[Jeremy Charette]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/comments?type=story&id=3690823

"The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her. The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights."



If someone sets up a defense fund for this woman's appeal, I'll contribute to it. This fine is so grossly disproportionate to the offense, it's insane. The RIAA is going to put itself, and the recording industry as we know it, out of business with an image like this. If you can't get your customers to buy your product, might as well sue the money out of them. :roll:

Update: Felix Torres has (as always) posted a great reply to my thoughts. I stand corrected. This appears to be a pretty open and shut case of clear copyright violation. So, sorry lady, you're on your own!

[Jeremy Charette]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/comments?type=story&id=3690823

"The recording industry won a key fight Thursday against illegal music downloading when a federal jury found a Minnesota woman shared copyrighted music online and levied $222,000 in damages against her. The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs online in violation of their copyrights."



If someone sets up a defense fund for this woman's appeal, I'll contribute to it. This fine is so grossly disproportionate to the offense, it's insane. The RIAA is going to put itself, and the recording industry as we know it, out of business with an image like this. If you can't get your customers to buy your product, might as well sue the money out of them. :roll:

Update: Felix Torres has (as always) posted a great reply to my thoughts. I stand corrected. This appears to be a pretty open and shut case of clear copyright violation. So, sorry lady, you're on your own!

[Felix Torres]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Charette

If someone sets up a defense fund for this woman's appeal, I'll contribute to it.

You do realize she was the one who chose to go to trial?
That she was offered the same buck-n-change per song settlement most other pirates have taken?
That her kazaa screen name was the same as her personal email account?
That her computer had an admin password and she was the only user?
They tied the publishing of music on kazaa to her IP address, her account, her hard drive...

This was as open-and-shut a case of actual copyright violation as the RIAA could've dreamed of.
Check this analysis:
http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9791764-38.html

Either file sharing is legal or this lady was guilty.
The law says it isn't legal, ergo...

And if you think $9000+ per song is a bit much, consider that she was found guilty of *willful* violation and that the law provides for as much as $30K per song. The jury was being kind to the stupid.

They caught her with 1700+ songs on her Kazaa expert directory so they could've tried to hit her with millions instead of just making claims over 24 songs.

What I want to know if if the FF and the other "idealists" who encouraged her to fight on such a clearcut case are now going to pick up the tab for her or hang her out to dry.

As the saying goes; "stupidity is its own reward".
Still want to foor her bill?
Cause *I* don't.
This is no eight-year-old with a working mother in the projects like the case in NYC.
This is somebody who could afford to buy the damn music. She chose not to.
Tough luck lady.

[Jeremy Charette]

Wow, I stand corrected.

I don't think file sharing is legal, or should be. I do however think the system is broken when it's so rampant. Something has to change. The industry has to catch up to the technology consumers are using.

[Felix Torres]

Sorry.
Not meaning to shoot you down.
But I do find issue with the so-called "libertarians" of the EFF and the IT industry who encourage this kind of theft.

I rather fancy myself an actual libertarian and the first rule is that my rights and freedoms end where yours begin.
Either everybody's rights are respected or nobody's are.
And that includes blood-sucking music studios.

Might does not make right.
Just because technology allows me to publish somebody else's creations without permission doesn't mean I should be allowed to do do.
Just because I don't like somebody else's pricing or business model does no entitle me to take it without paying for it.

Don't like a law? Get it changed.
But as long as the law is on the books, you are subject to its provisions.
Anything else is anarchy.

And anarchy is not libertarianism.

[Jeremy Charette]

No worries. Didn't take it that way. I just didn't have all the information and made a quick comment. Given what I know now...she's just dumb. And she got caught.

[EscapePod]

Changing gears just slightly, allegedly one of the prosecuting attorneys made the statement in court that ripping your own CDs is (or should be) illegal. It seems this could make every player almost useless.

[Jason Dunn]

Originally Posted by EscapePod

Changing gears just slightly, allegedly one of the prosecuting attorneys made the statement in court that ripping your own CDs is (or should be) illegal. It seems this could make every player almost useless.

Now that's just utterly stupid, although I certainly understand why the RIAA would want to stop that. They want us to buy the CD and ALSO buy the digital version for us on our MP3 players. :roll: