Comments on: Jammie Thomas v RIAA: Round III?

By: facebone

facebone — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 14:20:15 +0000

This Kiwi kid demanded a second trial and increased jammie’s damages ten-fold. Do they really want another trial? The plaintiffs have a big war machine and they’ll just get better and better at pushing the right buttons and pretty soon she’ll owe all the money in the world. If the system is as corrupt as everyone thinks, what’s the point?

By: voxleo

voxleo — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:18:38 +0000

What kind of drugs are these people on!? This is obviously not a jury of “peers” at any rate. How is it possible to dream up a nonsensical number like that? Isn’t there some sort of formula that has to be applied to justify it? PLEASE tell me that this cannot stand or I will have to plunge into a nuclear reactor and hope that I reemerge with super-powers in order to start kicking some sense into people! Something is incredibly amiss.

It is obvious that we need to start fighting fire with fire. I say we hold an open forum for suggestions on how to actively change the laws that are being leveraged against people solely in the name of greed. At the same time we should start putting together some PSA’s and start unspinning the spin doctors with the age old values of “the golden rule” and how we (my generation, at least) were taught to SHARE as children. The copyright laws were not intended for the digital era, and the letter of the law is being exploited by a bully-machine who has found itself obsolete in the new age. How can courts use historical precedent for something that has essentially no history? The time has come now. Evolution or Revolution!

By: NO1UNO

NO1UNO — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 04:06:11 +0000

AAHHGGG!! Ive been blinded by the BS!
Of course that was after i LMAO watching the utterly
fantastic, well made, polished turd sandwich………….(flame on! )
Nobody with more than kindergarten education would
believe that BS unless they were PAID to!!!!
Thanks for pointing us to it surfer!!

Now, as for the post we are supposed to be commenting on, the whole verdict needs to be thrown out just for the shear stupidity of it, no real controling instructions given to the jury, and aparently no fucking inteligence shown by any of the 12 people involved…………….throw it out, or go for 3rd times a charm???

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 02:44:43 +0000

I hate to break it to Camera but “Harris v. Mexican Specialty Food” basically eviscerates the due process argument.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 01:01:27 +0000

lolz that was totally pathetic, that rapper had to have no street cred to be in that video anyhow, wonder if they get permission from some of the other things in the video.. panasonic yahoo fast freds, ricoh …

By: Cynix

Cynix — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:04:28 +0000

I’ve just seen this video and my jaw had dropped all the way to the floor by the end of it. I mean, are they for real? Serious??!! First, they’re lying, copying is NOT a crime.- It’s done like a big movie production and pop video and it’s so fucking lame. Just how much did they have to pay that rapper to lose all his street cred for life?- Corporate America! Fuck yeah! Fuck you!!

By: Zorg

Zorg — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 18:58:29 +0000

“…between those who infringe the great prophet and those who do so for personal use…”
Hmmm, my babelfish read that and spat out:
“…between those who infringe for great profit and those who do so for personal use…”
Makes somewhat more sense to me, anyway.

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:20:50 +0000

In the US the anemdment 8 say that what is not forbiden is authorized and that no one can prosecute someone else for something done not mentioned by the law! Hello!

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:11:38 +0000

Lying to the entertainment parasites is noit a crime. It is a duty!

Never admit anything to them regardless!

Ya right they never lie themselves! sure!

They are the bigest pack of liers either invented! Oh and did I mention the garbages they carry in their fat ass?

By: Sukasa

Sukasa — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:50:47 +0000

@Surfer

Wow, that’s entirely pathetic (the video, not your post). I wonder if they got permission to use the Klingons…

By: Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:45:11 +0000

@surfer:
(re: “newest mind-numbing bullshit from the RIAA”)

“It’s not just a copy… it’s a CRIME”
?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Isn’t that “special”!

(See http://www.p2pnet.net/story/24581 – Cheers!)

By: Rafael Venegas

Rafael Venegas — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 15:15:48 +0000

“all copies of recordings she has downloaded without authorization,”

What if she has some download public domain works. Certainly no one could have authorized the downloads.

If the judge ordered ordered the erasure of unauthorized copies, he abused the law, for each copied public domain work.

Then is illegal to own public domain works simply because no one authorized their copying.

Precisely that is one of the problems with downloading from the Internet or general copying of music. There is no way a casual internet user can know what is and what is not in the public domain or what copies were authorized expressly or implicitly.

And the law and its makers look sideways to the problem.

By: surfer

surfer — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 14:45:39 +0000

check out the newest mind-numbing bullshit from the RIAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHaAFqoVLtI

By: Reader's Write

Reader's Write — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:34:17 +0000

LOL Pay us $1.92 million, destroy what you paid for and never use the net again.

$1.92 million is a “free” pass for life for her entire family (plus 99 years) on downloading in my books

By: Robert

Robert — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 13:27:57 +0000

Destroy what she downloaded but has on CD already? The point of that would be??? Right, nothing, no point, just the usual pointless demands from a pointless organization.