Pay $1.5 million, Jammie Thomas-Rasset ordered
p2pnet view P2P | RIAA:- “They shaved off $420,000.
“Yea.”
That was Jammie Thomas-Rasset when she learned she’s been ordered to find the staggering sum of $1.5 million for 24 songs
Her wry comment referenced the fact the time before last — that’s to say the trial before last — she was ordered to pay $1.92 million for sharing music online.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), owned by multi-billion-dollar corporate record labels Vivendi Universal (France), Sony (Japan), EMI (Britain), and Warner Music (US, but controlled by a Canadian), years ago sued Jammie for allegedly infringing copyrights.
Says The Register >>>
Despite the presence of celebrity legal academic and poker lobbyist Charlie Nesson, the re-re-run was unsuccessful. This was the third trial for the same offences; the fine has been increased, and her lawyers plan to … appeal again.
Thomas (her name at the time of the first trial) became the first defendant to take RIAA members’ file-sharing accusations to court. Unlike thousands of others, she rejected an out-of-court settlement, preferring to argue her innocence in front of a Minnesota jury in 2007. The jury found her list of excuses implausible, and the Duluth judge imposed a fine of £220,000. Thomas was sharing 24 songs on Kazaa, and the statutory fine can be imposed anywhere between $750 and $30,000 per infringement, with a $150,000 ceiling for wilful violation, aimed at wilful infringers. The court placed the fine somewhere in the middle, at $9,250 per song.
The post makes it appear as though ‘settlements’ are reasonable solutions offered by reasonable people.
In fact, they’re extortionate ‘Pay us or we’ll get you’ demands levelled by unscrupulous lawyers at very ordinary people — including young children — who have neither the money nor the legal resources to defend themselves.
Paying the lawyers are the Big 4, fronted by their RIAA.
The labels claim files shared equal sales lost. Think about that for more than two seconds and it’s obvious the assertion doesn’t even begin to hold water.
Jammie lives in Minnesota and her comment comes in a Duluth News Tribune story which has RIAA spinster Cara Duckworth stating:
“We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant’s misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions.”
But it isn’t over yet.
“Thomas-Rasset said she will appeal with the help of her Houston, Texas, team of attorneys, Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley”, says the story, quoting her as stating, “The very first thing Kiwi said as we were leaving the courtroom is that we’re going to appeal on constitutional grounds.”
A hard-working mother
While the lawyers and hangers-on working for the RIAA happily clock up thousands of billable hours, Jamie Thomas-Rasset tries to get on with her life, I wrote in June last year, continuing >>>
The labels and their RIAA have spent a fortune trying to paint a picture of her as someone who stole, and who then illegally distributed, copyrighted music files.
However, with file sharing, no money changes hands and no one is deprived permanently, or otherwise, of something he or she used to own.
The RIAA lawyers say she’s a thief. But she’s nothing of the kind. Rather, she’s a hard-working mother who during the day is the Brownfield coordinator of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians in Minnesota. She’s responsible for administering a grant from the US Environmental Protection Agency for her tribe to redevelop contaminated properties.
She’s also in charge of housing and land acquisitions for the Band’s Department of Natural Resources and Environment
“I try to focus on the day to day of life instead of the potential outcomes,” she says. “I know, win lose or draw, it won’t be over for a long time. So I just hunker down for the long haul and hold on for the ride.”
Going clockwise, other than baby Tarent, the kids in the picture are Christian, her four-year-old stepson, Tyler, who’ll be 15 next month, and Triston, who’ll be 13 in August.
Jammie and her husband, Chad (”Chad Thomas-Rasset, we both hyphenated”) were married in February. He’s at home, taking care of the boys so Jammie can get on with her job without having to worry about the younger two in daycare.
“What’s it like, having this hanging over your head,” I asked Jammie.
“Actually, the case from day to day is sort of like the feeling you have something really important to do, yet you’re not quite there yet to do it,” she said, going on »»»
“The stress of the case is always there, but it’s manageable most days.
We still get up every morning, the boys go to school, or they did until summer break started this week, I still go to work, Chaddie, my husband still takes care of the babies. We have a routine and fortunately, the case doesn’t really disrupt that, at least for the most part.
But lately, stress level has hit its maximum load and although I hate admitting it, a constant panicky feeling has taken hold.
I understand the consequences of my case, not just for me, but for everyone else being sued by the RIAA, and sometimes it’s a bit overwhelming.
Now, with the trial starting next week, I find it hard to concentrate on much else.
I constantly worry “maybe if we do this” or “maybe we should do that”, then I have to slow down, take a breath and ask myself,e “what’s the worst that could happen?”
But the worst, in my opinion, has already happened.
Now, “It’s a shocking, monstrous verdict once again”, she told the Duluth News Tribune.
It is.
Stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
The Register – World’s dumbest file-sharer guilty for third time, November 4, 2010
Duluth News Tribune – File-sharing damages raised to $1.5 million, November 4, 2010
thousands of billable - Jammie Thomas-Rasset: file sharing thief, June 10, 2009
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win ~ Mahatma Gandhi
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It`s really easy!
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. Subscribe to p2pnet.net | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/feed
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details.
November 4th, 2010 at 10:45 am
The Maafia need to run up against a Jury who actually understand what copyright was originally intended for, how it has been corrupted way beyond that. How it only benefits big corporate entities in it current form, how it harms artists and tears a massive rent between us, the normal natural humans, and our cultural heritage.
This is theft. This is piracy. This is greed.
Jury’s sadly don’t understand in the modern age they have the power to judge not just the case handed to them, but the law itself. We need a big case like this to run up against a Jury happy to use their power of nullification, their power to say no.
Too few people understand that they have the ability to say no, I do not consent, I won’t participate.
This is, of course, deliberate, nobody in authority is talking about this. Why would they. Admitting that the people have the ability to stand in judgment over their unjust and unlawful laws would disenfranchise them from the status and power they currently enjoy.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Dear parasites:
I hope you realize that you will never receive one cent from this woman. No matter how much you attempt to bully and extort money from her, she will never pay you. Even if she files for bankruptcy ten times over, she will never have the money, and neither will you. This travesty has gone far enough. You have crippled her family, ruined her livelihood, and it’s all been for nothing. Meanwhile, your loyal customers have finally seen your true colours, and have decided that they don’t want to support a criminal organization that extorts ridiculous sums of money for no logical reason. Abandon this case while you still have a shred of moral fiber, and leave this poor woman alone. These pathetic lawsuits are fruitless. They do not deter filesharing or increase sales and you know it. This is fear-mongering, plain and simple.
November 4th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
The corporate parasites keep riging the jury and the court after they wrote and passed their own law: the DMCA.
The DMCA is a pseudo law since it is unconstitutional.
November 4th, 2010 at 7:57 pm
Sigh, as long as the American jury process favors the selection of retards this kind of verdict will NEVER change. Politicians and CEO’s when justifying their bloated salaries always blurt forth the same drivel “You have to pay more to get good people” While they are usually talking well over 50k(in the case of ceo’s, in the millions sometimes) that same logic NEVER applies to the little people, who are supposed to serve for nothing to $10-$20 a day because it’s their “civic duty”. Tolerable for a few days, but for a long, dragged out trial bills can’t be met on that kind of short money. Of COURSE the judge, prosecution, bailiffs, defense attorney EVERYONE gets paid more than decent money except the jury. So anyone smart enough avoids jury duty like poison and you wind up with – Juror one:”Uhh duhhhh that thar RIAA lawyer is one smaaaaart feller, we just gots ta do what he says an fine that pirate woman evr’thn we can!!!” Juror 2:”Piracy baaaaad!!!” “So how many sailors did she kill?”
November 4th, 2010 at 8:59 pm
I know why Hell exists… for the MAFIAA.
November 4th, 2010 at 11:07 pm
Monkey hit the nail on the head there. Many juries are absolutely brain-dead.
Forget jury nullification when you’re dealing with the dumbest 5% of the population.
The authoritarian crackpots down at the courthouse will have you removed from the jury anyway if you make a peep about nullification to another juror and the judge finds out. And then if he doesn’t find out until after, it’s used to indirectly toss the verdict.
Another trick they use is when the trial doesn’t look like it’s going well they carefully poison the procedure so later any undesirable verdict can be appealed and a new trial granted (with hopefully an even dumber lot of sheep).
November 5th, 2010 at 7:55 am
She took a serious gamble infront of a jury but there is certainly no honor in making an example of this mother. Your “average joe” isn’t going to learn a damn thing from them making an example of her except that the company that sued her is a bunch of a##holes and I would boycott them.
November 5th, 2010 at 9:29 am
RIAA has spent $61 million to get this sentence of $1.5 million that RIAA will never see.
RIAA, I guess, will now have to sue their lawyers for legal malpractice. Possibly the worst in legal history because the lawyers knew that Thomas did not have the resources and a good extortion lawyer knows that you can only extort the wealthy, with a reputation to protect.
November 5th, 2010 at 10:47 am
I love how everyone calls these companies parasites, this isnt the FIRST time that she has shared music. If you all havent heard, sharing music IS COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. IT IT ILLEGAL.
This isn’t like 15 years ago when you had a casset tape and a walkman and decided that you liked a song and hit ‘record’ and gave it to the guy you liked.
This is 2010, where laws have been put in place (no matter how fair you may think) to prevent people from taking single songs that are NOT FREE and sharing them with other people.
Apparently she has done this more than once you would THINK she would learn her lesson and STOP doing it but she hasn’t and she wont, I love how all she can say is that they are going to appeal it and ‘ weather win or lose or draw, I know this isnt going away for a while, all I can do is hold on for the ride ” absolutely ridiculous. You are a GROWN woman, who has CHILDREN, who should be making SMARTER decisions, and all you can do is break the law that is in place and then say ‘ I’m not going to pay’ … thats pretty selfish of you.
Really really selfish, should be ashamed of yourselves, for sticking up for this person who clearly knows better, and that what she did is WRONG like it or not.
Who cares weather she is a good mother or a bad mother weather she is hardworking or not. None of those facts have ANYTHING to do with the fact that sharing copyrighted material is ILLEGAL and she broke the law.
Common sense people. Wake up. Weather you like it or not, she did something wrong.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:12 am
1.5 million for 24 songs??? I can understand them taking her to court for something a little more reasonable… You can purchase songs legally for .94 cents (and yes, I understand other people then got the songs from her, creating a chain of theft, but they have responsibility in this too). So less than $24 worth of theft doesn’t seem to equate to all the millions put into the trial, plus a $1.5 million order?? Make an example out of her, but a realistic one that’s fair…geez…
November 5th, 2010 at 11:14 am
Lets not forget this isn’t the first time she has stolen music, and was brought to court, and was told to pay… If she didn’t get the hint by now then she is not a very smart individual.
Don’t blame the companies, this woman clearly doesn’t have a single clue.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:28 am
Piracy is bad mmmmmkay.
And she didn’t just steal these songs for herself, she left them for anyone who stumbled across them to find and then redistribute. She became a hub for illegal activity and now she is being made an example of by the recording industry and their affiliates. I’m sure if she would have just downloaded the songs, burnt them onto a CD, then erased the files off of her PC she wouldn’t be in this situation. Or, even better, she could have NOT POPPED OUT 4 FRIGGIN KIDS and then she probably would have had enough money to buy the songs legally.
November 5th, 2010 at 11:33 am
Yes, it is illegal. Because some big company lined the pocket of some politician. Let’s face it, it is just like the big oil companies ….they are making a mint off of us because we have no say so. Do you realise how silly it is for these people to have the MILLIONS they have and to complain? We have gone from a country that was “by the people, for the people” to by the Big company for the Big company. That is life, I know this. But please get off your soapbox because God knows in your closet somewhere …you’ve done wrong too.
As for you Agreed….you have confessed….you should have to pay just as much as the lady above does….Oh yeah. You don’t do it now so that makes everything alright….oh yeah the statues of limitations huh?
Hypocrite! You should be standing there right with her since you did it too and should have to pay until you are 80!
November 5th, 2010 at 11:45 am
I love hearing people say there going to Boycott these companies because a ‘ average joe ‘ is ‘ being made an example of ‘
So what your saying is because she has a family and doesn’t make a lot of money these companies should forget that, they have a copyright law on their songs that says ‘ if you share music this is illegal ‘ but hey….. because your middle class… well forget all about RULES, and we will let this slide?
This woman isn’t an ‘ example ‘ she is one of the thousands of people that are stealing songs every single day! and she got caught for it. Maybe… if she was a better parent, she would have thought about what her actions will lead to when she knows that she is stealing. ” Oh I’m a parent, and I don’t make much money that means I can get away with it ”
Please…. give me a break… all of you who are obviously all ‘ woe is me ‘ … laws are put in place for a good reason weather you like them or not, they have been faught for and passed, and just because your absolutely clueless and don’t know by now after about what? 15 years, that stealing songs is illegal that is not the ‘ companies’ fault.
It is not anyones fault your being sued but your own. You are a grown up and you have children, you should be a better example. You should pay more attention and you should definitely know right from wrong by now, and if you don’t there is no one to blame but yourself.
These companies have every right to sue this woman, each time a song is shared it is stolen. When you buy a CD that profit goes to all the people that helped make it, the musicians the producers, the artists excetera. That is how they make a living, even the little guy that made the back track beat. If someone just hands out CD’s then that profit is now lost.
Understand this is not about buying beyonce a mansion, the money goes to everyone else behind the scenes that need this money for their everyday lives to survive, and when you steal and share songs you are stealing from their paycheck.
So don’t be so selfish and say ‘ im going to boycott these companies because im upset’ and for NO other reason, give me a break and grow up. I am sure that they don’t want someones money like yours anyway. Give the services to the competant people that understand why these rules are in place.
and don’t forget the fact that this law has been in place for years. YEARS PEOPLE. Remeber when Napster was around? yeah I’m sure you do when you were all ‘ omg i have thousands of songs for free’ and then one day they all disappeared? Ohh yeahh you forgot about that didn’t you. You know why they disappeared? Because the HUGE loss of money that the musicians were hit with because people were sharing music, napster was around when I was in high school…
2002 maybe 2003 I had napster lets see that was… 8 years ago? Thats enough time for a law to be put in place and emphasised that sharing music is ILLEGAL and is PIRACY. And if in 8 years this woman didn’t know by now that it was wrong and illegal then, she deserves whatever shes getting.
And so does everyone else. This is a prime example of people thinking they can do whatever they want whenever they want and face no legal reprocussions for their actions. “Oh it was only five songs” It does not matter. It is wrong, you knew it was wrong, the law has been in place for 8 years…
YES before IPOD, and especially we were made more aware of the copyright issues, when ITUNES was available. So there is no excuse for her idiocy.
She should have to pay, over time she will live to be about 80 years old and i personally think that she should have to pay, every year give money, your a grown up. You are responsible there is NO excuse for you…. wahh to someone else ‘ this is unfair’ actually no its not ‘ unfair’ this is actually ‘ very ‘ fair, you broke the LAW, no matter how stupid it is, you knew it was there and you broke it. Pay… up. and stop crying about it… its no ones fault that you are stupid but your own. take some responsibility
November 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
I’m not saying that people stealing music shouldn’t be punished, but how did they come up with the figure of $1.5 million for 24 songs? People who have done/stolen far more have been sued for way less… It’s not so much the crime being punished, it’s whether or not the punishment fits the crime that I’m concerned about…
November 5th, 2010 at 12:00 pm
Shills are paid to counter criticism and they’re skilled at disguising themselves as ‘real’ commenters, complete with bad grammar and bad spelling.
That makes them look authentic.
But who could take the garbage above ‘Curious’ as serious comment from a serious person?
Give me a break …
Sharing is not stealing. No one has been deprived of something s/he owns or owned. Nor does it equal sales lost. In fact, it’s great viral advertising.
The problem is: the labels aren’t controlling it and that cannot be allowed.
Cheers!
November 5th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
RIAA Statement On Damages In Third Jammie Thomas-Rasset File-Sharing Trial
MINNEAPOLIS – A Minnesota jury today handed down a decision on damages in the case of egregious file-sharer Jammie Thomas-Rasset in the amount of $1.5 million. Below is the statement from the RIAA on the jury’s decision:
“We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant’s misconduct. Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions.”
BACKGROUND
*More than 1700 songs were found in Ms. Thomas-Rasset’s shared folder on the peer-to-peer network KaZaA; the music labels sued on 24 of those songs
*Ms. Thomas-Rasset has flatly rejected every settlement offer extended her; including the most recent offer of $25,000 to be donated to a musicians’ charity.
#####
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is the trade organization that supports and promotes the creative and financial vitality of the major music companies. Its members are the music labels that comprise the most vibrant record industry in the world. RIAA® members create, manufacture and/or distribute approximately 85% of all legitimate recorded music produced and sold in the United States.
In support of this mission, the RIAA works to protect the intellectual property and First Amendment rights of artists and music labels; conduct consumer, industry and technical research; and monitor and review state and federal laws, regulations and policies. The RIAA® also certifies Gold®, Platinum®, Multi-Platinum™ and Diamond sales awards as well as Los Premios De Oro y Platino™, an award celebrating Latin music sales.
Contact:
Jonathan Lamy
Cara Duckworth
Liz Kennedy
202/775-0101
November 5th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
The fine should be $24 max – end of story. The riaa and the lawyers behind it should have jail time for this – 4 years of litigation over 24 songs, using laws that were always meant for businesses and profit – totally wasting court time – all for one thing – to make an example. It is totally disgusting that a very large corporation is able to do this – this wrecks peoples lives and devalues any faith in the legal system. It is the industries fault at the end of the day – they’ve had the run on the music monopoly for far too long – effectively becoming a global license clearing house – that fucks over it’s artist every which way it possibly can. Instead of embracing the technology and adapting to the changing market – they’ve bought and lobbied the utterly draconian laws that make all of this possible.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:24 pm
I’m sure the judgement awarded was based off of how many times the material was passed on to others, how long it was available, her reaction to the charges against her, how many different materials she had available for distribution (someone mentioned 24 songs), and a slew of other factors.
According to legislation passed, file-sharing or piracy of copyrighted material IS IN FACT considered illegal. I know, suprise suprise right. I would love to smoke weed right now but that’s illegal too. SO I DON’T! Simple as that. I understand that if I do, and I get caught, I will have to face the consequences of breaking the law, no matter how great or minor the infraction might be. I can vote to get some like minded people into power and in some cases I can vote to get a law overturned or changed. Until that happens however I have to respect that it is the law, no matter if I agree or disagree with said law.
Lobby to change the law if you feel so against it, but don’t be suprised if flagrantly violating it while it is still in effect gets you the short end of the stick and lands you in court.
November 5th, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Jon,
“But who could take the garbage above ‘Curious’ as serious comment from a serious person?
Give me a break …”
What are you even talking about?! What part of my comment was so offensive to you exactly, and where is all the bad grammar/spelling? I’ve never considered myself the “grammar queen” by any stretch of the imagination, but I’ve seen far worse posted above mine, with much stronger opinions attached…
Um…okay…
November 5th, 2010 at 12:34 pm
When all else fails, attack their ability to communicate in a structured and proper manner. Emphasis is to be placed on spelling and grammatical errors in hopes that they will not notice your inability to present a sound arguement.
Straight from the ole book of trolling
November 5th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
@ Curious:
Re-read the comment. It says “the garbage above ‘Curious’ ” – that’s to say the post above yours, not yours.
Cheers!
November 5th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Jon why don’t you get a clue, and wake up. You are in 2010 just because it says ” File Sharing” Does not mean its FREE. DUH.
My statement is not “Garbage” my statement simply says what you are MISSING because your close minded and all ‘ woe is the public ‘
Back when Kazza was first made, and when Napster was first made. File sharing was fine we all remember sharing files with our friends, we also remember getting viruses do we not? I certainly do!
Then I also remember soon after that all my music was gone, and I was IRATE I had thousands of songs, but some little bird told me, that sharing songs was now ILLEGAL to do and that if you were caught you would be fined, or even arrested because sharing files was PIRACY.
Get it through your head. SHARING IS NO LONGER FREE and hasn’t been for about 8 years now. UNDERSTAND THAT.
No matter how much you disagree with me does not change the fact that I am correct. The law was put in place YEARS ago. YEARS theres NO excuse for you to blame someone else when you KNOWINGLY trade songs back and forth KNOWING that they are NOT free! When you SIGN ONTO Kazza You are told right away what is permitted and what is not. When you OWNED Napster they told you ON THE PAGE that sharing songs was no longer free and that they were monitoring people to make sure that they were not stealing music.
THEY TELL YOU. In english, very simple to read, that file sharing is not free any longer and it hasnt been that way for years. EVERYONE will agree with me, except for you. Who is 100% clueless.
Read the post written by Readers Write that says ” More than 1700 songs were found in her files as being shared ” Understand what that means.
Here let me DUMB it down for you…
Songs are NOT free, and havent been for years ( you dont like it boo hoo to you)
She was sharing songs ( illegal ) she was brought to court ( for piracy ) she is facing a fine.
Dumber? Ok..
You do something wrong, you get caught, you pay for it. Plain and simple.
SHES done this MORE than once, and was ordered to pay and DIDN’T 1.9M which she DIDNT PAY and then she got caught for doing it AGAIN and is STILL refusing to pay.
Why are you crying for her when she is not smart enough to know better? Shes the one to blame here and no one else.
Open your eyes. Stop pretending that shes a lost soul with all these good intentions that is suffering and her life is aweful.
Shes a GROWN woman. She commited a crime! she got caught, she is being punished. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD
November 5th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Jon…Caught it on the second-read, after I had already posted. Sorry for the misunderstanding, and thanks for taking the time to clarify.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
lets face facts that this woman has done this more than once. She was caught and ordered to pay 1.9m dollars, and refused saying she was going to appeal. Which is laughable considering she is guilty.
But lets not forget that not only does she not pay, for the songs that she is sharing/stealing, she keeps doing it! Again being brought back to court, to make a mockery of the system saying ” I’m not going to pay, win or lose or draw, this is going to take a while, all I can do is hold for the ride ”
Laughable at best. Let me ask any grown up person. When you have Itunes, and you buy a song, and your friend plugs in their ipod to take that song from you does it work? Oh… NO it does not, and ‘why?’ may you ask? Because sharing files is not FREE.
You cannot simply plug in your ipod to your friends computer and take their songs, it does NOT work. YOU need to buy the song in order to get it. Because ‘sharing’ is not free, it is illegal.
This woman was caught twice, you would assume, that she would go ‘ oh my lord I didn’t know what I was doing I am so sorry this will never happen again, I am worried about my family and my children. What a terrible mistake’ but did she? No… not one thought. She just kept on doing what she was doing, clearly not learning her lesson, and not a care in the world of how she is going to pay for it. In fact shes REFUSING to pay for it. Great Morals she has. Yes lets pity her….. right
That is a great role-model if you ask me. Thumbs up.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
Jon is 100% correct there are far to many shills posting comments here – pretty amusing to see really
You see it all the time – slashdot/ars technica e.t.c.
There are at least 3 shill posts above – re-read them all and enjoy
It’s also very interesting to watch RIAA’s web site (when it’s not ddos’d
) – for their reaction to any court cases – they quite often put out a quote and then change it to match the current climate.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I love how I am called a “Shill” because I disagree with someone. That is hilarious.
I don’t even know what a Shill is…. but hey if they get paid to try to speak some common sense then sign me up! How do i join?
November 5th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
I just hope that her kids learn from the error of her ways instead of mimicing the behaviour of their guardian and role model. I wonder if Blackbeard had any children and if they followed in his footsteps. Time to take a peeksy at Wiki for a bit me thinks.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Shills are trouble shooters of a kind. They are very clever and they look very real. They are only sent to places where unntruths are being exposed. They must cast doubt.
November 5th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Well for the record I am not a shill… I am just really bored at work…
November 5th, 2010 at 1:46 pm
Not everyone who thinks file sharing is the same as stealing is a shill. Some people truly believe the lies and disingenuous half-truths the RIAA and all the rest of them spread through the lamescream media.
At absolute worst, Jammie and the 40,000 or so other people and families originally targeted by the RIAA are copyright infingers. That’s it, and that’s all. They certainly aren’t thieves, and they certainly aren’t criminals.
People who suck up the ‘we’re being devastated’ nonsense and regurgitate it whole do far more damage than the men and women who are paid to post fake comments: they actually believe the bilge they’re spouting, and they make others believe it.
These unpaid, unwitting shills are what it’s all about. They’ve been scammed into doing Hollywood and Big Music dirty work. And they don’t even know it.
Cheers!
November 5th, 2010 at 3:10 pm
You say she ‘isnt a criminal’ but yet you say she is a ‘copyright infringer’
But….
Copyright infringement is illegal… which would make it a crime…. she commited copyright infringement…. so therefore she commited a crime…. which would make her a criminal.
So she IS in fact a criminal.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:34 pm
She broke the law. She’s guilty. She was hoping for jury nullification and she lost.
The $24 theft argument doesn’t hold here. That would be an accurate statement of the problem if she stole a CD from a store and gave it to one person. She posted these songs to be downloaded by thousands.
She might be a wonderful person & a great neighbor, all the people who do this might be wonderful people … their actions are still illegal.
Having said that, I’m not sure what the record cos’ vision of the future is. These lawsuits will not go on forever and ordinary people will not stop downloading music. (I don’t steal music online, btw.) This is a sea change in the music industry, comparable to the time when people stopped making money off sheet music sales and started making money off record sales.
November 5th, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Copyright law in most countries is a “civil law”. Hence the reasons these trials are a complete joke and do not require the stringency of a criminal trial – merely probabilities. The whole “guilty” aspect of her trial was extremely weak – and under a criminal trial would have fallen apart at the seams. In fact if you look into these trials the judges instructions to the jury are quite simple astounding – and they are totally bound by his/her instructions.
So no she is not a “Criminal” at all – the whole show trial has been cleverly crafted by riaa and it’s lawyers to get what they want – which is the headline “Pirate found guilty ordered to pay $1.5 million” – even if it costs them $5million to do that – to get that message across, it’s much much much cheaper than any conventional marketing scheme.
November 5th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
@ Common Sense: ‘You say she ‘isnt a criminal …’
Your ‘argument’ is as specious as your nick.
Meanwhile, it’s great to be helping the US economy by giving so many corporate phonies something to do.
Cheers!
November 5th, 2010 at 6:39 pm
Is there not ONE person here (including Jammie’s lawyers) who knows what “Copyright Law” is? It has NOTHING to do with these court cases. Copyright Law: When you have written something on paper, like a poem, story, article, essay, lyric, musical composition, play, manuscript, etc, and you want to note WHO it is by and WHEN it was written, you write a little “c” in a circle, and you put the author’s name and the date beside it. This is a LEGAL notation of a copywriting of your work. You do it to protect yourself from someone else stealing it and signing their name to it. But this is not enough for a court. So you PROTECT your copyright. You file a copy with your lawyer, have it stamped and dated, have it notarized, send it to yourself by registered mail (and never unseal the envelope); or whatever. Those are means to PROTECT your copyright. The copyright itself is your legal RIGHT.
Copyright has nothing to do with making copies of recordings! This is the myth you guys have fallen for. Get this picture (from a musician who has signed music business contracts and is now a producer): The music business is a mafia run by bloated grey-haired pigs who have traditionally fed off the blood of musicians and other artists. They are artless, soulless, wealthy bastards who do not need or deserve your pity. They are desperately clinging to a sinking ship of their own making, firing off court cases at the very people who made them rich (YOU) because they are feeling a dent in their earnings. If you listen carefully you can hear them squeal, “How dare you! WE were always the ones who stole everything from musicians! That’s OUR money that WE’RE used to getting! YOU have no right to take the money that WE always stole!!”
And that’s what these guys are saying to YOU and to Jammie. They don’t give a shit about any musician or you; never have. It’s only their own pockets they care for, and that’s all the more reason to let them croak. SERIOUSLY. That’s all this is about! No copyright law is involved here. Look at the list of bands she downloaded! You think she caused any of them to give up their yachts? Let’s worry for AC/DC shall we? Jammie should abandon her family and job and go sweep AC/DC’s country estates for the next 30 years to pay for her atrocious sin!? If Jammie had interfered in a serious way with the earnings of a new musician whose career might depend on a few dollars, then she might be doing something immoral. But have you heard of ANY cases defending a musician like that?
Anyone who takes a side against Jammie in favour of these fat pigs is a damn fool.
These points I’ve made (aside from the fat pigs parts)… run them past a music business lawyer and he won’t argue with you. (He might even agree with the fat pigs parts) He will come up with peripheral mumbo jumbo about why downloading really IS illegal, but it’s all crap and he knows it has nothing to do with “Copyright Law”.
Jammie didn’t steal someone’s song and sign her name to it. She didn’t try to sell someone else’s song as her own composition. No profit was made from her download. The download itself is a degraded copy (mp3 etc) NOT a master, so no original copy was taken at all, and no profit could be made selling a low-grade copy of a song readily available in high quality form. So tell me, Y’ALL, what exactly has Angus (AC/DC) lost, and how do you figure Jammie has broken a copyright law???
November 5th, 2010 at 7:08 pm
To correct a minor detail: AC/DC isn’t on the list of downloaded tracks, but choose any of those that are (Aerosmith, Green Day, Gloria Estefan, whoever) and ask yourself if they’re in financial trouble. “Do they need my help?” Ask yourself this.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:12 pm
@ Tony:
Thanks, mate, but here, you’re preaching to the choir — shills excepted, of course.
Cheers!
November 5th, 2010 at 7:44 pm
I’m going to download more music just to spite the music labels and that fucking MAFIAA-paid moron name “Common Sense” who makes no sense.
November 5th, 2010 at 7:56 pm
I downloaded over 200 songs while reading this article.. Kiss my ass RIAA
November 5th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
After the first trial verdict, there was a torrent posted to the Pirate Bay of the 24 songs she was accused of infringing upon. It was called “Songs the RIAA can go f**k themselves to.”
Also, it has been a while since I shared my entire music library online on a p2p network (I used Shareaza), and have mostly shared only one file or a few at a time through BitTorrent. But what with the MAFIAA troll/shill comments posted here, I am strongly tempted to do so yet again out of sheer spite.
Keep posting the troll/shill comments. They’re at least worth a good laugh (sometimes). And they do nothing to change the opinions of regular users, and only reinforce the suspicion that you trolls/shills are so brainwashed by the MAFIAA spin that you are incapable of thinking for yourselves.
November 6th, 2010 at 1:32 am
One and a half million dollars for sharing 24 fucking songs they play on the radio for free is ridiculous.
Murdering a person doesn’t carry that stiff of a penalty..
November 6th, 2010 at 1:46 am
Geez that stuff is too much reading. I keep hearing and reading that she had 1700 songs on her computer but are only beign charged with the 24. If she was only charged with the 24 did the jury still hear that she had 1700 songs available? I would think that telling the jury she had that many should be unfair. And maybe should not have been told to the jury. The jury should only consider the 24 songs and if she meant to defraud the copyright holders of those songs. I have way more then 1700 on my computer and I have never downloaded a song because I wanted to defraud teh copyright holder of the money. I dont keep them in a folder that is open to the network (as most people with Kazzaa did cause it was default) I download the music cause I want to sometimes hear those songs. I dont copy and give them out to people or sell them either. Because of the ability to download music Ive become more intuned with the different types of music out there.
All teh filesharing lawsuits in the past were just a waste. I can gaurentee that those first few that got busted are back to downloading things anyways whether it be music, videos or whatever. I still cant even imagine paying a buck for something that doesnt really exist. Oh yeah and if I right click a picture and save to hard drive I just infringed on the copyrights of whoever took that picture.
November 6th, 2010 at 9:01 am
Here is how to copyright infringe with a browser:
Select File and Save page as.
It is a criminal activity to Thomas haters or RIAA lovers. Millions do it every hour.
No one can do anything about.
The only solution to this wave of “crime” we all commit is to shut down the Internet.
God forgive our sins.
November 7th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
So…..anyone appalled at the amount of the fine have any more reasonable numbers they’d care to offer up? I haven’t a clue myself, but I do think there should be a “per-offense” penalty. It’s not as if anyone is really confused about whether this activity is prohibited or not.
My favorite quote thus far:
“One and a half million dollars for sharing 24 fucking songs they play on the radio for free is ridiculous”
Perhaps we ought to be asking the poor, innocent, hard-working person in question here why she didn’t simply turn on the radio in the first place.
Then there are the quotes like this:
“If Jammie had interfered in a serious way with the earnings of a new musician whose career might depend on a few dollars, then she might be doing something immoral.”
Is that where the bar needs to be set? If someone has a lot more money than I do, (like an established and successful artist), then can I go over to their house and take anything I please….as long as it doesn’t reach the point that it affects their lifestyle?
Some of you that think you’re so adept at spotting shills, aren’t so adept at hiding your contempt towards someone who had more money in the bank than you do.
November 8th, 2010 at 12:09 am
Music Trafficking = Illegal
Drug Trafficking = Illegal
Human Trafficking = Illegal
Another thing they have in common? Illegal trafficking of many kinds have been going on forever and will continue, it cannot be stopped, this has been proven MANY times. I believe everyone will agree the first is BY FAR the LEAST evil.
November 8th, 2010 at 10:38 am
“Is that where the bar needs to be set? If someone has a lot more money than I do, (like an established and successful artist), then can I go over to their house and take anything I please….as long as it doesn’t reach the point that it affects their lifestyle?”
This is a completely inaccurate description of file sharing. The equivalent would be making a perfect copy of anything you please that you found in their house. No one has been deprived of physical copies. The only deprivation is the loss of control over the “scarce” product which is no longer scarce. Bands have always made their money through live performances, if you care to investigate any royalty facts.
“Some of you that think you’re so adept at spotting shills, aren’t so adept at hiding your contempt towards someone who had more money in the bank than you do.”
It has nothing to do with the money someone has or has not, but only how the rich ones are the first to bitch and complain about something that doesn’t even account for much of their income! It’s the labels, the actual owners of the copyrights, who are suffering, not the artists, from file sharing!
November 9th, 2010 at 1:12 am
“It’s the labels, the actual owners of the copyrights, who are suffering, not the artists, from file sharing!”
So then it’s okay I guess? As long as it’s *this* entity that suffers instead of *that* entity?
None of this matters much to me, I just find it a bit odd that some folks don’t get the *wrong* aspect of downloading and then re-distributing something that isn’t theirs in the first place. Wait….scratch that. They do get that it’s wrong, but they think it’s worth the risk. Just like this lady did. They assume that whatever happens will be insignificant at best. Turns out that isn’t necessarily the case.
FWIW, I think whomever coined the term “file sharing”, (as it’s been applied to situations like this one at least), deserves some sort of award for nerve.
It’s not a song….it’s not a piece of music that someone with some creativity, talent, and imagination came up with. It’s really just a “file”. And since it’s now just a “file”, it certainly seems to be less “personal” and perhaps less “owned” than it was when it existed as the offspring of someone more gifted/talented/creative than we are.
Hmmmm……I don’t feel so bad about it now. It really is just a “file”.
Anyone wanna “share” some “files” with me?
November 9th, 2010 at 12:46 pm
” So then it’s okay I guess? As long as it’s *this* entity that suffers instead of *that* entity? ”
Just a quick question.
The labels have a LOT of money, we agree on that right ?
They have so much money that they can absorb huge cash losses in the pursuit of soccer-moms.
Taking that as a fact, then obviously sales are good enough ridiculous amounts of capital.
So, if the Labels are wealthy enough to do this …
1. the claims of ‘loss’ are obviously specious, exaggerated, or outright false .. wouldn’t it seem ?
2. Why are artists so ‘broke’, when their corporate leash holders have so much money to spend on
lawyers, and political lobbying ?
Clearly, the labels aren’t paying the people they CLAIM to represent, the ‘artists’ or artists wouldn’t be
so ‘broke’.
That’s the problem here .. the CLAIM that the lawsuits are for the benefit of ‘poor starving artists’ while
organizations like SoundX can’t ‘find’ artists to pay them, and label owned ‘lawyer pits’ get fat suing on artist
behalf, and not ONE THIN DIME from any suit or settlement goes to any artist at all .. ever.
The lost goodwill of the fans is no longer recoverable. Even IF they get enough enforceable law in place to
make sharing disappear off the net, with cheap 1-2TB drives, pawn shops, and public libraries, people will
continue to share, and share a lot.
Tough shit.
‘ Just like this lady did. ‘
Visit ray beckerman’s site. It will become apparent that they never proved she distributed anything.
The Judges order to the jury meant they didn’t have to. That’s not only a problem, it’s damn suspicious.
I wonder if Judge Davis is part of Miles Davis family tree, and thus part of the Davis Estate.