RIAA victim Jammie Thomas seeks new lawyer
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Last week two off-the-record sources told p2pnet Jammie Thomas, the first of the RIAA victims to actually appear in civil court, was looking for a lawyer to represent her in her appeal.
We were asked to keep it quite for the moment and now , “Sad news!” – says her blog, going on:
“Brian Toder and his law firm are only representing her for the remitter motion currently before the court and not for the appeal due to lack of funds. She confirmed that the donations collected here are still going into her legal defense fund and will be used to finance her appeal. She is now in search of a capable attorney ready to take the appeal either pro bono or for what is raised through fundraising efforts.
“If you can help, please contact Jammie by email: jammie [at] freejammie [dot] com.”
Recently, “In the Bush administration’s most blatant support of the commercial music industry yet, the US Department of Justice has stepped in on behalf of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA in the Jammie Thomas case,” p2pnet posted, going on:
“The DoJ is filing a brief defending the constitutionality of the $9,250-per-song-file jury verdict, says Recording Industry vs The People.
“America’s top law agency tries to justify the amount by claiming the damages awarded aren’t, “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable”, and that it’s, “impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the internet”.
This appears to be bad news, but it may ultimately prove to be a blessing in disguise for Thomas, who lives in Minnesota and who’s the mother of two young sons.
Meanwhile, TorrentFreak has Thomas saying she had no idea who could represent her first time around.
Toder was, “listed on another attorney’s weblog, Mr. Ray Beckerman, as being the attorney from Minnesota who handled cases such as mine,” the post quotes her as saying.
“I feel Mr. Toder performed as best he could considering the financial situation I am in and how much I could afford to pay him and his firm.”
Stay tuned.
Also see:
actually appear in civil court – Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words, November 2, 2007
p2pnet – DoJ backs RIAA in Jammie Thomas case, December 4, 2007
TorrentFreak – Thomas Seeks New Lawyer to Appeal the RIAA, January 1, 2008
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 details. Download here.
January 1st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
good luck jammie!
January 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“This appears to be bad news, but it may ultimately prove to be a blessing in disguise for Thomas, who lives in Minnesota and who’s the mother of two young sons.”
Jon, how can this possibly be a blessing? Please clarify.
January 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Thomas’ trial attracted massive international attention and may therefore attract lawyers experienced in cases of this kind.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
The entertainment industry has enjoyed one of its best years ever in 2007, (Google it) indicating very clearly that the vast majority of consumers of entertainment product do not pirate, they do the simple, right thing and pay with their cash for the product they take. Illegal p2p has always been a small and small-minded group bent on taking something they know is for sale but paying nothing, while the real music fans have consistently put their money where their mouth is year after year. Now we learn that not only is Jammie being abandoned by her attorney for lack of funds and she is seeking pro bono representation, but the filesharing community as a whole has offered about the same financial support for her appeal as they have for the music they take p2p, that is, roughly nothing.
No surprises here.
January 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
You know, Sam, you’re looking more and more like an RIAA shill every day. Your comment above is just fluff and puff. Feel free to post, but make sure it’s something more than just empty rhetoric, or it’ll be deleted.
Cheers!
January 1st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“The entertainment industry has enjoyed one of its best years ever in 2007″
That is very interesting. Then it is not being “devastated” by file sharers as it claims?
January 1st, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Jon: re Sam I Am
I do think this person is a shill for the RIAA, or just a troll. I was just having a laugh with my many obnoxious comments – they were said with very black humour, to help show Big Scum Media for the trash that they are if one knew how to read them properly, but you keep deleting them – aaarrggghhh!!!
Personally, I would not delete his comments and just let the community put him/her in their place. These comments are showing up Big Media nicely.
Just my two cents.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
“Your comment above is just fluff and puff.”
Hey Jon and Happy New Year.
I respectfully disagree Jon, and I’m no fan of the RIAA and their unbalanced contracts over the years. I’m an established artist. I post for what I think it right, and I don’t think it is right to take something for free that you know is intended for sale by someone else.
I also think a true boycott of the industry would be impressive and noble, but the illegal p2p community has consistently shown that it simply wants to take the music and not pay and let the artists figure out how to deal with their plight, and I think that is shamefully shoddy and indicative of character.
I also think to use technology to cloak an illegal act is cowardly. Character stands up for what it thinks is right, it doesn’t hide behind technology and play the odds of detection while harvesting for itself. Consequently, I’m not surprised that a community that is long on empty, noble rhetoric but offers little more than “taking without paying”, now doesn’t even financially support it’s own. You may think this is fluff. I do not. This whole issue is about where cash is properly placed and the p2p community has made very clear that cash is not in their equation. If my indicating a lack of meaningful financial support for Jammie by your community is fluff in your view, we can agree to disagree. I think it speaks volumes.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I always thought the DOJ was supposed to protect citizens and uphold the constitution. Then again, with the corruption brought by to the table by the Bush administration, why am I not surprised?
Sam, you seriously need to fuck off. Your claim that the music industry has enjoyed one of its best years in 2007 is not only an outright lie, but contradicts your other lie that filesharing is, in fact, devastating the industry. The fact is—and it has been proven multiple times—that filesharing has had zero effect on music sales. The industry parasites are their own worst enemy, and the industry will continue to suffer, and ultimately die in a matter of years, as long as they continue to alienate and oppress their consumers with their fascist propaganda. Only then, when culture is no longer locked down to multi-billion dollar conglomerates, will it have any chance of surviving.
Your claim that filesharers are small in number is also false. It has been reported here again and again, that despite the cartels’ efforts to threaten and bully their consumers, filesharing has continued to grow at an amazing rate. And it will continue to thrive, no matter how many people they sue; no matter how many bit torrent sites they shut down. The US alone has over 60 million active filesharers, which is more than the number of people who voted for Bush. This is precisely why the industry is dying. It’s not because people share music online; it’s because of the way the RIAA/MPAA/BSA/IFPI et al are treating them. You do not want to fuck with that many people, especially when they’re the ones paying your salary.
Furthermore, your claims that P2P downloaders are “bent on taking something they know is for sale but paying nothing” or that they are not true fans are unfounded and unjustified. It was discovered a few years ago that, contrary to false claims made by the industry, the filesharing community as a whole spends more money on music than those who don’t download. Know why? Because without the internet, fans are confined to mainstream radio, MTV, etc, to discover new music. Since the quality of mainstream music has gotten worse every year, mainstream listeners have less incentive to buy new music. They become deprived of what’s really out there, because they’re only exposed to a small percentage of all the music that’s available. Only those who look for better alternatives will find it.
Finally, your claim that the P2P community has turned a blind eye to Jammie’s defense fund is a lie. So far, she’s raised over $18 000, but that is still nowhere near the amount needed to stand a chance against the recording cartel.
Ever since you came here, you’ve brought nothing but hostility and lies. Rot in hell, you ignorant fool.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Sam: “I’m an established artist.”
Oh, really? Well, why don’t you identify yourself, then? You’ve been asked several times before. Surely an artist would want to be as well known as possible, especially a forum/site like this one – would make you look progressive & cool, no? This would prove you are not simply a troll or a shill for the RIAA.
You love to bash p2p users for “paying without taking”. Isn’t it funny then, how the DRM-free legal download sites such as Amazon & the ground-breaking allofmp3 before it (that the RIAA bastards ran into the ground) are doing so well, isn’t it?
You also forget, that the vast majority of songs on p2p are not even for sale any more, having long been deleted! How is that a lost fucking sale?! Also, it allows people to cherry pick the often one good track from an album, instead of getting stiffed for the whole lot. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. The old music model is dead. Face it.
Your arguments are flat and vaccuous.
January 1st, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Jon is correct that Jammie’s case has attracted huge international publicity for the filesharing community and I stand corrected, I believed Jammie had collected about 16K.
If 18K is closer and 60 million illegal downloaders exist in the US alone as you say, then you’ve each contributed an average of $0.0003 per.
The old distribution model is certainly dead (who cares?) and online download for sale is available almost everywhere now. Soon we’ll see how the governments of the world balance privacy with the need to support online commerce as a paying model moving forward. You could pay, download and support us. You just don’t.
“Rot in hell, you ignorant fool.”
I’m actually quite well read in this and I simply disagree. Ad hominem.
January 1st, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Sam I Am, identify yourself. We all suspect that you are just a drone of the music industry so just give it up already. Illegal downloading my actually be beneficial for the artists because it has the capacity to increase concert sales which give more money to the artist. In addition, it is suspected that the band Radiohead actually benefited from the original Napster because they jumped onto the charts from nowhere after one of their albums was leaked onto Napster.
January 1st, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Sam: identify please. for you to have any credibility, we have to know. the voices are getting louder
January 1st, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Sam I Am, it is not for the governments of the world to balance a industry if people wants otherwice. Are you forgetting democracy?
Common people were jailed and died in jail even hanged for printing their own books. If not for piracy you would have no books, you would have no newspaper.
So many ideas, creativity and inspiration came from piracy. If not for piracy the world would not be what it is today.
Try to see the other side, instead of a side that does anything to survive and keep its old ways. The side you see should either die or be reborn, people have sacrificed their lives to change industries in the past and they have always changed.
Do not think of the people as thieves, think of the industry failure to adapt to the people instead. They are too late now, they have admitted it themselves.
Free music? is it possible? Distribution is free, production costs but not as mutch as one could think. There are plenty of ways to pay for production, fans donating would be more then enough when you cut off the middle hands.
The industry do not want to die, if music becomes free they will no longer be needed. Who would promote artists and distribute the music? Fans and music discoverers promotes the artist, and Bittorrent distributes.
Movies are more expensive and harder to fund, but with creativity free and not locked up even movies can be free for everyone to enjoy. Music was free once and it will be so again, once the leechers are cut off.
I hope Thomas will get justice, and that people like you will open their eyes. Change is a good thing, but its always fought.
January 2nd, 2008 at 3:36 am
“The DoJ is filing a brief defending the constitutionality of the $9,250-per-song-file jury verdict, says Recording Industry vs The People”
A governement of constitutional criminals, that torture people and posing as experts in constitutional right! This is the world upside down folks!
Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, John Yoo, Rumsfeld. Ashcroft, David Hayne, Bybee= War Criminal.
Carolyn Wood, general Miller=Accomplices
Lets put these lowlife in the slamer!
January 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 am
” The entertainment industry has enjoyed one of its best years ever in 2007, (Google it) indicating very clearly that the vast majority of consumers of entertainment product do not pirate, ”
OR it could ALSO indicate, as we have said before,
that downloading in fact HELPS sales.
Considering that downloading copywrittenfiles has INCREASED rather than decreased,
AND ” The entertainment industry has enjoyed one of its best years ever in 2007 ” ,
this would look a little like potential proof.
Since there is CLEARLY no actual damages caused by file sharing, the amounts asked
for in civil court would appear to be very out of line.
Why ARE you so afraid of identifying yourself ?
some possible reasons ….
1. you are not an artist, but one of those A/R reps.
since you mentioned in a previous post that you were
insanely paid, this would be more likely, since artists themselves are
almost NEVER insanely well paid.
2. You ARE an insanely well paid artist, and you really don’t want us to
see that you are heavily downloaded, as well as a top seller, which
would once again prove that downloading does not cause any damage.
that’s the LAST thing an RIAA puppet wan’ts proof of.
3. You really ARE a paid astroturfer.
option 1 is the most likely in my opinion.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 am
How DOES on fight big money in court ?
MR. Beckerman’s fund for expert witnesses is one way.
A fund for Jammie is another way.
I think both those ways are a little off base though.
Do what the RIAA fears more than anything else.
Make them compete with free.
I KNOW it’s not cheap to fight in court, the RIAA knows this.
this is the crux of their strategy.
The one with the most money is right.
Negate that.
If you are a successful attorney and KNOW what they are doing is wrong,
volunteer.
Do it because you KNOW what they are doing is wrong.
Figth them with free.
If you qualify as an expert witness against their paid shill,
volunteer, because you know it;s the right thing to do.
Volunteer becuase you truly believe they are abusing the system.
make them really compete against free.
Do it because it’s the right thing to do.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 am
is Sam I Am really Benjamin from the New Yorker? Is that you Benjamin?
or you said you were an established artist… is this your cd?
I Told You We Are The Enemy
- which could account for your being the enemy – The Sam I Am
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:34 am
Strange to see this the use of “Ad hominem” …seems to be a bit past rude and can be considered an attack on a person and not the argument.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:04 am
“America’s top law agency tries to justify the amount by claiming the damages awarded aren’t, “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable”, and that it’s, “impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the internet”.
That’s the biggest load of bullshit I’ve ever heard. That claim doesn’t justify anything…it’s just another claim.
And yes, it is impossible to calculate the damages exactly, so where in all the cheese on Mars did $9,000 come from???
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:24 am
“You also forget, that the vast majority of songs on p2p are not even for sale any more, having long been deleted! How is that a lost fucking sale?! Also, it allows people to cherry pick the often one good track from an album, instead of getting stiffed for the whole lot. Nothing wrong with that, my friend. The old music model is dead. Face it.”
This is also true from another perspective. I’m a big fan of film scores (instrumental, not songs), and two things differentiate this genre from all the others; firstly, all of the costs of writing and producing the music are covered by the costs of making the respective film – the revenue from a CD sale is an added bonus for the composer in my view, and they are paid their fee when the film is made. The risk compared to a normal band’s release surely doesn’t come remotely close.
Secondly, a lot of film music produced these days is not available to the general public by conventional means.
I’ll give an example: Spider-Man 3. A guy called Christopher Young wrote the score to this, but due to some post-production complications and god knows what else, the score has not been made available on CD. All that’s out there are a few promotional albums totalling 40 minutes or so, both of which can be downloaded if you know where to look. So tell me, is anyone losing revenue? Absolutely not, because it’s not being offered for sale. This situation applies to hundreds of films every year, and a perusal of private messages on a certain message board I visit would reveal promos and other ‘unreleased’ music being swapped left, right and centre. If SM:3 were ever released on CD, I’d buy it in a heartbeat, but it isn’t – heck, the composer himself put up a number of lengthy clips on his website when he feared there would be no release.
It’s a really sad world in which money comes before absolutely anything else. Film music is treated like crap most places, and given a choice between releasing the music online, and just not putting the effort into releasing it, they choose the latter, and then wonder why we hate them.
January 2nd, 2008 at 9:40 am
Richuk: Regarding all this film stuff and so on that isn’t being released for sale. If you think about it, it’s obvious why they don’t want people swapping it regardless.
It’s as Jon says: all about control & financial greed. They wait to see if there is a pent-up demand for some piece of music and then, if they think they can “monetize” it (now there’s a nasty word (gag)), they’ll release it in a blaze of publicity and some inflated price. Well, fuck them. People will buy it anyway, if they like it, as per the example you gave.
And something else. Culture, including musical culture, relies on the exchange of content & creativity to make something new out of it. That includes all the stuff under the control of the RIAA. Just how “original” is that, I wonder? That didn’t come out of a vacuum either. This rather weakens their arguments and could be used against them, don’t you think?
January 2nd, 2008 at 11:53 am
It is not impossible that Sam I Am is a well paid artist; remember that Metallica are RIAA shills. I’m sure there are other artists that are in the RIAA’s corner. He could settle the issue by identifying himself.
January 2nd, 2008 at 2:23 pm
“Richuk: Regarding all this film stuff and so on that isn’t being released for sale. If you think about it, it’s obvious why they don’t want people swapping it regardless.”
I’m very well aware of that (sorry if it wasn’t clear in my post). And you’re exactly right about them deciding whether they should monetize it or not. If they perceive there to be no interest outside specialist groups, they probably won’t bother. Well in that case, they have no right to complain about downloaders if they have not given the public a proper channel for remuneration.
When Star Wars Episode 1 came out, a lot of unreleased music was leaked in the video games, and only then, when the record companies realised they weren’t getting any money for this, did they push out a fairly shoddy ‘ultimate edition’ that must have cost very little to make.
January 2nd, 2008 at 5:17 pm
To get a more comprehensive and detailed view of the music industry (and it’s greed), check out the following website.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html
The page is written by Steve Albini, who is an independent and corporate rock record producer most widely known for having produced Nirvana’s “In Utero”.
Please read the page, then tell me who you think gives these artists more sleepless nights…the record labels, or the downloaders.
January 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
I originally suggested in an earlier topic to Sam I Am that he read
Steve Albini’s page, but I think he either never read it, or doesn’t
care (this could be the case if as Dreddsnik above says he is an A/R man.)
January 3rd, 2008 at 3:16 pm
The articles says:
“his law firm are only representing her for the remitter motion currently before the court and not for the appeal due to lack of funds”
A couple of commensts here.
Shouldn’t lawyers be ashamed that the legal system is mostly about money and that the costs are artificially high and the coplexities are created on purpose through incomplete and confusing legislation that ALMOST ALLWAYS allows lawyers disagree on the interpretation of the laws, which is ALMOST ALLWAYS a function of what is good for the lawyer’s client?
Aso, appeal costs should be minimal, as all legal reserach and work should have been made so as to win before the trial. Now a new lawyer has to unecessarily replicate all the work and research made by the first lawyer.
Lawyers should never quit cases because of cost issues. It’s like a chief astronaut quitting his job while on the moon. Also when lawyers quit they are always suspect of double dipping.