AfterDawn: Tech news

Jammie Thomas loses case to RIAA

Written by Andre Yoskowitz (Google+) @ 18 Jun 2009 21:00 User comments (57)

Jammie Thomas loses case to RIAA Last September, Minnesota woman Jammie Thomas was convicted of sharing 24 unauthorized tracks via P2P and was told to pay the RIAA $220,000 in damages. Thomas was granted a retrial however, which has gone to verdict today.
Thomas was found to have "committed willful violation" of the copyrights on the 24 songs and the jury has this time awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million USD, equivalent to $80,000 for each song.

The defendant had been given a retrial because a judge in the original case admitted to making an error in jury instructions.

The new outcome is substantially worse for Thomas, as the penalty now stands at $1.92 million compared to the original $220,000 fine.

Previous Next  

57 user comments

118.6.2009 21:18

I'm not a lawyer but how can the RIAA get away with such large damages? The songs are worth $0.99/each and even with "special" damages I would think the maximum is 2-3 times that price.

$80,000 per song means they were awarded an equivalent of 80,000 times the original damages per song. I would love for someone to give me a legitimate reason for damages that high.

Those damages have got to be unconstitutional because 80,000 times damages is just ridiculous, that would be like someone stealing a pack of gum and being forced to pay the store $80,000 if they got caught.

Peace

218.6.2009 21:21

Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?

318.6.2009 21:26

Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Correct, the word "downloading" has been replaced with "sharing" in the article now, thanks.

418.6.2009 21:35

wow this is sad poor jamie. I am ashamed to live in country where this can happen this is ridiculous

518.6.2009 21:39

serves her right that filthy music sharer. Lucky we have the riaa or people like her might be living in our communities, or even teaching our children.

618.6.2009 21:57

I hope the judgement against her is overturned on appeal.

She is gonna appeal, isn't she?

718.6.2009 23:04

Originally posted by korgoth3:
serves her right that filthy music sharer. Lucky we have the riaa or people like her might be living in our communities, or even teaching our children.

This is a Troll, I have seen many trolls in my time and this is one.

818.6.2009 23:07

Let this be a lesson...... Get off those noob p2p programs like kazaa and run peer guardian.

918.6.2009 23:08

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
I'm not a lawyer but how can the RIAA get away with such large damages? The songs are worth $0.99/each and even with "special" damages I would think the maximum is 2-3 times that price.

$80,000 per song means they were awarded an equivalent of 80,000 times the original damages per song. I would love for someone to give me a legitimate reason for damages that high.

Those damages have got to be unconstitutional because 80,000 times damages is just ridiculous, that would be like someone stealing a pack of gum and being forced to pay the store $80,000 if they got caught.

Peace
Well said. It is absolutely scandalous. It is bloddy SPECIAL alright. I am stunned!!!

Edit: I forgot to ask. Does this include the court costs?
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 18 Jun 2009 @ 23:11

1018.6.2009 23:16

Originally posted by Burnasty:
Let this be a lesson...... Get off those noob p2p programs like kazaa and run peer guardian.
Peerguardian is as much use as a concrete parachute, chocolate teapot or a fart in a space suit.

1118.6.2009 23:49

I agree this is totally unreasonable (not that the original amount was reasonable). At such ridiculous rates, I could sue someone for putting a ding in my bumper and live off the interest from the money I got. It's absolutely appalling that they can receive such a blatently unjust amount of money, and it makes it plain that the legal system is corrupt. (I would not call it a justice system.)

1219.6.2009 0:12

I bet the artist of the songs she was "sharing" will not see a dime of this money.

1319.6.2009 0:22

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
I'm not a lawyer but how can the RIAA get away with such large damages? The songs are worth $0.99/each and even with "special" damages I would think the maximum is 2-3 times that price.

$80,000 per song means they were awarded an equivalent of 80,000 times the original damages per song. I would love for someone to give me a legitimate reason for damages that high.

Those damages have got to be unconstitutional because 80,000 times damages is just ridiculous, that would be like someone stealing a pack of gum and being forced to pay the store $80,000 if they got caught.

Peace
And I forgot to add it in the original article, but the jury had the right to fine her $150,000 for every song, so they gave her "a break" only fining 80k per song.

1419.6.2009 2:25

I have a feeling the jury was paid on this one

1519.6.2009 2:50

While Jammie may, I restate MAY be guilty, this award is definitely guilty of being ridiculous. It is a sickening thing the way the court systems work now. If you have money then you can get whatever justice you want. I could list examples but why do this as everyone has seen or heard of them. As for the statement that she could still settle well it just shows how truly hypocritical these "people" and their organization have been all along.

1619.6.2009 3:07

Originally posted by DVDBack23:
And I forgot to add it in the original article, but the jury had the right to fine her $150,000 for every song, so they gave her "a break" only fining 80k per song.
Thanks DVDBack23 for pointing that out. I looked it up and sure enough in the U.S. copyright law (See here for more.) Section § 504 says:

Quote:
In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
If someone can prove that they were not aware the sharing was occurring the minimum "award" is $200. I assume this means that the maximum is still the $150,000.

Quote:
In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200.
This law is extremely out-dated and needs to be abolished or at least a new one needs to be put into place. It's most recent revision was 10 years ago, but then again I've read of court cases being settled because of a law from the 1940's that wasn't ever updated.

Peace

1719.6.2009 3:40

Originally posted by stuntman_:
I have a feeling the jury was paid on this one

With unlimeted dowloads at itunes probly.

1819.6.2009 5:14

Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
I'm not a lawyer but how can the RIAA get away with such large damages? The songs are worth $0.99/each and even with "special" damages I would think the maximum is 2-3 times that price.

$80,000 per song means they were awarded an equivalent of 80,000 times the original damages per song. I would love for someone to give me a legitimate reason for damages that high.

Those damages have got to be unconstitutional because 80,000 times damages is just ridiculous, that would be like someone stealing a pack of gum and being forced to pay the store $80,000 if they got caught.

Peace
Hmm, how about just for the heck of it, let's try and figure out how much data 24 songs uploaded 80k times would be.

Ok, how long is the average song, 5 minutes? And the normal bitrate is 128kilobits per second, which is (128/8)=16 kilobytes per second. 5 minutes is 300 seconds, so the average song is (300)(16)= 4800Kb.

Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.

Now 24 songs at 366.2 Gb of data each comes out to 8,788.8 Gb of data or 8.58 Terabytes!!!

Time to look at the time it would have taken her to upload that much data. What's the average upload speed, 512Kbps? That's 64 k/s.

8.58 Tb = 8,785.92 Gb = 8,996,782.08 Mb = 9,212,704,849.92 Kb.

(9,212,704,849.92 Kb) / (64 Kb/s) = 143,948,513.28 seconds = 2,399,141.888 minutes = 39,985.698 hours = 1666 days = 4.56 years of solid constant uninterrupted uploading of these shitty 24 mp3's.

1919.6.2009 6:16

This is just terrible...$80,000 per song?

...And if you can prove that you did not know about it (like if you were hacked or you have spyware), then you still have to pay at least $200 per track!

Just think, you back up your 500 cds to your computer so that you can put them onto your ipod whenever you want. Someone drops a trojan or something on your box and starts sharing them...the miniumum fine to you would be about $1,200,000. I assume that the hacker would not be charged, as it would make convicting the victim more difficult.

...That's like giving someone life in prison for cocain distribution just because a smuggler's airplane crashed on their property.

The lesson is clear: if you are ever charged with piracy, RUN!!! Even if you have solid proof of your innocence, run anyway...you can't beat the charge when the judge works for RIAA.

2019.6.2009 6:17

Quote:
Originally posted by korgoth3:
serves her right that filthy music sharer. Lucky we have the riaa or people like her might be living in our communities, or even teaching our children.

This is a Troll, I have seen many trolls in my time and this is one.
you might have just figured out what "troll" means on the internet, but you have yet to figure out what sarcasm is.

2119.6.2009 6:19

only in America

2219.6.2009 8:05

I seriously doubt she will end up paying that much. Such huge awards have been overturned before for being unconstitutional. There is no way a single person who isn't filthy rich would be able to pay such a sum.

2319.6.2009 8:58

I read where she was offered a settlement of $3,500 and turned it down. Maybe she should've taken it. When it comes to those money hungry RIAA bastards, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. It's hard to beat those guys especially with these dumb laws.

Plus i cant see where downloading only 24 songs killed the industry so much as to warrent this rediculous amount. What about the millions of people now downloading illegal music every day??

2419.6.2009 9:21
duke8888
Inactive

I am not surprised about the outcome of this case. I wish she would have settled with them instead of going to Federal Court but she was advised very badly I can say. Back in 1993 I was involved with setting this precedent in a federal case

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/Playboy_v_Frena.html

They went after me to get the law on the books because at the tome Compuserve had millions of pics as well as AOL and they didn't want to spend millions to fight this case so they went after the little guy without deep pockets. They won and Compuserve and AOL immediately took all of their pics offline. I was sued for over $6 million dollars but we came to a much lesser amount which was paid by my insurance company but I am unable to tell you the amount because of the disclosure I signed. So with this new copyright infrigement law it has been used many times over as they even sued their own employees who placed web sites up with their own pics owned by the company. My attorney called me yesterday and told me about this lady and what happen and we weren't surprise with the outcome.

He said she should have taken the 1st offer but she refused it so now she has to face the real truth of the matter and its so sad.

2519.6.2009 9:26
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by Ryoohki:
I seriously doubt she will end up paying that much. Such huge awards have been overturned before for being unconstitutional. There is no way a single person who isn't filthy rich would be able to pay such a sum.
Wrong she can try to overturn it but as a previous post she could have been charged $150k per song but they gave her a break $80 per song. In my case I was lucky I settled after the verdict for a much lesser price but I have a feeling the RIAA will not be so generous.

2619.6.2009 9:27

Originally posted by gnovak1:
I read where she was offered a settlement of $3,500 and turned it down. Maybe she should've taken it. When it comes to those money hungry RIAA bastards, sometimes you have to bite the bullet. It's hard to beat those guys especially with these dumb laws.

Plus i cant see where downloading only 24 songs killed the industry so much as to warrent this rediculous amount. What about the millions of people now downloading illegal music every day??
There are alot of patterns the RIAA follow. The $3500 is their initial offer, basically to scare college kids out of their lunch money. As for this ridiculous amount, blame the legal system for allowing fines and charges meant for BUSINESSES to be applied to individual PEOPLE. These laws were made to keep other artists and record companies from selling their competitions material. But when applied to a person, with limited money and little to no legal resources it tends to be a very one sided fight. Being that the law was meant to punish those making profit, I can't see how any of these lawsuits are even remotely relevant to the law.

2719.6.2009 9:39
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.

2819.6.2009 10:39

What kind of "break" did she get? If they charged her the $150,000 per song istead of the "cut rate" $80,000 per song, she'll never be able to repay either. They could have fined her 50 trillion and it's all the same.

2919.6.2009 10:42

Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.

3019.6.2009 10:46
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!

3119.6.2009 11:09

Quote:
Originally posted by korgoth3:
serves her right that filthy music sharer. Lucky we have the riaa or people like her might be living in our communities, or even teaching our children.

This is a Troll, I have seen many trolls in my time and this is one.
Woooshh... right over your head

3219.6.2009 13:29

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!
I have no doubt this will go to appeal the story for those that can't read is charges for sharing ie uploading not downloading at, the rough price of 79 cents per track she would have had to upload each track 10000 times, no way this is bollocks. She will never end up paying that money!!!

3319.6.2009 14:00

Can corporations be sued for willful arrogance? I guess if you have a few mil to toss at a lawsuit.

The only thing corporate should have an absolute iron tight grip on is profit, if it aint making profit there's little they can do, copy right was never about absolute distribution backed by infinite copy right.

Any copy right to last more than 10 years only damages society...

3419.6.2009 14:13
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by simonf444:
Both this AfterDawn story and the one on CNN use the term 'download' rather than upload or share - surely this isn't right? Wasn't she being charged with distribution of copyrighted content rather than just obtaining it?
Its a shame as cases like this go before a federal judge who has no high tech knowledge and it was the same in my case as they said I was charging customers access to the copyrighted files which was wrong, only my customers got free access and non customers if they wanted to use my bbs had to pay a fee of $25 and I only had 10 non customers who paid. My judge couldn't tell the difference between a hard drive or a floppy drive and he was the one making the final outcome of my case where is the justice in that.
The only way she will not have to pay that amount is to work out an agreement with RIAA I have been there and done it. Otherwise its all over.

Well its a shame as she will never be able to have a checking/savings account, a home or car as they will snatch it all plus they will get her tax refunds. She had the option a while back to settle for $3k and she refused she was given poor advice now her life is in the crapper!
I have no doubt this will go to appeal the story for those that can't read is charges for sharing ie uploading not downloading at, the rough price of 79 cents per track she would have had to upload each track 10000 times, no way this is bollocks. She will never end up paying that money!!!

3519.6.2009 14:16

This whole thing was nothing more than a major joke from day one of the second trial. First the judge refused to allow the fact that the RIAA's disgraced PI firm, MediaSentry, illegally acquired the information, as well as the fact that they were not licensed as Private Investigators in the state of Minnesota. He got around that one by saying it (the investigation) was conducted from outside the state therefore the wiretapping wasn't illegal.

He then disallowed her expert witness from testifying to what was done by MediaSentry, instead telling him to focus on certain parts of his testimony and nothing more. After doing this he allowed all the so called "evidence" collected by MediaSentry, which had been thrown out by every other court it was tried to be introduced in, and even allowed their so called expert, Dr. Jacobson, who's testimony was shown to be faulty and erroneous to add another item to his testimony, that being the fact that he had discovered a date sticker on her new hard drive, that was dated [b]after[b] she said she put a new one in due to the old one being dead. They even called a Geek Squad Technician from Best Buy, who had installed the new drive and the judge allowed this. Instead of tossing out the whole damn thing as improper. When Jammie called Dr. Jacobson a fraud, she was rebuked for impinging the "reputation of an upstanding scientist"!!

The guy is a phony, he, himself, admitted he couldn't tell what was on the hard drive after he examined it.
No matter what Thomas said she was going to be railroaded by this group of crooks anyway as they had her so mixed up that she didn't know what she was saying.

The RIAA is touting that this is a real victory for copy right owners everywhere, and that too is a load of bullshit. The only ones making any money here are the RIAA schills.

3619.6.2009 14:21

$80,000 per song? Even at $1 per song, I highly doubt the song was shared by Jaimie to 79,999 people...

3719.6.2009 14:22

Who was the judge and what does his bank account look like first this is outrageous and then we have the nice people from that state that are considered our peers anyone look on their computers? well there should be a list of their names and their ip providers should be forced to look at their bandwidth usage... the fact is if its available from i tunes for .99 cents then that's the most they should be able to get for the repayment think of how long this person will have to work to repay this ... can you file bankruptcy after a fine like this.. or is it off to deters prison? and when will some judge rule in favor of the cost again if its sold for .99 cents then an established price for the music is set bye the recording industry....

3819.6.2009 14:25

There is no crime here and frankly never can be as long as its not for profit, the civil penaliteis need a hard cap unless it can be proven that profit was made directly off the items in question.

We need a simple standardized fine, 10 cent per item plus 50$ or a simple 250$ fine per court case and limit lawyer fees to about 100$ onto of it.

This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Jun 2009 @ 14:37

3919.6.2009 14:32

I feel like throwing up. To think that a jury could actually find this as just is crazy.

4019.6.2009 14:43

If it were me charged with this fine, I wouldn't pay a dime. I would however give up my life and go on a killing spree and bring down those responsible for this conviction. Destroy me unfairly....and i'll destroy YOU.

Time to fight the fight and do what it takes.

4119.6.2009 14:50

Heh...yeah...cruel and unusual punishment. 24 songs = life in debt to a handful of record companies. It's also kind of sad that people feel like she should have just took it up the rear instead of standing up for herself. Maybe it was the "safest" and "easiest" path to take, but that doesn't make it the right path.

Seriously...debtor slaves in ancient Greece were treated more humanely than this. You only had to work 5 years max to someone you owed money to. This kind of award would take many lifetimes to pay for the average person.

Her first recourse would be to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidate. With that kind of award Chapter 13 isn't even worth it.

Honestly, if I was her I would find a way to move out of the US and live a low key life in another country...and never pay a cent to those fvckers.

4219.6.2009 14:55

This disgusts me immensely...

4319.6.2009 15:00
duke8888
Inactive

Originally posted by IguanaC64:
Heh...yeah...cruel and unusual punishment. 24 songs = life in debt to a handful of record companies. It's also kind of sad that people feel like she should have just took it up the rear instead of standing up for herself. Maybe it was the "safest" and "easiest" path to take, but that doesn't make it the right path.

Seriously...debtor slaves in ancient Greece were treated more humanely than this. You only had to work 5 years max to someone you owed money to. This kind of award would take many lifetimes to pay for the average person.

Her first recourse would be to file Chapter 7 bankruptcy and liquidate. With that kind of award Chapter 13 isn't even worth it.

Honestly, if I was her I would find a way to move out of the US and live a low key life in another country...and never pay a cent to those fvckers.
Federal judgments can not be dismissed under bankruptcy laws if I am not mistaken and for the amount they want chapter 13 would be well worth it if allowed under federal law.

4419.6.2009 15:02
Thonor
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.
Actually, it makes sense. If you read the whole post - 1 song download = $1 on iTunes. So $80,000 damages = 80,000 lost song downloads.

I think the calculations are fine. It just goes to show that the damages here are insane.

She'll appeal.

4519.6.2009 15:17
duke8888
Inactive

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop_Smith:
Alright, now that average song size 80,000 times is (80,000)(4,800)= 384,000,000 Kb or 375,000 Mb or 366.2 Gb of data transfered.
[/b]
Why are you multiplying the song size by 80,000? She got fined $80,000 PER SONG but she didn't upload each song 80,000 times. Each one could have only been uploaded ONCE. Good try at math my friend, but you made a basic mistake.
Actually, it makes sense. If you read the whole post - 1 song download = $1 on iTunes. So $80,000 damages = 80,000 lost song downloads.



I think the calculations are fine. It just goes to show that the damages here are insane.

She'll appeal.

I agree the amount is insane, but in my case we appealed the 6 million judgment and were denied so the same would happen to her.
I was lucky that Playboy asked for a lesser amount via my attorney after the appeal we settled for the lesser amount I am not sure if RIAA would be that kind.

Federal cases are totally different than a state civil law suite, the feds once the juror hands down the verdict it is usually in stone unless an attorney screwed up. Fed case are so much more dangerous and hard to defend.
This message has been edited since its posting. Latest edit was made on 19 Jun 2009 @ 15:19

4619.6.2009 15:22
llongtheD
Inactive

I smell a Jammie Thomas bankruptcy filing. You can't get blood from a turnip. It is a shame that our legal system is so corrupt, this judge ought to be taken out and buried in a hole somewhere.

4719.6.2009 17:02

o___o wtffff. Not my normal choice of words, however nothing could be more appropriate.

4819.6.2009 17:39

I think we should all have nasty virus's at hand when your ordered to give up your pc for inspection. That way, no-one will ever find anything. To hell with these data destroyer progs, just virus it up with the stroke of a hot-key.
Now apart from the avid linux user, who said virus's are a bad thing:P

But seriously I think the HDD carry-on has had a major part to play in this farce. If she had run the guttman(I think thats what its called)wipe, then it would have been just as obvious as a HDD swap. But a virus infection would have sealed the deal for her I think, and she would have walked.

4919.6.2009 17:57

Better than that is it not illegal in the states as it is here in the UK to break an encryption on someone's HDD??? if the wiretap was illeagl surely taht makes it a felonym regardless of what state she was tried in??? As I'm in no way a US citizen or legal expert I'm asking these questions before people start....

5020.6.2009 16:39

Originally posted by joe777:
I think we should all have nasty virus's at hand when your ordered to give up your pc for inspection. That way, no-one will ever find anything.
Who needs viruses when you can use thermite?

http://hackaday.com/2008/09/16/how-to-th...ic-destruction/

5121.6.2009 16:27

Absurd legal awards will not help the RIAA to sustain their members’ stranglehold on distribution. They might as well be selling typewriters. Their desperate action against Thomas-Rasset, like those of a cornered (paper) tiger, was a tacit acknowledgement of their future. Their “mission” to promote their member’s “creative and financial vitality” is a red herring. Their real mission is to protect the financial interests of distributors. Anybody want to buy a typewriter? And where is it written that a recording artist should make 100 times that of a teacher? Artistic creativity will survive the demise of RIAA. To the RIAA, if you are looking for people who share music files I stand up and ask other to stand up and say: “I am Spartigus.”

5221.6.2009 18:27

This lady can not catch a break. It just got worse for her. The RIAA and MPAA are worse than the IRS and the ATO.

5323.6.2009 14:39

Well...plan B then. Time to leave the US (if possible) so that she can somehow carry on with her life after being caught sharing 24 songs.

5426.6.2009 4:06

Terrible news. I hope the RIAA is having fun manipulating judges and taking advantage of their disgustingly low knowledge of technology to make file sharing seem bigger than it actually is. This organization disgusts me....seriously that's the type of thing that ends lives...for what? Sharing music? C'mon what kind of skewed sense of justice are these guys working with here? You would think ONE, at least one of their prosecutors would go "hey aren't we going a little bit too hard here?" I mean if it was a few thousand that would be fine but jesus christ...

5526.6.2009 7:47

So much for the "justice system". The orignal appeal slowed their attackes on the public down to a hault. Now they might start attacking the public with a vengance. Not that it will save their stupid, worthless asses. They will never treat the public fairly. The public has responded in turn. Oh there are those that enjoy being raped but most will go out of their way not to put money into the hands of the RIAA.

5626.6.2009 19:18

so the jury has awarded the RIAA and the media companies $1.92 million. where's this award coming from? the jury must be as completely out of it as the RIAA if the RIAA are thinking they're actually going to recieve their award. if it was an award for stupidity then the RIAA could consider it a winning streak I suppose.

574.7.2009 0:38

My protest over the RIAA Gestapo tactics:

I will no longer buy any CD's or purchase any music.
I have 100's of CD's all legally purchased. No more. I'll just go listen to the guy at the local bar, listen to inet radio, Pandora, or other sources. Enough already. Frak 'em.

Patents and Copyrights are now totally out of control and perverted and now do more harm than good.

And too bad that Obama has installed one of their henchmen at DOJ. Sad.

Comments have been disabled for this article.

News archive