Don’t complain, RIAA tells Jammie Thomas
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA has now responded to Jammie Thomas’ request for a new trial.
Bottom line?
Stop complaining.
A Minnesota jury decided Thomas, a mother of two who works at the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Department of Natural Resources and Environment, has to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA say she shared online.
Thomas, so far the only one of the 30,000 or so people the RIAA accuses of being massive online distributors of copyrighted music to actually appear in court, has consistently denied the claims.
In much the same way the RIAA has managed to avoid having its cases heard in open civil courts, the last thing it wants is for Jammie Thomas to have an opportunity to appeal the Minnesota verdict before senior judges.
In an editorial comment, “I don’t think the case is over by a long shot,” said New York lawyer Ray Beckerman, who runs Recording Industry vs The People.
“The verdict – based as it upon an entirely erroneous jury instruction going to the very heart of the case – will almost definitely be set aside on appeal.”
Now, in a 28-page submission demanding her appeal be denied, “In sum, statutory damages awarded by the jury in this case are more than reasonable,” says the RIAA.
“Defendant should not now be allowed to shirk the responsibility for her own calculated decisions first to engage in substantial online infringement of Plaintiffs’ copyrights, and then to try to concealed her infringement.”
Meanwhile, Thomas recently posted her own story online and in it said:
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.
Thomas now has her own online forum. Click here to visit it.
Stay tuned.
Also See:
pay $9,250 – RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: RIAA wins, October 4, 2007
posted her own story – Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words, November 2, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
November 9th, 2007 at 11:55 am
do the crime do the time.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
You’re dumb. Nothing pertinant was proven. The judge caved in to the RIAA and gave incorrect jury instructions. It was a farce who’s outcome, unfortunately, was known from the start. I hope it gets appealed.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
do the crime do the time.
What crime? At the very worse it was a copyright infringment and that is a civil thing. It has not even been proved. People like you are what keeps the RIAA in business.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
at comment 1, may you chew gum in singapore.
jammie, again, thank you for fighting.
November 9th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
For those of you who have no idea what bo is talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewing_gum_ban_in_Singapore
November 9th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
lol yes, sorry.
i of course made the automatic assumption that the punishment was caning, which i thought would be appropriate for inane and pointless comments, such as the first one.
November 9th, 2007 at 3:02 pm
@ comment 1
If you were caught Jaywalking, and then were fined $50,000, would you argue that it was fair and you must now do the time?
November 9th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
Even if this case was about another topic, this was a court ordered conviction and this should scare the hell out of the citizens in this country. The so called legal system is more corrupt then the crooks because they hide behind the so called law. What is happening to the constitution and your freedoms is coming out of washington, globule corporations through special interest are running the United States Government. They have screwed up the copyright time frame and the DMCA has removed all your rights to enjoy the artist music on you terms. Do not vote the same people back in office, keep changing the players and that makes it harder for special interest to function. Term limits would be best but you can bet that want happen. Fly the American flag upside till the goverment once again respects it’s citizens.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Corupting the court with money is expensive. Beside it is only a matter of time before they have to deal with a non-corruptable jufge. Then the RIAA will lose.
Do not Settle! Nobody settle! BK if you have too!
November 9th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
âIn sum, statutory damages awarded by the jury in this case are more than reasonable,â says the RIAA”
OK! How mush for blowing up the RIAA head quarter in DC?
Just asking beeing curious!
November 9th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
“do the crime do the time.”
YAP!
All the RIAA/MPAA parasasites are going to do the time for terrorism acrtivity and corruption.
November 9th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
play with fire get burned. next time get iTunes!
November 9th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
^^ hahahahaha Get iTunes? hahahahaha
November 10th, 2007 at 6:58 am
Just wait….one day they will do this to an Iraq Invasion veteran who has a head full of nightmares, a loaded gun, and nothing left to lose.
When that happens, I WILL LAUGH MY ASS OFF AND DANCE ON THEIR GRAVES. Then I will shake his hand.
And the next day, I bet you all the REMAINING “cases” will be dropped.
November 12th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
“In sum, statutory damages awarded by the jury in this case are more than reasonable.” I agree — they go beyond the parameters of what can even be barely called reasonable. And wasn’t it the same RIAA who claimed that each downloaded song constituted as A lost sale, not sales?
Each time the RIAA opens their mouth, they do it to shoot themselves in the throats with a gun. Nice job, you guys, saves us the trouble of having to come to you and polish you off ourselves.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:24 pm
To everyone:
Before you go on your rants, for or against, get one thing straight (and I don’t claim to have the answers myself yet):
1) Does the case assert that songs were DOWNLOADED from Kazaa, yes or no?
2) Does the case assert that songs were songs UPLOADED to Kazaa, yes or no?
3) Were legitimately purchased and locally burned songs merely shared from the local hard drive (whether intentionally or inadvertently), yes or no?
Once you have the answers to these questions you can have a semi-informed dialogue based upon the actual assertions in this case.
If YES to 1 then a copyright infringement may have occured and Kazaa would also be a party to it for hosting the copies.
If YES to 2 then a copyright infringement may have occured and the user may have to account for illegal distribution.
If YES to 3 then all those posters who are arguing about uploading and downloading are off base and off topic.
If I burn my CD’s to WMA files and inadvertently share my hard drive with the world (Kazaa or no Kazaa) then that may be a naive mistake, but hardly justifies severe punishment. If I am not actively sharing, distributing, sanctioning or promoting the making of illegal copies then I may be naive and in need of a stern warning, but hardly more than that I would say. I don’t even see the relevance of Kazaa in this discussion since it was apparently not on the hard drive and even if it was at some prior time, I don’t see how that can be linked to the issue of these particular songs unless there is some proof that the songs were transmitted via Kazaa P2P.
If songs were downloaded from another P2P Kazaa member then why aren’t other parties involved. Where did the defendant get the song from in the first place?
You may not like the RIAA for numerous reasons just as you may not like me or any other artist or author of copyrighted material, but if I copyright and publish a book, regardless of the size of my bankroll or backing publisher, that does not give anyone the right to distribute copies of it without my permission. If you do then I should rightfully feel fully justified in suing for the maximum amount that the law will allow. A single novel could be a lifetime of work for some and the copyright act is there to protect the creators and publishers contractual rights with respect to marketing that work, whether you like them or agree with their crap or not.