Comments on: DoJ backs RIAA in Jammie Thomas case

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:05:10 +0000

anom says: “What I wanna know is how long before the DOJ wants filesharers locked up in Guantanomo Bayâ¦I mean after all we are worse than terrorists you know.”

It seems to ridiculous that it couldn’t possibly happen; but in todays’ climate where government supports whoever has the most money, It most certainly could happen; welcome to the police state that is america!

By: anon

anon — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:09:59 +0000

What I wanna know is how long before the DOJ wants filesharers locked up in Guantanomo Bay…I mean after all we are worse than terrorists you know.

By: Monkey D. Luffy

Monkey D. Luffy — Thu, 06 Dec 2007 17:35:53 +0000

What a surprise, the DOJ under Bush files a brief favoring corporations over an individual. Every time I read a news blurb about the doj filing a brief recently it has ALWAYS been in the favor of the corporation.

By: The Angry Offender

The Angry Offender — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 18:45:46 +0000

Why should they have to claim bankruptcy and destroy their credit for seven years when the ruling was based on jury instructions that essentially amount to the judge creating the law ad hoc on the bench? That’s flat-out wrong any way you slice it. If the judge had instructed the jury in a fashion that respected the law being addressed rather than changing it, it wouldn’t be such a big deal, but this whole case is ridiculous.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:36:22 +0000

If they insist on this siliness just go Bk chapter 7. Plain and simple! The RIAA and their rogues company will get zip!

By: Mostly Harmless

Mostly Harmless — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:35:39 +0000

They can pull any asinine $XXXXXX per song damages they want out of some stinky hole. It would appear to be a case of trying to get blood from a turnip. The bigger the idiotic “incalculable” number, the more farcical the RIAA’s whole methodology becomes.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 17:32:05 +0000

The federal governenemt is no longer the governement of the people and should be dismissed according to the US constitution.

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 13:18:07 +0000

“A PAPER HOLDS ANYTHINGYOU PUT ON IT”

âimpossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the internet,â

Beautiful. Then damages should not be claimed at.

An IP lawyer in a case I was involved, recently claimed in a deposition that he asked for US$6 million in damages award for the infringement of two songs on 2,000 CDs sold because “A PAPER HOLDS ANYTHINGYOU PUT ON IT”.

BTW, the IP lawyer sued me for defamation because I wrote in a story that he did a flimsy piece of work, based on his absurd and useless damages claim on I case I was giving an opinion.

Now we know how the damage claiming business works.

By: Alter_Fritz

Alter_Fritz — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 11:28:06 +0000

The gov is involved because the defendant challenges the constitutionality of some laws.
GOV has something to say if their laws are challenged in america i guess

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 05:38:02 +0000

I might be crazy, but what the hell does this case have to do with the DOJ? They are after all a government department. This is a civil case, so they shouldn’t be getting involved. A clear breach of mandate, one which should be investigated.

By: The Angry Offender

The Angry Offender — Wed, 05 Dec 2007 04:10:43 +0000

Some thoughts:

* So if calculating the damages is impossible, that automatically means we should apply a penalty that is in gross disproportion to the normal cost of acquisition of the product theoretically being distributed illegally upon finding guilt? That makes no sense, especially considering the fact that there is not enough evidence to point at the possibility of >900 complete downloads of each song successfully taking place.

* This case isn’t about Constitutionality. It’s about some really nasty jury instructions that run counter to both the text and the spirit of the law that grants copyrights. Constitutionality isn’t the focus, though it may come into play at some point.

* We have yet to determine how an IP address tags the owner of the connection with responsibility for all things that happen on that address; if someone was to borrow your car and use it to rob a bank without your knowledge, are you responsible for the robbery somehow?