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.

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.

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.

(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!

“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.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/piracy-not-raiding-cd-sales/2007/11/06/1194118008817.html

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.

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 ‘fans’ 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.

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.

I’ve done worse to systems.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 don’t see how you can say it isn’t possible.

I didn’t. You just read too fast. Slow down and analyze the arguments being put before you.

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.