Minnesota woman who owes RIAA $220,000 calls sum 'ridiculous'
Jammie Thomas, the woman who was ordered by a federal jury on Thursday to pay $220,000 to six music labels, said on Friday that U.S. copyright laws are unjust and that the cost of proving her innocence was nearly impossible for someone in her financial situation.
Jammie Thomas
"It says in the Constitution that there should be no undue fines," Thomas said in an interview with CNET News.com. "I was just fined (9,000 percent more) than the value of these songs."
The RIAA sued Thomas for copyright infringement and unlike the vast majority of people sued by the group, Thomas chose not to settle her case for what is typically a few thousand dollars. Instead, she decided to defend herself in court. She strongly denies sharing music files.
But a 12-person jury in Duluth, Minnesota found in favor of the RIAA. They ordered Thomas to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs she was accused of sharing.
"I was basically forced into a situation where I had to prove a negative," Thomas said. "How do you prove that your IP address was spoofed or hacked. If I could afford an FBI analyst I'm sure it could have been proven. But I don't have the money."
Thomas, the mother of two sons, ages 11 and 13, said she is still deciding whether to file an appeal. Fred von Lohmann, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, an advocacy group for Internet users, has said that he has been approached by attorneys who wish to help Thomas should she decide to appeal.
"I haven't made up my mind," Thomas said. "If I appeal this case, I would still have no protection against this verdict, and would still be obligated to pay off the judgment. It's kind of a tough decision to make."
On her MySpace blog, Thomas said she was reluctant to accept the many offers of financial help she had received to pay off what she called "this ridiculous bill."
"I have not held my hand out," Thomas said in her interview. "At best I've asked for information or advice. I have asked attorneys who are willing to help pro bono but it didn't feel right to me to ask (people) to donate to my cause."
Still, in her MySpace note, Thomas listed her attorney's Minneapolis address for anyone who insists on helping.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 
The bar issue is an entirely different issue. Don't confuse the two.
Maybe now peoples will wake up and stop buying and music from the RIAA until they onwer(s) are jailed for life andd all participating label are fined a couple of billions each for paticipation in a criminal gang (IN THE 30's it was celled EXTERTION. STEALING money from your own consumers is not a business model. But it seem that is does not stop the most dangerous openly criminal cartel in the world: The RIAA.
I stopped long ago buying any product from the RIAA/MPAA and cause them as much dammage as i can. They need to be stop at all cost!
Far too many people share music files and think lightly of it. People seem to have decided there is nothing wrong with it, forgetting that it is someone else's intellectual property. There is something wrong with it, it is illegal, and although the $220,000 fine is huge, she had a choice to settle, and had a choice before that to not share files.
People are still sharing files and so this is going to continue until it becomes punitive financially and people realize they have to stop.
RIAA if you are listening, you have won your case, now it would be a good idea to both go to the court and settle for $5000 or $10000. The point has been made.
Best of luck to Jammie!!
.
http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/05/download-my-music-for-free-pitch-black-poop/
http://godkillzyou.wordpress.com/2007/10/06/more-on-free-music-for-the-critics/
filesharing, BUT:
What if an artist is unable to tour for some reason? Maybe they
are disabled? What if the artist has kids and simply cannot tour
10 months a year? Have they not provided you with something
of value by giving you music that you listen to and enjoy? Under
your system, if an artist does not tour, they will be paid nothing.
If an artist writes a beautiful song that changes the lives of
thousands or millions of people. Shouldn't they be paid for that?
When you buy recorded music, you are not buying a "CD," nor
are you buying "1's and 0's." You are compensating someone for
the time and effort that they put into writing and recording
music. There is nothing wrong with this.
If you believe that paying for recorded music is wrong, consider
this: Books are now being distributed in digital format. Should
authors not be paid for digital copies of their books? Should
they be expected to go on book reading tours? Under your
system, many people could not afford to continue writing books.
If you want to give your music away, fine. But, please do not
condemn and demean other musicians who struggling to make a
living and do not agree that their recorded music is worthless.
I think this is a more sensible model:
http://www.eff.org/share/
$5/month for unlimited DRM-free music. Artists get paid and
the people get music cheap. If only the RIAA would agree.
as seen here:
http://www.usbwifi.orcon.net.nz/
Set the thing up on a window sill facing a large number of
apartments and I immediately saw dozens of wireless networks
in the neighborhood. I had no problem logging onto a half
dozen of them which contained absolutely no security or
passwords of any kind. I was also amazed at just how many
computers on said networks I was able to freely inspect the
contents of. I had full control of the network and internet to do
as I pleased, yes, file sharing programs worked flawlessly.
I would be real interested in knowing if Jammie Thomas was
using a wireless network in her home. I found it childs play to
log onto an unsecured wireless network even without having any
hacker knowledge and from what I've read many secured
networks aren't as secure as you think they are..
- Stealing without consequence is "ridiculous"
- by George Riddick October 8, 2007 2:24 PM PDT
- What a Strategic Blunder!
- Reply to this comment
-
(18 Comments)You know, I have never agreed with the folks at the Electronic Freedom Foundation, or other groups who seem dedicated to changing the long standing laws of copyright protection in this country. But I have noted one thing.
Their allies seem to include some of the brightest young minds in this country. From the law professors and students at Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, Duke, and others ... to the lawyers at some of the most prestigious IP firms in the land ... to the engineers and scientists at some of our leading technology companies in this country ... the intellectual brainpower in this self-described "new wave" group has been impressive.
How this group could allow a strategic blunder like what we've just seen come out of Duluth is beyond me. Why these organizations didn't get involved, study the case thoroughly, and encourage Ms. Thomas, and her obviously inexperienced attorney, to surrender is truly phenomenal.
This is not the individual, the attorney, the forum, or the time I would want a precedent such as this established. What a strategic blunder!
Maybe these people are not nearly as smart as I gave them credit for. Apparently, they all sat back and naively thought (make that "wished") that Ms. Thomas would somehow end the RIAA onslaught forever.
Don't get me wrong. I applaud the decisions made by both the judge and jury in this precedent setting case. The anti-copyright crowd will suffer the consequences of this loss big time. Our economy will be strengthened. And these decisions will do more to help curtail widespread Internet Piracy than all the politicians, copyright industry executives, and lobbyists in this entire country put together.
I thought good lawyers advised their clients of the downside of their attempts to "change the law of the land" and could be sanctioned if they chose to pursue only "the big payday" or their personal "15 minutes of fame" instead. Read the copyright laws. Displaying and downloading copyright-protected works owned by others without their permission is illegal. It has both civil and criminal consequences. And, as in the case of Ms. Thomas in Duluth, they can be severe. She will have to pay back nearly $500,000 by having her pay check garnished for the rest of her life.
But she doesn't get any sympathy from me. If she had taken this many copyrighted songs out of Best Buy or Wal-Mart, she'd be in jail right now. And owe back a like amount of money as well. None of us - right or left - want to live in a lawless society. It's interesting to debate legal principles and consequences, but fearing to go outside for a cup of coffee or a loaf of bread is not something we have had any experience with in this country at all. Thank goodness!
And if you don't think organized white collar crime families are behind much of this Internet piracy epidemic, you'd better think again.
COUNTERPOINT:
Here is the one issue I have discussed with my 20-year-old son and I do have "conflicts" with. Google infringes more legitimate copyrights every single day than Ms. Thomas could do in a lifetime. Do we now have a country that has completely different standards for the billionaires than we do for the normal working folks? If so, I sure hope this is short-lived as well. I think I'd rather give up the coffee and the bread than have to worry about Google stealing from me every single day.
What's your opinion?
George P. Riddick, III
Chairman/CEO
Imageline, Inc.
griddick@imageline2.com