Comments on: D-For-Decision-Day for RIAA, Jammie Thomas

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 11:01:23 +0000

“lawyer never even called a single witness”

Whats new?

A clear case of the major problem in the American – and most others too – legal system, lawyers selling the interest of their clients. A problem to be expected when justice is turned into a for-money business and half the lawyers and judges (lawyers too) are common prostitutes.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:28:30 +0000

The previous proceedings was a parody of justice organized by the RIAA.

Everything is parody with the RIAA. Parody of business, parody of ethic parody of moral standard, parody of proof parody of selling music parody of sexy (Remember Britney slute and Madona crap?) . . . This is an industry full of BS and thieves just like the advertising industry.

The only real thing is that they are a bunch of parasites who does not deserve to leave in our society and should all be jailed.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:53:34 +0000

I have a feeling this will come out favorably for Jammie Thomas. The judge wouldn’t be taking this action unless he had serious doubts about the previous proceedings.

And by the way, my hat’s off to the judge for doing this. His actions speak of a man who’s truly dedicated to making sure he has served justice; only a truly honorable person would take the course he has. Just sayin.

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:24:26 +0000

The MAFIA are not really the record companies. They are just small time players in the scheme of things and perhaps forced to become corrupt because of the political and legal systems.

The real MAFIA are the political and judicial systems and all their components, that allow the small time mafia-like organization to harass the people who allegedly – an actual lie – are sovereign owners of government.

By: A_F

A_F — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:40:33 +0000

Oh,
and if it is legal to have a recording device running at oral argument; can someone please do that?
When MAFIAA send in their smartest and biggest gun -while the (now) honorable Judge Richard L. Gabriel back then still triumphaticly stated to the press that they would any time prove the wrongdoings of Thomas’ and that they would have no problems in doing so- then I guess this will be a very interesting oral argument.

It seems organised cri.. sorry I misspoke; organised music are extremely nervous here.
I want to hear the fear in his voice when he tries to explain the jduge why the law should not be obeyed just because “well-known and respected record companies” are such vexatious mass litigants.

By: syber

syber — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:38:50 +0000

Proof is implied, proof is impossible to prove.

That’s just great. I want your money for having wronged me but just give me the money because I cannot prove you wronged me!

The new American way, rich sue the mainstream and poor to take there money. And the Justice system supports this!

By: A_F

A_F — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 11:18:48 +0000

is there a “be” missing?

Monday will __ a Capital Letter day for victims of the Big 4 labels

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:40:32 +0000

When are people going to start suing the RIAA for extortion and harassment?

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:37:18 +0000

Verrilli was named by the Hollywood Reporter magazine as one of the top 100 ‘Power Lawyers’ in the
entertainment industry for the second consecutive year, bragged J&B a couple of days ago.

Shows just how desperate they are to win against their perversion of justice. Any sane reasonable person can see
that even if the lady was a Kazaa user, it doesn’t warrant the overextreme judgment against her. The worst that
should happen is that she should’ve been told to stop using it. In any case it can’t be illegal as there are many
non-infringing uses. Now she should receive compensation for legal and medical costs as well as harassment.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:27:44 +0000

Well they had no proof using the then current standard or any standard. Even with proof,
the disproportionate fine far exceeds the lawful up to 9x value damages. It doesn’t matter
if he’s the best lawyer ever, this time the proper interpretation of the law will be examined,
including any evidence, or lack of.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:20:25 +0000

The question ‘Did she received an adequate defence?’ also arises.

Good for pulling that out

By: Dreddsnik

Dreddsnik — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:18:49 +0000

Yup,
They’ve admitted, in print, that they don’t have proof.
This should be shown to every judge currently involved in a case.

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 19:02:18 +0000

“Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners’ rights online…”

In other words, because the MafiAA can’t actually PROVE a crime was committed, we should all just throw away the Law Book, and simply allow unsubstantiated claims of “Implication” to be good enough to convict anyone and everyone.

(In a PIG’S EYE!)

Good to see there’s still some creativity left in the Entertainment Industry.