Jammie Thomas still fighting

[stratman]

If you haven't heard her name by now, I'm sure you will. You see Jammie Thomas is the single mother sued by the RIAA for sharing 24 songs. This case will be used as the guinea pig for upcoming litigation. She has the dubious honor of being the first person brought to trial for the infraction, and has become the rallying icon for those opposed to the RIAA's draconian, heavy fisted method of curtailing file sharing. Despite an inept judge and lack of evidence she was ordered to pay $222,000.00 to the Recording Industry Association of America. Thomas' attorney is still continuing the fight, filing a motion stating the penalty to be excessive and unconstitutional. The RIAA's actual damage was $151.20 with the actual songs having a face value of about $24.00. The RIAA for it's trouble has stated that it has no plans to back down, they state "We seek to resolve this case in a fair and reasonable manner it's unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions. We will continue to defend our rights." Personally I'm against stealing material from artists, publishers, musicians, but this case has been taken to a ridiculous level by the RIAA in order to make a point, this is akin to throwing an 8 year old into a maximum security state penitentiary for stealing a candy bar. Should she be punished? Absolutely. Should she be railroaded and made an example of? Absolutely not! Let the punishment fit the crime, she shouldn't pay excessive fines in which the majority of the money will go to the attorneys anyway. She doesn't have that kind of money to begin with and she's a single mom, cut her some slack. Rapists, murderers get better breaks than this. And pray tell how does she continue to avoid responsibility for her actions? She hired an attorney who is defending her, how does the RIAA consider this avoiding responsibility for her actions? Will this backfire on the RIAA? No, we tend to have a limited span of attention, we will forget this soon, unless you're using some P2P site to get files and one sunny day you get a letter in the mail from the RIAA telling you to sell your home because you're going to have pay them for all those songs you "borrowed." Again let me make myself clear, I don't condone stealing copyrighted material, but outdated, draconian efforts meant to intimidate and harass are no excuse for the RIAA to destroy a person's life.

 

[fmw]

If she took money for sharing the copies, then she deserves the lawsuit and should lose it. I agree the penalty is excessive but there should be a penalty that hurts.

RIAA aren't the bad guys, the pirates are.

 

[agarwalro]

If she took money for sharing the copies, then she deserves the lawsuit and should lose it. I agree the penalty is excessive but there should be a penalty that hurts.

RIAA aren't the bad guys, the pirates are.

They are suing her for "sharing". If she made a profit, it would be piracy. Besides, it was over Kazaa, so I don't imagine she made a profit.

I agree except for the part where you said the penalty should hurt. The minimum damage RIAA can win in a lawsuit is $750 per song, meaning, if I buy a CD and give you the tracks ripped, RIAA claims they lost $750 per track. You have got to be kidding me. That just makes no sense, when a new CD is around $10 - 35 in any media. Anyways, in this case, the minimum would have sufficed. But then again, in a litigious society, the pendulum will swing both ways...

I vociferously second your comment regarding piracy being the bigger/ more appropriate target for the RIAA.

 

[rnatalli]

Although I believe the penalty is extreme, the court is within its rights as that's the way the law is written. What really needs to happen is for the legislature to update the laws.

As for this case, the RIAA will never see that money. People freak out when a judgement is passed, but executing that judgement is a lot more difficult. However, I find it amusing that I could go shoplift an HT system and probably receive a far less severe punishment than I would for sharing $24 worth of songs. The courts will say blame the legislature and the legislature will say the courts should handle it. Nothing gets done in the US anymore

 

[MDS]

The penalty is excessive, no doubt. But, it is not $24 worth of songs as that would be valuing the 24 songs at a buck apiece as if they were purchased from an online music store. The issue is making available those 24 songs to millions or tens of millions or more people for free.

The problem though is there is no way to quantify how many other people actually downloaded one of the songs for free. There is no way to know if 1 million people downloaded a song, listened to it, and then all deleted it because they didn't like it.

I also think a penalty range of $750 - $9,000 per song (whatever it is) is way too broad. Without being able to quantify exactly how many were 'stolen', giving a jury a range like that is like saying 'pick a number'. Are you feeling vindictive and would like to impose the maximum fine or are you feeling generous and would like to impose the minimum fine?

 

[rnatalli]

Isn't this story about pirates?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071016/ap_on_re_as/pirate_attacks;_ylt=AjSmrw9A11F8NUoh55Cpn7EDW7oF

We should sick the RIAA on them

 

[Johnd]

How do the sayings go?

"If you can't do the time..."
"Ignorance of the law is no..."

I wholly disagree that the penalties are excessive. The court is well within the guideline of the maximum of $150,000.00 per infringement. Besides, the RIAA is supposed to be the guardian of artist rights, whose rights have been trampled on long enough, and is doubly so with "the information age."

With freedom (information) comes responsibility. Accept it! Or crawl back into the cave. (Or refrain from indulging in the freedoms). Her criminal behavior is nothing like an eight year old receiving a prison term for stealing a candy bar. The former is purely a civil action...and she ought to know better. I wonder if she does now?

 

[MDS]

Besides, the RIAA is supposed to be the guardian of artist rights, whose rights have been trampled on long enough, and is doubly so with "the information age."

Yep, the RIAA has been trampling on artists rights for decades.

 

[stratman]

$220,000.00 Is just way over the top, and yes John my point was tongue in cheek, but not far from the truth. I abhor thieves and pirates, but the RIAA as pointed out by MDS is no angel, more closer to union thugs.

 

[rnatalli]

I used to work in investment banking, mergers and acquisitions specifically. I remember we were working out a merger and I recommended we lay off about 10k workers so we'd see a massive profit. Everyone made money except for those poor bastards. And when I say everyone made money, I mean like a dozen people. So 12 people myself included received wealth by burning 10k people. I can tell you this, if your net worth isn't at least $1,000,000 or more, corporations aren't your friend. That said, if you're defending the RIAA because you feel that we're a nation of laws and laws should be upheld, this is another story.

If you're looking for a good read, pick up "Confessions of an Economic Hitman." I just gave it a read and it pretty much sums it up.

However, I also agree with John as people in the US have become a little too irresponsible. We're buying homes we can't afford, we're not even fully stopping at stop signs anymore. I do believe we have become a bit lax when it comes to accountability and discipline.

P.S. I now work in finance for a non-profit, go figure.

 

[Johnd]

That said, if you're defending the RIAA because you feel that we're a nation of laws and laws should be upheld, this is another story.

Nice story rnatalli.

If you're referring to me, I was not defending the RIAA as much as their position: who else would sue if not for them? Michael Jackson?

We are a nation of laws and those laws must be upheld.

Someone compared her judgment to that of an eight year old receiving a prison term for stealing a candy bar. I think not.

I would compare her behavior to someone (an ADULT) who stole cash from the unlocked bank vault when no one was looking. And when caught and penalized cries it wasn't robbery because no gun was used and it wasn't theft because no forcible entry was used. Hmmmph.

 

[rnatalli]

I wasn't singling anyone out, just talking in general. Here's another little story:

One time I went to an ATM to deposit a check. I opened the little door to grab an envelope and grabbed one that had $700 in it. Obviously someone didn't know how to use an ATM. What stopped me from taking it was my sense of right and wrong and not the law (if it exists for this circustance). Sometimes the law doesn't know right from wrong; sometimes the right thing to do isn't always the ethical thing to do; and sometimes you can do everything right and still get screwed. Something to think about.

 

[stratman]

Nice story rnatalli.

If you're referring to me, I was not defending the RIAA as much as their position: who else would sue if not for them? Michael Jackson?

We are a nation of laws and those laws must be upheld.

Someone compared her judgment to that of an eight year old receiving a prison term for stealing a candy bar. I think not.

I would compare her behavior to someone (an ADULT) who stole cash from the unlocked bank vault when no one was looking. And when caught and penalized cries it wasn't robbery because no gun was used and it wasn't theft because no forcible entry was used. Hmmmph.

Stealing money from an unlocked bank vault is not the same as downloading a few songs and yes robbery of any kind is reprehensible, but in this case they're trying to make an example of a woman who obviously needs to be punished, but not to the excess the RIAA has pushed for, anyone can see she's being made an example of, that's clear and that's my only problem with this case. Not that she's being punished, but the severity of it. Like I've said before let the punishment fit the crime.

 

[fmw]

Stealing money from an unlocked bank vault is not the same as downloading a few songs....

My impression is that she gave or sold the music to someone else for something. In other words she uploaded it, not downloaded it. If she got value for it, then it is exactly the same as stealing from an unlocked bank vault.

If the record industry wants to make an object lesson of someone, they should choose someone who sold digital copies of music, not the recipient of it. Common sense. Make the bad guy the object lesson.

Apparently, I don't understand the case. All of this would make no sense to me at all unless the person sued had gained something from providing the digital copies - money, digital copies in return - something.

 

[mtrycrafts]

P.S. I now work in finance for a non-profit, go figure.

But that doesn't mean hefty salaries don't exist, right? Only that the profit is nulled by expenses

 

[rnatalli]

But that doesn't mean hefty salaries don't exist, right? Only that the profit is nulled by expenses

You got it! A common misconception that non-profits aren't allowed profit. It's just that the profit doesn't go into anyone's pocket and gets redistributed through the organization. Although, my salary and bonus in the I bank outweighs the long list of perks I'm receiving now; however, it was my choice to change careers. I-banking is for the short-term really unless you have no life outside work.

 

[AbyssalLoris]

Totally OT, but a good friend of mine is just getting into I-banking and was recently debating a related career choice and was sort of thinking aloud in my presence. It would be interesting to hear your take as you are a man of experience.

 

[rnatalli]

I-Banking requires you to basically sell your soul. You have to eat, think, breathe, crap, dream money. A very thick skin is a must as it's really nasty on the inside. Be sure your friend checks his/her conscience at the door as you don't need one. Also be prepared to give up any chance at a life or family. Oh and forget weekend, holidays, and time off. I used to try and get to the office by 7:00-7:30am and my day would finish around 11pm. Sundays were a bit better as sometimes I would actually leave around 5pm. So that was usually when I had a little time and was able to get bills paid, clean, etc... During the workday, there is no down time except late afternoon/early evening where many from my firm used to head to the gym for 30 minutes. Other than that, it's pedal to the metal. On the plus side, no steeper salary curve exists out there for a career. I did it for several years and it has definitely made my life easier now. If you can survive it for say 5-7 years, it does get easier as the higher ups don't work quite as hard as the fresh fish.

 

[rnatalli]

Back to the thread topic or has America already shifted to the whole Ellen dog situation