISP knows the MAC address of the cable modems it gives out and which customer they belong to. They are then able to go through their logs to the date/time in question and discover which MAC address (and therefore which customer) the IP address was assigned to. Your college may not keep such detailed logs, but a commercial ISP does.
Third, while it doesn’t prove that she shared anything through KaZaA, she tried claiming that she did not know what it was. That’s a lie since anyone doing any sort of research on P2P (such as her research on Napster) surely would have come across KaZaA in her research as it is one of the largest file sharing networks currently in existence.
Reader’s Write (timestamp 9:45am, 11/5):
You are absolutely correct, though you don’t have to stop listening to all music, just music put out by the RIAA and their affiliated record companies (generally the “big 4″).
November 5th, 2007 at 11:23 am
All this arguing over IP’s and whether or not it points to the person in question is moot. Logs can be changed. Someone at the ISP can alter those logs easily. IP/DHCP logs are no more valid than any digital recording or photo that could have been altered in the first place. This lady was assaulted by our legal system and made an example without proper evidence. The judge should have thrown the case out. Jamie Thomas was likely chosen because she could not afford an adequate defense, and any fees she needed for that defense should have been provided by the court. Can’t pay for a legal expert? Hogwash. Have the court subpoena them. Pay later. Crazy stuff!
November 5th, 2007 at 11:38 am
For Jim Rizzo, Scott P, and Xenia:
The reason I wrote this article was for people to hear things from my side of the issue, yet again, some people are putting words into my mouth I never said. Here are a few:
1. Xenia: I never said I had 3000 mp3s on my computer. I have 3000 audio files on my computer, from CDs I’ve ripped. Those audio files are in wma format (the standard format used for Windows Media Player, again testified to by the PLAINTIFF’s expert witness at trial), not mp3 format. And Liam is correct, evidence was presented at trial showing I had purchased most of my music legally from Best Buy in the 4 years before the trial. Anyone else care to define what assuming is in layman’s terms?
2. Scott: We never backpeddled about dates on the stand. This information came out long before we went to trial.
3. Xenia: I did an article about Napster when I was in college almost 10 years ago, before Napster was shut down. Because of this, I should have known about KaZaa which wasn’t even around then? How is that possible?
4. Xenia: My user name for everything is tereastarr. I have used this user name for everything computer related for the last 13 years, including every email address I’ve ever had. 13 years of using one user name means potentially millions of people have this user name coming from me.
5. Scott P and Jim Rizzo: My attorney did argue against the “making available” jury instruction that Thursday morning before the case went to the jury, but the judge ruled the other way. Now my attorney’s to blame for the judge’s actions? Why? Do you honestly think we sat back and allowed it to happen? Again, someone else want to define what assuming is in layman’s terms?
6. Scott P: Like someone else posted, just because it is law does not make it constitutional. I cannot get into the legalities of my case, but keep that in mind.
7. Jim Rizzo: Personal attacks against me are fine, but until you are in my position, do not assume to know how I am as a parent. That is downright cowardism meant to enflame away from the topic at hand. Afraid of the truth that much to shift focus from it?
If anyone has any more questions or comments for me, you’re more than welcome to join my forums to discuss these issues. The address is http://freejammie.freeforums.org. Don’t be afraid, you won’t be flamed there.
Tereastarr
November 5th, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Jim Rizzo:
I appreciate you going against the flow. At the same time, there’s no point in trying to convince people here at p2pnet, because most of the people on this site are a bunch of idiots. Why? They are biased and only care about justifying illegal downloading.
This site is even hostile toward religion, and I’m not merely talking about mere disagreements, I’m talking about hateful bigotry (for sake of example, look at http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13814 . Maybe I have one supporter on that page, and that’s it.) My point is, is don’t bother to convince these people because you are being logical, and they are not. Most of these people are prob’ly teenagers anyway.
sk8rpro
November 5th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Hey sk8rpro:
Since you clearly dislike p2pnet and its readers so much, why do you keep coming back?
But let me guess. You couldnât resist a golden opportunity to give us the benefit of your wisdom. And your posts donât get deleted, here
That it?
Cheers!
November 5th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Mr. Rizzo:
“the IP address identifies a network device”
This would not be true in a majority of contexts on the public Internet. As it pertains to an ISP and its privately-provisioned MAC address, probably yes. But we’re missing important facts such as, did the prosecution have a route trace showing the activity was coming from Ms. Thomas’s network segment? Over what period of time did this activity occur? If Ms. Thomas had a dynamic IP address, why did the prosecution only identify one address?
And for Pete’s sake, why isn’t anyone reporting about that part of the trial?
November 5th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
If we forget your denial. all the evidences collected lead to your computer.
not only the ip address, the different mac addresses tells that your computer was involved.
all this could probably be faked (not easily thou, especially without a wireless
router in the path).
the main issue is your myspace name appearing in the kazza username.
because it leaves only two solutions:
the simple one:
1) you are lying (or your sons, or whoever have physical access to the computer)
the complexe one:
2) you have a talented enemy that tried to incriminate you (it won’t be a simple hacker
using your access, because he used your myspace name)
I am opened for a third solution, I just don’t see any room for it.
What I would suggest is to study the evidence from the riaa,
did they actually dowloaded something from (what they say is) your computer,
or did they simply listed the files that the computer was making available.
Because you could have use a version of kazza named “revolution”.
this version offers/offered a checking box called “disable upload”.
this would exonarate you from any wrong doing.
good luck
November 5th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Jammie,
We could probably go back and forth for eternity nitpicking the points of the case, and ultimately the only person they matters to is you. In that regard, we’re just people making noise to entertain ourselves, while you face a real serious problem. I’m not blind to that.
It’s clear however from a basic technical understanding of how networks work, and in particular how HFC cable networks are provisioned, Charter (assuming they didn’t make up DHCP request and snmp logs out of thin air…but how far can conspiracy theories go?) can, like any other ISP, identify exactly who is doing what over their equipment, and what hardware (exact and specific cable modem) is being used to do it. Firewalls, peerblocking, onion routing, none of these can ameliorate direct ISP evidence. NONE. I mention this only for the sake of some networking neophytes who might read this who assume they’re “protected” by these strategies when they’re really not. Obscured? Yes. Protected evidentially? No.
Subtle old exploits like Mac address spoofing cannot be easily accomplished over modern DOCSIS networks, and the technical skill, equipment, and physical proximity required to do this makes it near fantasy to assume it was done in your case. It’s safe to say that if Charter identified Kazaa traffic coming from a particular IP provisioned to your cable modem’s MAC address, then that’s where it came from. Having said that, Charter’s Tier3 NOC people are pretty clueless in my experience, so god knows about the quality of their evidence. We’re in the realm of supposition here as it is, which is dangerous ground for people not directly involved to be in.
Most cases do their best to avoid these issues, because it’s nearly impossible to refute them. Instead, cases focus on definitions of “what constitutes sharing” and whether or not there is evidence beyond logged traffic to indicate actual files were traceably exchanged. In other words, the fact that you were connected to Kazaa’s network is nearly impossible to refute (again assuming Charter submitted accurate information). Whether or not you did anything actionable while being connected is the issue, and that’s where definitions of what constitutes evidence in such a case becomes murky.
Technical cases such as this one are often a crapshoot in a court of law. The “burden of proof” standard in your particular case (and I assume you will appeal…sucessfully, considering all I’ve read that seems likely) was lowered significantly by that ridiculous jury instruction that was left standing. It’s this one thing that made your initial defeat inevitable.
Most people attempt to turn this into an emotional debate over morality, which is why such issues turn into flame threads so easily. As I stated earlier there was a time in human history when mere knowledge could be considered illegal to express. Illegal, and immoral are not mutually exclusive concepts.
I wish you luck fighting a fundamentally bad law, and a perhaps unfair judgment. Should you obtain an appeal, I would hope you’ve learned (along with your attorney) the lessons necessary to avoid the missteps that got you where you are. In a larger sense however, this case is more noise than substance in the grander scheme of things.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Jammie Thomas Says:
2. Scott: We never backpeddled about dates on the stand. This information came out long before we went to trial.
By your own admission, the dates of purchase for various items as well as when the harddrive were put in were different from what you told your attorney to what opposing counsel was told to court. These inconsistencies could be seen by the jury as someone who couldn’t keep their story straight.
My point was (and continues to be) that if I were the one on the business end of a lawsuit, I would make damn sure I knew when key events took place. Things like when I bought my computer and when the harddrive was swapped out.
4. Xenia: My user name for everything is tereastarr. I have used this user name for everything computer related for the last 13 years, including every email address Iâve ever had. 13 years of using one user name means potentially millions of people have this user name coming from me.
Look, I do network engineering for a living. I’m well aware of IP spoofing, hackers, the precariousness of relying on DHCP logs, etc. I deal with this everyday. But all things considered, I’m not yet willing to chalk all this up to malice. Unless shown some evidence, I’m not willing to believe that someone within the ISP or the RIAA is willing to risk perjury and jail just to destroy you. It just doesn’t wash.
I believed your case, until I started reading some of the actual court pleadings. Doesn’t it strike you as just a little too coincidental that your favorite user name, the one used “for everything” just happened to be the one used in Kazaa? And that same name just happened to be tied to a kazaa session that resolved back to an IP address was the DHCP logs say was tied to your account?
Perhaps you didn’t download as much as you’re accused of. Perhaps you only logged in a couple times and downloaded a few songs. I’m willing to entertain that notion. But in light of the evidence presented in court papers, the statement that you never used at all is just hubris.
6. Scott: Like someone else posted, just because it is law does not make it constitutional. I cannot get into the legalities of my case, but keep that in mind.
Obviously you and your attorney believe that you have something that will win. Good luck with that. Really! Because if you’re successful, then your arguments will be used in courts across the country to challenge the monetary damages of a copyright violation conviction.
In the meantime, my statements rely on 100+ years of settled copyright case law. And I’m telling you what your lawyer should be telling you: The courts give a lot of leeway to congress on setting the length, terms, etc of copyright due to the fact that the constitution specifically delegates that to them.
In my heart, I hope you’re successful. If I had to bet, I think I’d go another way.
November 5th, 2007 at 4:46 pm
Scott: My computer user name was Tereastarr too. It is the name of the default administrative account user on my computer and had been that since the day it was purchased. I never once said anyone did this to be malicious. I can’t tell you specifically what did happen as I don’t know. I do know I didn’t do this and I have stated that fact from the very beginning. I also have learned a few things since this became so public, including what happens to a computer once infected with malicious code. As you work in network engineering, I’m almost certain you know what default username a hacker might use after infecting and/or hijacking a computer? If anyone cares to discuss why I’m right, wrong, or anything else, I’m taking the rest of my comments to the Free Jammie forums, found at http://freejammie.freeforums.org. Again, you all are welcome and there are controls put in place to prevent flaming or anything uncivil in nature.
Tereastarr
November 5th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Jammie Thomas:
Hackers and compromises that I’ve dealt with in the past have used compromised machines to send Spam and troll for bank accounts. They have created TCP connections back to the mothership and have installed keylogging software. I even had someone one time get a virus that caused a giant black dot to appear over their desktop.
I have yet to see (or hear or read of) any instance where a hacker installed, configured, and ran Kazaa.
November 5th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Jammie Thomas:
The thing is, I approach from a very synical position. The arguments I’m hearing from you are the same arguments that I hear from my corporate users day in and day out when porn, trojan horses, and gambling sites are discovered on their machines.
That God must be a fun guy. He keeps miracling hardcore pr0n (and in your case a pre-configured Kazaa) down onto these machines.
November 5th, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Scott: Please read and tell us again how it’s not possible? http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS05-009.mspx
Cynical or not, trojans, viruses, vulnerabilities, all of these things have the potential ability to give a remote user access to an unprotected computer. And if these vulnerabilities are exploited through normally used software programs when visiting internet sites, such as the example above, I don’t see how you can say it isn’t possible. Could it happen? Yes, we both know that. Did it happen? It can’t be proven one way or another as the hard drive was replaced.
November 5th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Scott: Thank you for taking the time to type up a technically competent opinion on this story. I think you glossed over just one point, which was, “if Charter identified Kazaa traffic coming from a particular IP” I haven’t seen or heard of any evidence on that point and would be interested to know if there is any? That would seem to be the weakest link in the chain so far.
November 5th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
As another person involved with networking and having a pretty solid understanding of how viruses work, I can say it is extremely unlikely that someone got your username/computer name/whatever and ran KaZaA from a computer that was spoofing your IP address. Unless your ISP faked their logs, which is something pretty outlandish to suggest, the traffic had to have been coming from your computer. As I have suggested before, it is possible that one of your sons installed KaZaA on your computer without your knowledge. The last time I messed with that program, it automatically shared all the songs it could find on your computer. And assuming a previous poster was correct, it grabbed the username from your computer name. Per the jury instructions, the simple act of making the songs available for download (sharing) is infringement. Nothing more to say. I am not saying your parenting skills are poor (though I, personally, would not allow my children to use the computer, nevermind the internet, without my oversight). However, parents can miss things especially if you don’t know what you’re looking for.
I am not saying you did this intentionally, but it still happened and you’re paying the consequences of it.
Scott:
I had an instance of a guy in a computer lab looking at porn. When I questioned him about it, he told me “it just kept popping up and I couldn’t close them fast enough”. He didn’t realize I saw him scrolling around on the pages, nor did he realize I had him thrown out the first time I caught him looking at it. For some things to get on your computer, you have to choose it. KaZaA is one of those things. It doesn’t just appear.
November 5th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Reader’s Write Says:
Scott: Please read and tell us again how itâs not possible? http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin/MS05-009.mspx
I invite you to use reading comprehension skills and understand that I never said any such thing.
I will repeat: “I have yet to see (or hear or read of) any instance where a hacker installed, configured, and ran Kazaa.”
And I stand behind that. Note that I did not say that it is impossible. Just that I have never heard / read / seen it. Ever.
I say that as someone who has spent the last five years doing security audits for corporate clients. In that time I have
seen some really REALLY f*ck up machines. I have seen spyware used towards criminal ends. Yet I’ve never seen
a situation where Kazaa was installed unwittingly on someone’s machine. The next tiime I see kazaa being remotely
installed, configured and run remotely will be the first time.
Cynical or not, trojans, viruses, vulnerabilities, all of these things have the potential ability to give a remote user access to an unprotected computer. And if these vulnerabilities are exploited through normally used software programs when visiting internet sites, such as the example above,
The motivation for trojans and script-kiddie exploits is money. They do it to form large botnets which can be leveraged for economic gain.
What we are being asked to believe is that this one time, instead of hacking her machine for $$$, the hacker decided to install and run
Kazaa, using the username of the person that was logged into the machine at the time. Now ignoring for a second the fact that both of these assertions violate the modus operandi of hackers, why hasn’t anyone else been hit by this? Why only her? Why is there NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION ANYWHERE ELSE that hackers are doing this? None. Nada.
It fails the sniff test.
I donât see how you can say it isnât possible.
I didn’t. You just read too fast. Slow down and analyze the arguments being put before you.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:16 am
Assuming that US law take the line that no one is guilty before going to court.
It seems that the copyright laws in the USA have been changing so that your termed guilty reguardless of what ever you say or do.
by law the RIAA simply has to say * person has copied copyright stuff and they get sued and * will be paying out the dosh after it’s all done.
The people you look at and seen win would have won when there wasn’t any laws on this type of stuff so the RIAA would have had to prove that these people moved copyright files around.
This case should have been thrown out when the expert who a complete tosser anyway, from what I’ve read, said to the judge directly I couldn’t find anything at all on the HD.
but due to the changes in the copyright laws you got screwed and the RIAA have screwed themselves, the biggest shame is that all these big wigs are saying yep serves you rights yet still can’t figure out why people won’t buy their crap at the music shop.
The old adge “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force it to drink but the record companies will give it a try anyway” really fits here.
November 6th, 2007 at 7:24 am
For those bitching about hackers and crap.
It’s nothing to do with hackers, it’s about the laws in the USA.
The copyright laws are writen such that if someone deems you to be stealing their copyrighted stuff then you are assumed to have broken the law and get what ever is given.
The RIAA, lawyers seemed to be spewing after the case as they were bitching that this chick hasn’t gotten in touch with them to pay a lower amount or simply clear the amount.
People might find that strange but hey once your’ve been hit up for $250,000 you don’t exactly want to hear nor see those c***’s ever again, which I can understand.
Maybe instead of bitching how hackers used up the data maybe you lot should be looking at how to change the laws in the broken laws in US first.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:28 am
@Jim Rizzo
In the U.S. you are supposedly innocent until proven guilty. There is a balance of probabilities (BOP), called the preponderance of evidence in the U.S., -which is the lowest level, generally thought to be greater than 50%, although numeric approximations are controversial- (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof), needed in order convict a person in a U.S. civil court case.
If you are not technically endowed I think you are more likely to find statements relating to, “hackers and hijackers” as excuses rather than possible facts. Both of us having technical experience I’m sure you can agree that most people never dream they can get a virus, and often already have them. As a jury member, if you didn’t have a strong technical background I don’t believe that you could examine the evidence fairly. Just look at how much trouble you have had here trying to convince people of technical facts! Imagine that you now had to convince 12 people of that with a lawyer objecting to every other word you say.
I’m not trying to make excuses, but… There are not enough FACTS to support her being guilty. The possibility exists, few are arguing that fact, but they didn’t prove that IP address was hers. (They couldn’t have unless they had a screenshot of ipconfig on her computer at the time of the supposed uploading and even that could be disproven in court.)
For the record my college keeps logs for 3 days.
I have good reasoning for believing that a hacker *could* have hijacked her computer and used kazaa to download songs. And since you work on a corporate network I’m not surprised that you haven’t seen this. You have up-to-date anti-virus and anti-spyware and would be unlikely to have those problems. But I know that *I* could write up a rootkit bundled with a trojan and have it drive by download onto most people’s computer that visited a specific website. I also know I could have it install kazaa silently and then modify registry keys to share. At the same time I or any hacker could install a backdoor and remotely control it. The install could be done in seconds. With a high speed connection it would be a very easy way to get songs with no chance of getting caught. Unreasonable, I don’t think so. Want to make the process user friendly? Install vnc, with an encrypted connection and as a service, and badda bing-badda boom, you now have a gui interface and can even blank her screen when performing actions and transferring the songs to yourself.
The reason this argument works is because you can’t prove I’m *not* right. The hard drive is no more. And to me, if you can’t prove the above it not possible, then you can’t prove to me she is guilty.
Please excuse any spelling errors because I’m not going back through this to spell check.
Cheers,
Liam
November 6th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
Liam Jewell:
On a philosophical level:
You are confusing what is POSSIBLE with what is REASONABLE. I recognize that it is POSSIBLE for one to write a trojan horse that will download, install, and run kazaa. I recognize that it is possible to then plant this trojan on someone’s machine. Has it ever happened? Not to my knowledge (feel free to show otherwise). Thus I do not believe that it is probable, likely, or even reasonable in this case.
On a more down to earth level:
In criminal court, you are innocent until proven guilty. In criminal court, the standard is “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
This did not happen in criminal court. This happened in civil court. In civil court, the standard applied is the preponderance
of the evidence. What you can prove is what exists.
Here, the defense is trying to prove a negative with no forensic evidence, no expert testimony, and nothing to indicate that this has happened before. All with predictable results.
November 6th, 2007 at 1:34 pm
My number one peeve with the RIAA was its demonization of CD clubs. BMG Music Club here in Canada was run into the ground by a massive campaign designed to make CD Club members feel guilty for not paying for a record store’s overhead. Maybe people were fed up with idiots in these stores. I found the Beatles’ Abbey Road on cd for $27.99 in London, Ontario. I mentioned to the store manager that this was robbery and that the same cd in Toronto would sell for $12.99. His response was “Then go to Toronto, then.” Well, the customer is always right, and where is Sam The Record Man now?
I joined BMG Music Club and happily forked over $1000s of dollars for cds, until they were driven out of business by record companies demanding we shop at stores with usurious prices. I had been an opponent of downloading music. I didn’t like the quality, and I am a very tactile listener. I enjoyed the smell and feel of vinyl and the whole package, with posters and stickers and such. After I had my vehicle broken into, however, and lost many cds, I saw the value of burning cds I owned into MP3 discs. They get stolen, so what? I have the originals.
Downloading music to replace my 8-tracks, and/or vinyl, and/or cassettes became of interest when I could not find cds with the music I wanted on them. Gradually, I downloaded more and more I could not find in stores. My distaste of downloading and the inherent illegalities of doing so became tempered by the knowledge that we in Canada pay a surtax and all blank media to be used as compensation for artists who would be denied royalties otherwise. I’d love to know if John Otway has ever seen any royalties from my having burned his albums onto cd.
As for Ms Thomas, I would have questioned all those in court if anyone in the courtroom had ever listened to someone else’s 8-track, cassette, record, or cd. Or perhaps loaned out the same? Or perhaps bought or sold any of the same at a flea market or garage sale? On a great many of my vinyl albums there is the legal mumbo jumbo prohibiting the purchaser from public performance of the item in question, and limitations to all of the above. Anyone on the jury who had done any of the previous should have found her not guilty, as they would have been just as guilty as her. As they say, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone.”
As for me ruining the recording industry, I believe that my 1000+ vinyl and 1200+ store-or-record-club-purchased CDs have been carrying it for a long time. I’ve been trying to make the Beatles independently wealthy for many years, and I think I’ve finally done it. And this is the thanks I get.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:31 pm
I read about Jammie on GlobalGrind.com and thank you for sharing this with us. It cleared up a lot of misinformation that more people need to be informed of.
November 6th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
3000 media files are a tempting target.
I’ve started local file-sharing on roommates computers to get access to files that my usb drive just wasn’t large enough to hold.
Now if I didn’t live in the house in question, then the next best way to upload those files is to use a p2p…
It would only take a couple minutes to install and configure kazaa to do the above on anyone else’s computer.
And if I was one of her kids friends then I would use their mom’s username so that they wouldn’t know that it wasn’t supposed to be there.
I’ve done worse to systems.
November 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Liam:
While it might be possible for you to run the trojan and hijack someone’s IP address, it’s far less likely for you to be able to spoof it while her IP address is already connected to the internet. Nevermind the fact that you would have to be running your own direct internet connect (as your own ISP) to be able to use that IP address. The internet is much more complicated now and it is extremely unlikely that some script kiddie managed to write a trojan to spoof her IP. The possibility of that is slim to none.
Also, I actually work in a college, not a corporation. I don’t know how long we keep our logs, but the IP addresses tend not to change (the way DHCP works so long as the computer is always connected, or connected often enough). Even I take my computer home every night and get the same IP when I go back in the morning. ISP’s keep their logs longer than colleges. Simply stating that your college only keeps the DHCP logs for 3 days doesn’t mean that’s what everyone does. I have no idea where you go to school, nor do I really care. However, colleges are “less liable” than commercial ISP’s. It has long been known that the RIAA gives them a lot more leniency and laws like CALEA, while applicable, don’t require the same amount of crazy attention that commercial ISP’s must give.
November 6th, 2007 at 9:00 pm
Even though, by their own account, a jury of your peers found you guilty of willful copyright infringement (the worst kind) in 5 minutes and spent the rest of the time deliberating what your penalty should be, with 2 jurors thinking you should pay the max – $3,600,000.00 instead of the $220,000 break they gave you – let’s, for the moment, say your account of your trials and tribulations is true and take a look at why creators and rights owners are pursuing, and will continue to pursue cases like yours on a world wide basis…
There are thousands upon thousands of people in your financial ‘predicament’ – low to middle class wage earners with children, child care costs, mortgages, car payments, aging parents and all the rest of life’s considerations and inconveniences – who have lost their jobs in the music industry because people – not you, of course – refuse to pay for musical products made available by the people that formerly employed them. Be they American Indians, whites, blacks, and every other race, creed and color around the world, their pay checks, their health care, their pensions are gone.
They are not rich artists, so-called (by morons) cartels or the RIAA … They are YOU!
They are also songwriters, music publishers and record producers whose lives are supported by royalties generated by sales … most of whom have no other source of income… they don’t perform, they don’t sell t-shirts, they don’t have health care, they don’t have pensions. Their royalties are everything … and, their opportunities have dwindled and in many cases have evaporated because their means of earning a living, their music, has been taken without compensation.
They are studio musicians and background singers who ARE entitled to paychecks, residuals, pension funds and healthcare … if they can find work, which is harder and harder for them to do, and if product they have previously worked on continues to sell.
They are also the 95% of all artists who aren’t making money now, but, whose hopes of making money sometime in the future have been dashed because they know that if they ever show any signs of success uploaders and downloaders, believing it is their duty – and their right – to strip artists of any chance of success will do so by illegally distributing their work as soon as there is the slightest inclination that their talent is special.
If music, like movies, had credits that named everyone involved with the production, promotion, distribution and business back end associated with each recording that was offered for sale, perhaps you, and the readers of this list, would have the heart and soul (though I doubt it) to feel for the pain inflicted upon the large numbers of real human beings whose lives have been devastated by law breaking, morally challenged, hyper misinformed, self centered, greedy people who don’t care if they steal from others but would be mad a hell if their paychecks were stolen from them.
So, Jammie, the law suits will continue, not because anyone thinks it’s a great idea to sue those who might have been customers until they discovered that paying for music was no longer a necessity; but because it’s the only way talented people have to say to a world deafened by anti creator doublespeak; “hey, we’re here, we have rights too, and those rights are codified by laws that need to be obeyed.”
It doesn’t matter is artists are signed to major labels, or a DIYers – the law is their to protect them… and for all the right reasons… but, mostly they have talents you don’t have that bring joy and life to your life.
When you, and your âfans’ realize that those who create music are people too, and deserve to be paid for the irreplaceable gifts God has given them, and as a result, given you in the form of the culture that shapes our lives, the lawsuits stop … simple as that!
Good luck on you appeal. You WILL lose … and for all the right reasons.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:27 am
TonsoTuenz,
That would have been a very correct and possibly moving diatribe you just posted, except for missing a couple details. Including there are now two major studies that show p2p programs at the very least don’t hurt record sales but even prove p2p programs HELP BOOST record sales. Read these two different articles (http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13884 and http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13390), then come back and try to argue how these “thieves” are hurting this business again. While we wait, we will attempt to stop laughing so hard at your misplaced and misdirected lecture.
November 7th, 2007 at 10:47 am
TonsoTunez:
If the music industry had been customer oriented and had embraced digital distribution from the beginning instead of trying to cling to a 50+ year old business model that did not meet its consumer’s needs, this wouldn’t be a problem right now.
The industry needs to take a hint from the bottled water industry: You CAN compete with free. Offer a better product with more value in a way that meets consumer needs at a price they are willing to pay, and they will buy your product.
November 7th, 2007 at 9:26 pm
Thought this might interest everyone:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/piracy-not-raiding-cd-sales/2007/11/06/1194118008817.html
November 10th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
To TonsoTunez, RIAA agents:
“So, Jammie, the law suits will continue”
Then the boycott will continue until all the parasites of you kind are out of business.
You corrupted our laws and our governements, you trampled our constitutions and our institutions.
As a small groupuscule of rubuishes that still think they are cool, you are trying to boss arround the rest of us like the parasites you are.
( Do you know what’s happen to dogs that try to boss arround the rest of the pack?)
Your problem is that human societies does not need parasites like you. So if I was you I will go hiding before some of us do you for good.
As far as talent is concern I am wondering what talent? The Britneyslut and MadonaCrap shit? You must be kiding! You the RIAA/MPAA and the like, controled by few majors companies operated by criminals like you has been inhibiting and repressing talents for so many years just in the name of your god money.
Well not any more! Say bye bye to your god because it is going, going gone.
We don’t need you, we don’t want you and we decided to spend our money elswhere because we refuse to deal with terrorists.
I must insist on this: what is true with Ben Laden is true with you:
WE DON’T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS, PERIOD!
You will never get anything with this save for pain and gloom.
Any extortion letter you send, each lawsuit you start against inocents citizen dig you grave a little bit deeper.
November 19th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
For Jammie: I debated with myself if I should leave this note but finally decided to do so, as I know the price you may pay (and the pain you are feeling) for deciding to take on the RIAA in the first place. I was there at the first day of your trial, about 15 feet behind you, and listened carefully as I was taking notes, but I kept on coming back to watch you as often as I could, trying to determine as much of the truth as possible through just the power of observation. I wish that I had more time available to me to return the second and third days, but could not, for reasons beyond my control. As I left the courtroom that afternoon for a rather long ride home, (almost three hours through the fog, wind and rain), I gave the day some rather serious thought and upon reaching home I had decided on two rather contradictory conclusions in my own mind; first, that you truly are as innocent as you claim, and two, you were exceedingly likely, on the basis of what I had observed in that first day of trial, to fail in convincing that particular jury of your innocence. My reasoning will remain my own, but that is how I did feel that night, and nothing I have seen or heard since has brought me any reason to change my views, and believe me, I have given it considerable additional thought.
That said, I do wish you the best in your fight to overcome the verdict returned by the jury here, as while I am sure they did the best they could, I am also convinced that they failed to see the full measure of the hidden assumptions and falsehoods presented as “evidence” in this particular case. My final analysis is that the RIAA got very lucky that day, and with just a few differences, things could have turned out much different.
(PS: get rid of windows, lots of better OSs are available nowdays, check out Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Mandriva, etc. See distrowatch.com; also research on topic of subseven 2.0 trojan)
Good Luck to you, Jammie!
For others: the shear raw emotions and anger expressed over this case (as I try to force myself to read the above entries, and elsewhere on the web) do not represent anything like the atmosphere I observed within the courtroom that first day of Jammie’s trial. My preference is far and away for the courtroom, as threats of violence and overcharged and unreasoning emotion without a rational message gets everyone nowhere.
There is a balancing act at work between various groups of people that will, in time, work its own way out.
Not getting in the way can sometimes be the best thing you can do.
A final comment: if this really, really matters to you, do some research. Make up your own mind based on some facts, not just what someone else says. Topics you may find of interest, if I may suggest some are:
TCP/IP hacking (grc.com; DDoS and DRDoS attacks on websites–very technical, but important)
Trojans, viruses, spyware, malware (pcpitstop.com, spywarewarrior.com, securityfocus.com, etc.)
Law and technology interactions (Groklaw.net, Lamlaw.com, eff.org, and a bunch more)
I’m convinced Jammie is innocent, you need to decide for yourself, but base it on facts please!
December 7th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
To everyone:
Before you go on your rants, for or against, get one thing straight (and I don’t claim to have the answers myself yet):
1) Does the case assert that songs were DOWNLOADED from Kazaa, yes or no?
2) Does the case assert that songs were songs UPLOADED to Kazaa, yes or no?
3) Were legitimately purchased and locally burned songs merely shared from the local hard drive (whether intentionally or inadvertently), yes or no?
Once you have the answers to these questions you can have a semi-informed dialogue based upon the actual assertions in this case.
If YES to 1 then a copyright infringement may have occured and Kazaa would also be a party to it for hosting the copies.
If YES to 2 then a copyright infringement may have occured and the user may have to account for illegal distribution.
If YES to 3 then all those posters who are arguing about uploading and downloading are off base and off topic.
If I burn my CD’s to WMA files and inadvertently share my hard drive with the world (Kazaa or no Kazaa) then that may be a naive mistake, but hardly justifies severe punishment. If I am not actively sharing, distributing, sanctioning or promoting the making of illegal copies then I may be naive and in need of a stern warning, but hardly more than that I would say. I don’t even see the relevance of Kazaa in this discussion since it was apparently not on the hard drive and even if it was at some prior time, I don’t see how that can be linked to the issue of these particular songs unless there is some proof that the songs were transmitted via Kazaa P2P.
December 13th, 2007 at 10:35 am
I do feel a bit sorry for you Jammie, since your life was turned upside down (and very publicly) ruined by one mistake, but I just find your story completely unbelievable.
Maybe it’s your kids who used the P2P service for uploading music, but to me that wouldn’t even matter. Nor does it matter whether you or they were uploading or downloading. Everybody knows by now that use of those P2P tools for exchanging music is illegal, and while most people (correctly) assume that their odds of getting caught are enormously small, you know there’s still that chance if you choose to do it. “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time,” as they say.
The growing sense of “entitlement” to recorded music (for free online) is disgusting to me. You are not a “hero” for fighting this case, you’re an arrogant fool.
January 3rd, 2008 at 12:37 pm
I have to agree with MrBlogger here, you are without doubt in your mind fighting a noble battle against the evil RIAA, but if a judge rules that there is evidence enough that someone indeed shared music from your Internet connection, then there must be something about it, the old saying “If there is smoke, there is probably a fire” comes in here.
There are many laws in the world that is not really fair, however Copyright is not one of those, there is no difference between breaking into a house and steal a CD collection and to illegally download one from the Internet.
There are so many legal ways to get cheap music, surely a mother of 2 has a credit card, and surely she can afford $10-$15 a month to subscribe to a online service such as Rhapsody.
In my opinion Karma caught up with Jammie here and it is well known that Karma can be a B***h.
I predict that the appeal will be a repeat of the trial, maybe the amount gets reduced, because that is one point I think is ludacris, the punishment does not fit the crime.
But just remember, just because it is there for the taking (Movies, Music, Software etc.) does not mean you should take it.
January 6th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
It is interesting to stumble across this thread more than a year after its main ramblings and realize just where things are at with the RIAA and the amount of file sharing that now has covered the globe via p2p …. the truth is oft slow for some to realize but it does eventually come to pass … so it goes!
June 19th, 2009 at 10:05 am
I have had one of those ISP letters in the past. (Charter Communications)
After talking with my ISP, what was found is that after I restarted my router and modem it assigned me a different IP address….. My old address was subsequently used by a second party (probably resetting her modem) and got on one of the P2P’s. Since they recorded when the download started, the charter DNS server probably showed the address allocations, but I am the one that received the letter. If it wasn’t for a tech by the name of Robert, I may have been accused of doing this as well. He verified that I had a different IP at the time the complaint was filed but I did have the older address assigned to me… (shows I had it for 2 months prior to reset).
Thank you Robert!