Comments on: Jammie Thomas-Rasett isn’t giving up http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363 p2pnet.net - reader powered Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:23:46 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977836 Reader's Write Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:35:12 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977836 whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded whether the RIAA’s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators what her own technical expert witness found whether the RIAA’s technical expert’s procedures and findings were sound what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual “distribution” of copyrighted music files what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages All of this is irelevant since the trial is totally rigged from day one. The only think left to do is to bring down all these parasite before they bring down our societies and our institutions. No justice no peace. whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded
whether the RIAA’s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators
what her own technical expert witness found
whether the RIAA’s technical expert’s procedures and findings were sound
what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual “distribution” of copyrighted music files
what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages

All of this is irelevant since the trial is totally rigged from day one.

The only think left to do is to bring down all these parasite before they bring down our societies and our institutions.

No justice no peace.

]]> By: Pansy http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977827 Pansy Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:51:02 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977827 "...what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual “distribution” of copyrighted music files" People keep raising the distribution question as if inability of the plaintiffs to prove distribution would get Jammie off the hook, but once again I must remind everyone that the judge instructed the jury to find that copyright infringement had occurred if either the distribution right (via distribution to other p2p network users) *or* the reproduction right (by downloading via the p2p network) had been infringed. So this case was about distribution *and* downloading. Among other things, plaintiffs asserted reproduction right infringement in part due to (circumstantial evidence) of ripping crew metadata in the files. IMHO they jury was very likely to have found infringement for the downloading alone; it doesn't matter if they also believed there was distribution to other users. I agree it would be better to have clarity on what findings were made and why, but people just need to stop reducing the case to being a question of distribution alone. No matter how it started out, it ended up being about infringement of exactly two specific aspects of copyright: reproduction and distribution; not one or the other. “…what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual “distribution” of copyrighted music files”

People keep raising the distribution question as if inability of the plaintiffs to prove distribution would get Jammie off the hook, but once again I must remind everyone that the judge instructed the jury to find that copyright infringement had occurred if either the distribution right (via distribution to other p2p network users) *or* the reproduction right (by downloading via the p2p network) had been infringed. So this case was about distribution *and* downloading. Among other things, plaintiffs asserted reproduction right infringement in part due to (circumstantial evidence) of ripping crew metadata in the files. IMHO they jury was very likely to have found infringement for the downloading alone; it doesn’t matter if they also believed there was distribution to other users. I agree it would be better to have clarity on what findings were made and why, but people just need to stop reducing the case to being a question of distribution alone. No matter how it started out, it ended up being about infringement of exactly two specific aspects of copyright: reproduction and distribution; not one or the other.

]]> By: OMG !!! http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977823 OMG !!! Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:23:31 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977823 TYPOS!!!!!! ????????? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ;) TYPOS!!!!!! ?????????

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

;)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977820 Reader's Write Fri, 03 Jul 2009 01:01:21 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977820 You could have at least fixed the typos in the song listing... You could have at least fixed the typos in the song listing…

]]> By: David http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977803 David Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:32:09 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977803 It seems to me that the issue should be over the penalties charged for downloading. 80,000$ per song is completely outrageous. I am obviously not a lawyer, but I do know that the 8th amendment to your constitution says that cruel and unusual punishement is not allowed. "[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.". I think 80,000$ for a infringment that is worth 1$ ( according to iTune prices ) is beyond excessive.... It seems to me that the issue should be over the penalties charged for downloading. 80,000$ per song is completely outrageous. I am obviously not a lawyer, but I do know that the 8th amendment to your constitution says that cruel and unusual punishement is not allowed. “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”. I think 80,000$ for a infringment that is worth 1$ ( according to iTune prices ) is beyond excessive….

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977800 Reader's Write Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:38:18 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977800 "Get over it shills, people ARE learning .. there are FOUR lights." You sure there aren't five lights? ;-) “Get over it shills, people ARE learning .. there are FOUR lights.”

You sure there aren’t five lights? ;-)

]]> By: Dreddsnik http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977796 Dreddsnik Thu, 02 Jul 2009 18:20:30 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977796 " “There are a lot more than 4 record labels in the RIAA and they don’t own it, they are only members of it.” Yup, this is how they fool the stupid. Another common shill tactic is ... " the RIAA are not a party to ant lawsuit .. blah blah rimita ro .... " Technically correct, factually incorrect, intellectually dishonest. Get over it shills, people ARE learning .. there are FOUR lights. ” “There are a lot more than 4 record labels in the RIAA and they don’t own it, they are only members of it.”

Yup, this is how they fool the stupid.

Another common shill tactic is …

” the RIAA are not a party to ant lawsuit .. blah blah rimita ro …. ”

Technically correct, factually incorrect, intellectually dishonest.

Get over it shills, people ARE learning .. there are FOUR lights.

]]> By: OneStepCloserToFailure http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977791 OneStepCloserToFailure Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:21:39 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977791 Dear Warner Bros, years ago I naively purchased a Linkin Park CD and DVD from the bands website I was also at one point a member of the bands fan-base the so called "LP underground" . Today Im mailing all your shit back to you as I refuse to support this ridiculous campaign against Jamie Thomas-Rasset. P.S. I play Bass in a band that covered Linkin Park live in front of many people and you didn't get a dime. Sue me please. Signed another ex fan who is "one step closer" to boycotting your BS for good. Dear Warner Bros, years ago I naively purchased a Linkin Park CD and DVD from the bands website I was also at one point a member of the bands fan-base the so called “LP underground” . Today Im mailing all your shit back to you as I refuse to support this ridiculous campaign against Jamie Thomas-Rasset. P.S. I play Bass in a band that covered Linkin Park live in front of many people and you didn’t get a dime. Sue me please.

Signed

another ex fan who is “one step closer” to boycotting your BS for good.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977790 Reader's Write Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:20:53 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977790 take those bastard they call us pirates but we are just normal people that love to share!! support artists, not multinationals!! share- it's faire take those bastard they call us pirates but we are just normal people that love to share!!

support artists, not multinationals!!

share-
it’s faire

]]> By: Λ http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24363/comment-page-1#comment-977788 Λ Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:13:30 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/?p=24363#comment-977788 I misread it as 'british PORNographic industry'. XD I misread it as ‘british PORNographic industry’. XD

]]>