Browse by topic

News

Even RIAA witness 'shocked' by Jammie Thomas verdict

23 June 2009 2:16 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 23 comments

Gary Wade Leak, a Sony lawyer who was a star witness for the RIAA in the recent Jammie Thomas trial has said today that even he is "shocked" by the amount of money Thomas is now being forced to pay, a gigantic $1.92 million sum.

Speaking at an alumni event at Columbia University, Leak added: "We were shocked. I suspected we were going to win, but I really thought they would come in with a lower number."

However, during the trial, Leak made it very clear that the jury could charge the maximum $150,000 USD per song in damages, as it would be "certainly appropriate" given the circumstances.

Leak did admit that he expects the award to be reduced either in a settlement or on appeal, and it may be pushed back to the original award of $220,000 or even less.

Permalink to this article | Topic: Lawsuits & Legislation

Federal Judge cuts $1.86 million from Jammie Thomas' file sharing penalty (22 January 2010)

DOJ calls Jammie Thomas' $1.92 million file sharing fine "constitutional" (15 August 2009)

Joel Tenenbaum fined $675,000 over copyright infringement (1 August 2009)

Jammie Rasset-Thomas to appeal damage award (2 July 2009)

Woman with no computer 'settles' with RIAA over piracy claim (21 June 2009)

Jammie Thomas can possibly use bankruptcy to get out of RIAA debt (20 June 2009)

RIAA needs to be disbanded, says Moby (20 June 2009)

Jammie Thomas loses case to RIAA (18 June 2009)

RIAA lawyers oppose Jammie Thomas getting time to find a lawyer (19 May 2009)

« Previous news article
TiVo ready to expand

Next news article »
Apple bans licensed Commodore 64 emulator from App Store

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
nonoitall (Member) 23 June 2009 2:34
You know it's an unjust amount when even the RIAA has to admit it's outrageous. [ + quote]
platdream (Newbie) 23 June 2009 6:07
Guess what .. next years academy award for best actor Goes to... Gary Wade Leak looser..we are not dump asses ... [ + quote]
Serialluv (Junior Member) 23 June 2009 10:51
However, during the trial, Leak made it very clear that the jury could charge the maximum $150,000 USD per song in damages, as it would be "certainly appropriate" given the circumstances. how in god's name are 24 shite songs appropriate at, as a matter of fact how is any single piece of music worht $150,000 USD?!?!?!? This has got to be the stupidest thing I have ever heard and I'm British!!!! [ + quote]
emugamer (Senior Member) 23 June 2009 11:51
*Quote:* Leak did admit that he expects the award to be reduced either in a settlement or on appeal, and it may be pushed back to the original award of $220,000 or even less. Or pushed back to $0.0 if she can get in with that possible bankruptcy loophole. [ + quote]
gnovak1 (Junior Member) 23 June 2009 13:21
I know we're all pissed at the RIAA but i'm even more angry at those jurors who made the decision to charge her that amount. These Jurors probably don't know enough about file sharing to fully understand what they were deliberating on. [ + quote]
pirkster (Junior Member) 23 June 2009 13:53
*Originally posted by nonoitall:* You know it's an unjust amount when even the RIAA has to admit it's outrageous. Let's be accurate here. They are not shocked at the "outrageous"-ness of the amount. That's not what he said at all. What he said was that he's shocked that their award was not reduced. Whether it's a fine, jail time, etc. - it's not often you get the maxiumum or near the maximum allowable punishment. He's saying he was surprised with what they were initially awarded before appeal, etc. Whether or not that maximum amount is actually outrageous, is another debate entirely. In fact, he did comment on that - saying it was "appropriate." Only, he didn't expect to be granted as much of what they were asking. [ + quote]
emugamer (Senior Member) 23 June 2009 13:58
*Originally posted by gnovak1:* I know we're all pissed at the RIAA but i'm even more angry at those jurors who made the decision to charge her that amount. These Jurors probably don't know enough about file sharing to fully understand what they were deliberating on. Jurors don't make the laws. They are instructed to follow them. The less the jury knows about file sharing the better - to remain impartial and so that the letter of the law is followed. It really comes down to getting the laws changed from a higher level. Jamie was being tried against laws that were not made to take into account the digital revolution. [ + quote]
jony218 (Senior Member) 23 June 2009 21:01
she can't pay 2 million, I doubt she will be able to pay $200,000. Maybe $200.00. Maybe she can do time in jail instead of paying the fine. That 2 million dollar fine falls under the cruel and unusual punishment, looks very unusual to me. Even bank robbers never pay restitution, they get out of the joint with a clean slate. [ + quote]
platdream (Newbie) 23 June 2009 22:26
*Originally posted by jony218:* she can't pay 2 million, I doubt she will be able to pay $200,000. Maybe $200.00. Maybe she can do time in jail instead of paying the fine. That 2 million dollar fine falls under the cruel and unusual punishment, looks very unusual to me. Even bank robbers never pay restitution, they get out of the joint with a clean slate. now i feel like i should go for a bank robbery & buy the music. rofl:D [ + quote]
john_jaxs (Junior Member) 24 June 2009 0:03
*Quote:* They are instructed to follow them. The less the jury knows about file sharing the better - to remain impartial and so that the letter of the law is followed. You seem to suggesting that if the jurors knew more about filesharing then they would be less impartial, when infact the opposite is true not knowing anything or almost nothing makes them more likely to side with the RIAA, an impartial jury in a case like this would be 6 jurors who know alot and 6 who don't. That would be the only way to reach an impartial judgement and decision. [ + quote]
john_jaxs (Junior Member) 24 June 2009 0:31
*Quote:* Jurors don't make the laws. Also I like to note that while jurors don't make the laws it is possible for them to judge the creedance of the law if they feel it is unjust they can rule againest the plaintiff just on that fact alone if you don't believe me you can look it up at: http://fija.org/ If you ever get selected for jury duty and want to serve on that trial do not mention any knowledge of that website or association: Two quotes to better ascertain the fact. *Quote:* In a still-standing decision (Sparf and Hansen v. US, 1895), the Supreme Court ruled that judges don't have to let jurors know their full powers. Basically Judges and DAs can lie to a juror about their powers (similar to how a cop can lie to you), and they don't like them finding out about this fact, my friend was once denied jury duty because he knew of this fact. *Quote:* Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in 1969: If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic and passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision. Basically Jurors can decide what they feel is right, they can't unmake the law, but they can decide in that case that the law for whatever reason as stated is not fair to the defendant. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 24 June 2009 0:42
emugamer (Senior Member) 24 June 2009 11:47
*Quote:* *Quote:* Jurors don't make the laws. Also I like to note that while jurors don't make the laws it is possible for them to judge the creedance of the law if they feel it is unjust they can rule againest the plaintiff just on that fact alone if you don't believe me you can look it up at: http://fija.org/ If you ever get selected for jury duty and want to serve on that trial do not mention any knowledge of that website or association: Two quotes to better ascertain the fact. *Quote:* In a still-standing decision (Sparf and Hansen v. US, 1895), the Supreme Court ruled that judges don't have to let jurors know their full powers. Basically Judges and DAs can lie to a juror about their powers (similar to how a cop can lie to you), and they don't like them finding out about this fact, my friend was once denied jury duty because he knew of this fact. *Quote:* Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously held in 1969: If the jury feels that the law under which the defendant is accused is unjust, or that exigent circumstances justified the actions of the accused, or for any reason which appeals to their logic and passion, the jury has the power to acquit, and the courts must abide that decision. Basically Jurors can decide what they feel is right, they can't unmake the law, but they can decide in that case that the law for whatever reason as stated is not fair to the defendant. Then I guess this trial had a panel of retards. [ + quote]
andypints (Newbie) 24 June 2009 15:59
This pretty much sums up the kind of society we�re living in.. [ + quote]
Interestx (Junior Member) 24 June 2009 17:30
Yeah, I bet they're shocked alright. Shocked that the absurdity of this latest bout of gross insanity & stupidity will be laid bare and on view worldwide. Even the most moronic can see just how unjust this lunacy now is. Hopefully their vicious greed just scored a mighty 'own-goal' and they just f*cked themselves Royally. [ + quote]
john_jaxs (Junior Member) 24 June 2009 23:44
*Quote:* Then I guess this trial had a panel of retards. This trial (like most trials) had jurors who are told that they can only do this or have to do that, when they don't. Most people listen to authority figures even if they know that the authority figure is wrong (which in most cases the juries don't know that the authority figure is wrong). The only thing I hope is that somehow she gets it reduced or don't have to pay it, and that this judgement will open the eyes of the artists that support the RIAA to turn againest them. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 25 June 2009 0:34
actech (Member) 25 June 2009 7:11
Most jurors are either "professional jurors" or retired people as the rest of us can not afford to be tied up in a trial for days that pays $15.00 a day (illinois). Most employers do not pay juror pay anymore so you are better off going before a judge, than grandma Ethel who is doing this instead of watching Regis. [ + quote]
john_jaxs (Junior Member) 25 June 2009 11:09
*Quote:* so you are better off going before a judge, than grandma Ethel That is definitely opened for debate as a judge is more likely to follow the strict letter of the law then a jury is, plus your more likely to find a more sympathetic person among a group of 12 then 1. In the end it is a crap shoot you never know which one will be more open minded or sympathetic to you. Circumstances of your case will also affect your decision on this matter and you also never know what prejudices or biases a person might hold for whatever reason. [ + quote]
johnny121 (Newbie) 26 June 2009 7:16
*Quote:* *Originally posted by gnovak1:* Jurors don't make the laws. They are instructed to follow them. The less the jury knows about file sharing the better - to remain impartial and so that the letter of the law is followed. And THEREIN lies this country's REAL problem. We're bending over BACKWARDS to follow the 'letter' of the law- when we should be seeking to satisfy the SPIRIT of the law. That's precisely WHY we have jurors in the first place! Hell, a computer could spit out 'letter of the law' punishment. [ + quote]
Mez (Senior Member) 26 June 2009 8:01
Great post andypints! How can I add anything meaningful to that? [ + quote]
Tarsellis (Newbie) 26 June 2009 10:48
You guys have apparently never heard of Dr Phil. He didn't get famous because of his hokey "psychological talents for helping people". He got famous because he wrote the book on jury selection, and the questions to ask juries in order to get a guaranteed verdict. Sorry, but the general populace is probably half an IQ point above being legally retarded any more. Nobody thinks or looks into the truth for themselves, instead just ingesting whole the crap our media mafia and "mainstream media" sell us. Our school system has taught us specifically not to think, but merely regurgitate the answers the authority figure expects. In short, unless one of us who visits this forum and occasionally formulates his own thought actually makes it through jury selection (designed to keep us out), they very correct, and in fact required duty of the juror to act for justice, as opposed to laws made by activist judges and purchased congressmen, then the jury will never follow through on this principle. And one instance of success will never offset the dozens or hundreds of mafia victories. Welcome to fascist America. Next stop, Marxist communism. [ + quote]
rockabout (Inactive) 2 August 2009 0:36
if you put a stick of gum in you pocket at a store,they will put you in jail in this country(U S A) nabster should have been the wake up call to the download & swap thing. maybe people think music and its creators are different. i wouldnt want to crash and burn sombody for enjoying and shareing something i created to enjoy and share but i would burn your ass for selling my stuff and not paying me for my work. fair right? what about you? say you pay your rent with your art. i sell your art and keep the money what do you think fair right? its only a song or a painting or what only what? [ + quote]
rockabout (Inactive) 2 August 2009 1:06
copyright means what it says right to make copies maybe some people think the digital revolution or computers changes anything but it does not. all mediums and devices to copy are included. if you have an idea and right it down its yours make all the copies you want. but unless you have permission in writing dont copy other peoples work you do not have the right sombody show me where im an asshole for protecting my ideas and my income from thieves and i dont mean some childish jibberish like because you listen and like or see and want but have nothing to give i mean a real arguement for giving your art away. lets see your rich and dont need the money you have no problem watching others benefit other than yourself from what you work for just come up with something real that you have a stake in. [ + quote]
Tarsellis (Newbie) 3 August 2009 12:07
*Originally posted by rockabout:* copyright means what it says right to make copies maybe some people think the digital revolution or computers changes anything but it does not. all mediums and devices to copy are included. if you have an idea and right it down its yours make all the copies you want. but unless you have permission in writing dont copy other peoples work you do not have the right sombody show me where im an asshole for protecting my ideas and my income from thieves and i dont mean some childish jibberish like because you listen and like or see and want but have nothing to give i mean a real arguement for giving your art away. lets see your rich and dont need the money you have no problem watching others benefit other than yourself from what you work for just come up with something real that you have a stake in. Apparently this media mafia troll has never heard of Fair Use. Sorry, but it IS legal for us to use purchased content in any non-commercial way we want. We MAY copy our music for backups, use on other media, and even making mixed tapes to give to others. I guess you didn't notice that $ony already lost this argument twice in the 80s, both on VHS tapes and on audio cassette tapes. As for the paying rent argument, that's just asinine. It's the tired old excuse the media mafia wants you to believe and feel sorry about so they don't have to come into the 21st century and update their business and distribution models. "Artists" (VERY loose term, have you seen most of the crap that's come out lately, often done completely by a studio mixer, voice enhancements and voice overs?!) don't get any money to speak of from album sales. In fact, unless you sell over ~250-500 thousand, you lose money because of "licensing, marketing, development, etc "fees and loans". Merchandising is about the only place they make money. The truth is it's all about maintaining a monopoly and distribution control. The plain simple fact is this brilliant capitalist economy has been largely regulated and dominated by the government for the benefit of a few giant corporations and individuals so that the super class has nothing to fear from low, middle, and upper class. Anybody who knows what cyberpunk is (game or idea), will know exactly what the western superclass intends, and a very possible future for us, assuming we survive the coming clash with the east. Our rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No guarantee of equal results, no right to riches and power because you think you deserve it, and no right to enslave and destroy those with less power because you think they interfere with your ability to rape others. [ + quote]