Comments on: 10 law profs back RIAA victim Jammie Thomas

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 17 Aug 2008 20:42:31 +0000

” What family connections does Judge Davis have in the RIAA? ”

Some are really proud to have a famous musician in the family

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 13:10:45 +0000

This is what happens when you have moronic judges presiding over a case. They know nothing of technology, and thus are unable to make and intelligent and lawful decision. Manifest? absolutely. It’s manifest even to the layman, but this judge was too idiotic to see it.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:43:47 +0000

What family connections does Judge Davis have in the RIAA?

By: Hippie

Hippie — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 01:22:35 +0000

I suspect judge Davis is getting nervous about inquiries into his family connections
with the RIAA.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:02:50 +0000

The judge Michael Davis probably got few hundred thousand $ form the RIAA to get this verdic and the jury few thousand each.

Now Davis try to get more by starting another trial. or the RiAA did not pay him so he is piss-off!

By: Thinker

Thinker — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:27:46 +0000

With an asshole judge like this one anything can happen.

Obviously rhe defendants in this case did not present any evidence of actual copying because the asshole judge and jury would have used that evidence to convict Jammie Thomas.

A new trial must be avoided because that will allow new evidence to be introduced and federal judge assholes and juries have a habit of swallowing any “evidence” a slick lawyers presents, wether real or fabricated. On appeal, evidence not presented at trial cannot be used for anything. Appeal is the route to take.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:51:38 +0000

I very much doubt itâs near as many as that.

No Actually with have infiltrators in th eplace that told us it is only few thousand who settle.

Bassically if they bother you tell them to go to hell and basically this is what they will do.

They will proceed only if you are perceive as weak.

Just deny everything no matter what and be man with them very mean. They freak out just like the bullies they are and will leave you alone. Show them that you are not intimidated and that you will NEVER PAY THEM ANYTHING! PERIOD!

By: Jon

Jon — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:51:34 +0000

“I submit that the other 20,000 whoâve already settled out of court ….”

I very much doubt it’s near as many as that.

Cheers!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 09:59:28 +0000

I submit that the other 20,000 who’ve already settled out of court ought to apply for a trial also. Making available is not illegal. They cannot possibly prove fraud or theft if no distribution has occurred. (Of course, distribution is merely uploading/sharing anyway) I understand however that it’s up to the defendant to disprove, which would be impossible for anyone. “I’ve never used a p2p app”; “You could’ve deleted and wiped it off the drive. Next excuse…unproven innocence”

By: DTS

DTS — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 04:43:25 +0000

They should respectfully submit to be the jury in this new case.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:48:50 +0000

With this new admission, a new trail could be asked for. On the grounds that false instruction was give to jurrors. I hope her lawyer is smart enough to ask for a new trial.

She may get this overturned if the jurors are not arm twisted as in the last case to come to a guilty verdict if there were songs in her shared folder…regardless of if no one downloaded a thing!

By: vexatious litigant

vexatious litigant — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 16:01:40 +0000

@Reader’s Write June 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am

Don’t you think THAT is indeed a bit a vexatious litigation stategy?

Someone give “RIAA-Burger-King”-Eve a call to ask her for her assesment of the “vexatiously factor” of your proposal!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:39:46 +0000

We understand that the Court has recognized a possible error in a jury instruction given in this action, and that it has solicited responses from amici to the following question: âwhether the Court committed a manifest error of law in instructing the jury that â t]he act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright ownersâ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.â

We respectfully submit that the correct answer to this question is:

JAIL ALL THE MUSIC EXECUTIVES AND THEIR LAWERS NOW AND BURN TO THE GROUND THE RIAA AND MPAA HEADQUARTER!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:14:02 +0000

I respectfully submit that the correct answer to this question is BOYCOTT THE RIAA!