p2pnet - rss feed: 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
” 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 ”
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 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. ”
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 couldn’t 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? Didn’t 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 Prelate’s in the Media Monastery’ and the underlings and lackey’s 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 ‘Digital Gutenberg’
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
“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”
They already have one. It’s 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 ….
Anyhow, “flim-flam and blatant lies”? They’re essential corporate music tools, ie, Cary Sherman’s statement that the lawsuits are just “tough love” —– http://www.p2pnet.net/story/13700
However, come to think of it, that’s not even flam-flam. It’s pure bull-shit.
Meanwhile, I’ve spoken to Jammie and as I say in the intro, she’s 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 doesn’t 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? Here’s 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 couldn’t resist a golden opportunity to give us the benefit of your wisdom. And your posts don’t 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 I’ve 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’