Jammie Thomas to appeal $222,000 RIAA file-sharing suit
By Nilay Patel 
posted October 9th 2007 4:27AM
posted October 9th 2007 4:27AM
[Via TG Daily]
posted October 9th 2007 4:27AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Bitch is guilty and she is a bad liar. She will lose on appeal.
Mitch Bainwol, is that you?
@Paul34
I agree the lobbying and influence that the corporations have upon public policy is disgusting. The DMCA needs to be revised, because it was written by corporate lawyers/entertainment industry and passed into law by a bunch of old men and women who have no idea what the language was really doing to consumers' rights. But lets not forget she isnt squeeky clean here and knew what she was doing. $222,000 is a pretty hefty penalty for 24 songs, but there still needs to be a significant penalty for people that choose to break the law. Lastly, survival of the fitest. A user sharing songs on Kazaa isnt really the smartest thing to be doing.
Personally, I feel that a lot of the music that comes out these days is both repetitive, uninginuitive and not worth a dime in most cases (let alone 99 cents). I think consumers should have the ability and the right to hear all of an artists tracks *before* they purchase an album. When I say 'track', I'm referring to the complete song, not a measly 30 second sample of the chorus. You wouldn't buy a car without taking it for a test-drive, would you?.
Regardless of what the current laws state on the issue of file-sharing, I would echo some of the sentiments mentioned above - leeching and not sharing files is a wiser tactic to acquire music (if your purpose is to listen to it before considering a purchase).
Unfortunately, the RIAA seems to think that investing more time in creating quality music *worth* paying for (rather than suing their audience) is a rather silly idea.
Where were they when people were taping bootleg songs off of the radio through the 90's?
Or sharing albums that they liked with their friends?
Nay, I think that the RIAA is only after one thing, and that is to deepen the pockets that would not be otherwise filled by their underwhelming offerings to the world of music.
I do what everyone else was saying. I am loyal to a lot of bands and I purchase all of their music. The only songs I "illegaly" download are ones I would have never bought in the first place. At least I am giving the band publicity, if I did not download it they would not benefit from me at all.
I think that this is outragous. $222,000 for 24 songs just does not makes sense. Even the $1000 that they offered her in the first place is a lot. Lets face it there are millions of people who download music illegaly. We need to stand up to the big record labels and get these laws changeed.
Actually, most/some of the artists behind the songs that are mentioned in this case have NOTHING to do with the trial against her. According to Mikael Åkerfält, the singer/writer in Opeth, he didn't even know there was a trial going on until a few days ago when he saw his band mentioned in a local Swedish paper. A rather unpleasant surprised according to him. Boycotting bands like Opeth based on that RIAA are asshats is just stupid. The bands have nothing to do with this, they can't do anything about it and they won't see a cent of the money anyway.
Blame RIAA or their labels, not the musicians. Maybe it won't matter to huge bands such as Guns 'n Roses but it sure does for the smaller ones that just barely can make a living from their music as it is.
Don't me wrong. fuck the RIAA and all of that, and this whole thing is a farce.
but saying that she she only had them availible and didn't actually transfer a song is a weak argument.
Its like standing on the corner selling pot and arguing you didn't actually make a sale.
"Its like standing on the corner selling pot and arguing you didn't actually make a sale."
Not exactly. Possession of pot is illegal. Possession of music is legal.
yes.. but she had posession of copyrighted music with "intent" to share. You can get arrested or found guilty for plenty of things if they are able to prove "intent".
Sidenote:
honestly what have we come to now a days "possesion of copyrighted music with intent to share".... this stuff is laughable.. it sounds like some skit comedy.
What's to appeal? She broke the law.
She's appealing the fairness of the law. Try reading up on appeals.
the only fairness question that I see in her case is the minimum and maximum monetary penalty per infraction.
It freaking hilarious that these big ass Corporations already making billions of dollars. Thing like these doesn't make people symphathize with them but against them. So they think picking on someone without a proper income would deterred other with low end income people to think twice before sharing or stealing their music isn't going to happen.
I wonder how many artists, musicians or actors out there are doing the same thing and are getting away with it?
Like the Cranberries would say "Everybody Else Is Doing It, So Why Can't We?" and my point is that don't single out one person. People who's working for the RIAA are probably doing it also so that's why I'm just pissed at the Hypocrisy.
That's why I'm the KING of the WORLD! You can steal my next movies(Avatar and Battle Angel) but it won't be the same experiences. I make you come to the theatres to watch my movies the way that it meant to be.
You can't fight the technology. You Gotta work with them.
That chicks got bigger guns then Arnold Schwarzenegger
She is not to smart there is an option when you sign up for Kazza to either share your library or not to. She chose to share it and now all of this has transpired. $222,000 for 25 songs, WOW, Listen to the 25 songs she got sued for.