Jammie Thomas: 'I'm no puppet' for RIAA foes

One of the side issues of the Jammie Thomas controversy is whether someone may have steered her into taking on the recording industry.

The question came up last week shortly after Thomas was ordered by a federal jury to pay the record industry more than $220,000 for violating copyright law. Why would a 30-year-old mother of two, who makes $36,000 a year, want to go toe-to-toe with the recording industry, asks Chris Castle, an attorney, former music executive and owner of a small record label.

Jammie Thomas

Castle, who routinely appears at conferences to debate the morality and legality of file sharing, is skeptical that Thomas, who said this week she intends to appeal the jury's decision, decided all by herself to confront the music sector. He suspects she is being used by anti-copyright proponents in a public-relations struggle against the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

"The situation makes you wonder why she went through all this," Castle said. "Particularly because she is a person of little means, and knows what the potential downside is. It's a little bit amazing."

Last week, Castle pointed a finger at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for the rights of Internet users, and other notable figures who have spoken out against copyright law. He accused them of trying to turn Thomas into the "Joan of Arc of illegal downloading." He said that such a strategy is unfair because it could lead to Thomas' financial downfall.

After reading Castle's comments, Thomas wanted a chance to reply.

Chris Castle

"My comment to him is that this was all my decision," she said. "From the get go, my attorney has pointed out to me what could happen. We knew (losing the copyright trial) was a possibility. I am no puppet. That he is insinuating that I'm being led around is very insulting to me. I refused to settle with the RIAA because I didn't do anything wrong."

Cindy Cohn, EFF's legal director also denied that anyone associated with that organization tried to influence Thomas. But EFF is also planning to support Thomas' appeal by filing a friend-of-the-court brief, according to a story in Wired.com

Should Thomas lose her appeal, she may not face a $220,000 bill alone. Supporters have begun sending her donations at freejammie.com.

[cidman2001]

Duh...it's about values...

It's no suprise that a lawyer wouldn't get it. It's all about her morals...if she claims she didn't do it, why cop to it at this, or any other juncture?

[marktz]

Either way RIAA loses

Even if they win the case they will lose the PR war and Jammie will become a marter to rally around. If they lose the case a precedent is established for other cases. Either way the RIAA will only be worse off.

[Damned_Liberal]

Duh-bya... It's About Prop'idy

so now when no lawyer will defend your constituional rights we're to blame the defendent? so much for presumption of innocence and jury nullification of unjust laws. google gulag to get what your rights are... copyrighted by Them over U.S.

[arluthier]

Downside to an Appeal?

Ummm I can't see any "downside" other than more legal fees. <br />If she looses, she still has to pay what they already claim she has to pay. And the RIAA still gets a black eye in the public.<br />If she wins, she doesn't have to pay (or pays less) and RIAA gets two black eyes and a bloody nose.<br /><br />Appealing is her right... just like RIAA's says it was in their right to take her to court. RIAA wants their rights, but when their victims exercise rights they suspect an ulterior motive?

[dsondeck]

Puppet idea ok but for RIAA not the other way around

This may so conspiratorial, but the RAII may have used Thomas and wanted her to sue so she would lose. Her case was so thin and easy for the RAII to win that they may have had a hand in it to promote the case of copyright laws to the average Joe. There are some many other stronger cases that could have been used against the RAII for a lawsuit that to use this one to buck the RAII is pretty inane.

[atim]

Backing up Thomas

It's difficult to comment on specifics for this case, but on the surface it appears to be another case of the RIAA making an example out of someone to make it clear to everyone that they mean business. What it does for me is make me realize that the RIAA doesn't really have anyone's interests in mind but their own - and that especially means the artists who actually create the music and the people who want to listen to it.

[fmoolten]

Appeal not a certainty

Jammie Thomas may appeal her fine as she claims, but I don't see that as a certainty. Both she and the RIAA have reasons for avoiding an appeal. The RIAA, after exploiting the initial news value of a large fine, will certainly find more publicity bad for their already sour public relations. Thomas simply stands to lose money. An appeals court is unlikely to overturn the verdict, and if it does, the Supreme Court, based on precedent will likely sustain the original verdict. As it currently stands, the RIAA is probably inclined toward a private arrangement with Thomas that significantly mitigates her financial losses, but that willingness may not extend to future legal fees if she appeals.<br /><br />My personal view as a songwriter is that I hope she does not. I'm not unsympathetic to her, nor do I admire the RIAA, but her dishonesty in this circumstance is not the grounds for a dramatic confrontation between the forces of good and evil. Legally, based on media reports, she was wrong, and morally she was certainly wrong, because illegal filesharing is essentially a form of stealing, in that it deprives individuals who supply a product of the full opportunity to earn a fair price for the product. That includes unloved and selfish huge corporations, and it also includes independent artists such as myself, who earn meager incomes from legitimate sales of CDs and downloads.<br /><br />I think many of us can agree that in an electronic age, the current business model endorsed by the RIAA can't be sustained, and new models are needed. No new model can compete with "free", however, and for these new models to develop, it will be necessary to hope that many individuals will be honest enough to pay for their music, and that attempts will continue to exert pressure to comply on those who aren't.<br /><br />Fred Moolten

[Graylodge]

but "file sharing" ain't "free"...

Anyone who actually knows anything about computers and the internet knows that file sharing exposes you to a significant risk of malware and identity theft. Even the best firewall in the world won't help someone who deliberately punches a hole through it. I would cheerfully pay 99¢ a song and $9.99 for complete CDs in downloadable form if they were DRM-free. In fact, when MSN music offered such downloads with DRM that was so weak it was useless, I bought thousands of dollars worth of music from them. The vast majority of computer savvy people would rather spend the money than deal with the hassle of trying to keep the spyware off their systems and leave no RIAA-traceable tracks when they pirate. They just refuse to pay for "cripple-ware". The same thing happened with commercial software - and, in fact, the "warez" sites of yesteryear are where fileswapping was born. People didn't mind using "trial versions" of fully functional software and then paying for it if it met their needs. What they hated was having to pay up front for a piece of software that turned out NOT to meet their needs. When "crippleware" became the shareware standard, piracy and cracking became the logical answer. I'll be damned if I'll pay for music I can't copy to my mp3 player, hard drive or backup copy. If that is the only downloadable alternative to buying the CD, I'll buy the CD, crack the DRM and rip it myself. If it becomes impossibke to do that - or too much trouble (can we say SONY root kit) I'll find it on the net. If artists and record labels really think the consumer is going to grant them the right to cripple their computers, and even PAY them to do it, they are living in a fantasy world.

[adamico]

It's The End of the World..

New ?transparent? business models can compete with free indeed. Without the ?middle man? an artist could sell its music for really cheap (99 cents per song is still a rip-off). Fans love their artist and they want them prosper not disappear. For instance I was very happy to buy last Radiohead album online since they gave me trust and let me decide the price most appropriate for my pockets. Many artists on MySpace are promoting their albums giving full songs as samples you can download ?legally?. You as an artist have to trust ?the people?.If you want to be ?popular? then be popular. People are not stupid. If you want to make art just for the money your art will be polluted (and not so good). RIAA empire is just ending. ?It's The End of the World As We Know it (and I Feel Fine)?.

[K.P.C.]

They charged her . . .

. . . close to $10,000 per song (24 songs - $220,000)<br /><br />You as a song writer . . . if 1 or more of those digital recordings <br />had been yours . . . You think you would get a $9,000+ check <br />for each song?<br /><br />You still only get pennies . . . they still charge YOU for <br />"breakage/packaging/printing/promotion" of a digital product.<br /><br />Thank you RIAA

[fuzzer1]

Some people just get mad and do something about it

Hey, there are some people who will fight for what they believed in - even if it's wrong or "wrong". <br /><br />Sounds to me like Thomas is a hard-edge lady that's not messed with easily. <br /><br />All RIAA can do now is to paint her as a person with ulterior motives.<br /><br />This is going to be a messy fight for both sides.

[docwobbles01]

It's Right vs. Wrong

Throughout history there have been people who are remembered for refusing to give in to injustice no matter the cost to them personally. This is truly what it means to stand by one's principles: to fight for what you believe to be right, no matter how many disagree with or belittle you, no matter how deep the pockets of your foe. The fact that other individuals and groups support Ms. Thomas' fight against the RIAA is, in my opinion, entirely irrelevant to the central dispute, which is the imposition of an outrageous fine for doing something that hurt absolutely nobody.

[adamico]

sending a message

The statement "We wanted to send a message" came out from the RIAA lawyers soon after the process and lately from one of the jurors as well. The admission from all parties involved that is all about ?sending a message? will make a good rationale for the appeal. Jammie Thomas as guilty as she could be (guiltiness that she shares with millions and millions of users) is entitled to receive a fair process not polluted by the RIAA lobby interests.

[rdupuy11]

Divorce Courts

I wouldn't point the finger at the EFF, but rather the fact that this is a single mom....she's likely been inside a court, either suing for divorce or child support.<br /><br />The way those courts work, is people lie for a bit, then someone is granted custody.<br /><br />SHe makes $36,000 per year? Oh really. Not really. Child support could be $300 a month, could be $30,000 a month. There's no telling, and it isn't counted as income. So pretending you know her resources, based on her 'income'....is absurdity. She obviously had the money for a sizeable retainer.<br /><br />People are quick to call this lady a liar, but forgetting that everyone from the Courts to the Government, doesn't see any issue with producing fiction. Her $36K is the official number, perhaps, but the official number has no bearing on her actual money inflow per month.<br /><br />And when you go through that system of non-sense,...a family court where you can make up any lie about your ex, then you take custody of your children (which forces your ex out of their formerly equal role, and into a visitation status)....it seems like the world is given to you when you tell a lie.<br /><br />I have a very different theory about how this lady could have been steered in the wrong direction.<br /><br />But in the end, she made the decision, I agree with that.

[cliffhersh]

boycot Sony until they forgive Jammie

Don't buy a PS3 or games for any Sony machine. They have to understand that picking on people like Jammie will not be good for their business.

[iheartmonday]

Are you a complete moron??

Boycott Sony because this lady violated a law?? Oh that makes perfect sense! Hey moron, if you look up the law it says the fine is atleast $200k and up to 3 years in prison. Also, this isn't about Sony...

[techforumz]

sonys too expensive for me anyways

I dont buy sony because its too expensive.

[jchernan]

Exercising our rights is not a reason for suspicion

Mr. Castle should have a better argument against Jammie than "The situation makes you wonder why she went through all this,". All the rights we currently enjoy in the United States were won because many people went through a lot of trouble. How many times did he have to take the Bar?

[maleko1017]

Are you kidding me...

It so appears this David &#38; Goliath story is being judged by appearance rather then moral character, and Goliath, although much larger, is being matched by millions of David's supporters. <br /><br />Regardless of whether what Jammie did is illegal or not, there is no question it negatively affects the music industry.<br /><br />As you send money to Jammie, and support her "cause" and fight to make file sharing legal, just remember the potential millions of dollars that are lost each year to file sharing such as this.<br /><br />The music industry isn't going to pay the losses out of the executive's pockets. It's going to be paid by the consumer who wants to buy the CD, and workers making minimum wage (foreign or domestic) that lose their job because costs must be cut due to a shortage of demand.<br /><br />Look at the big picture folks, and stop using the constitution as the bat to take swings at corporate profitability. <br /><br />The music industry is not an NPO. And the great American dream is driven by success measured in dollars, from the small store owner all the way up to the multi-billion dollar record labels.

[arluthier]

"stop using the constitution"?

Not sure if you have been keeping up on the story... or whether your just one of those people that think music artists and record execs deserve our money... even if we don't use their products.<br /><br />Jammie has said she did not file-share; period. You are missing the point in the whole donation thing. It is to support someone that says they didn't do it, like so many others. But this time someone isn't bending over and letting the government and RIAA stick it to them for something they didn't do.<br /><br />"stop using the constitution as the bat to take swings at corporate profitability"... wow. Screw your right to an appeal, that might affect the RIAAs profitability. Screw your right to a trial at all... why should the burden of proof be on RIAA? It is their profits that we need to bolster. <br /><br />If you steal any copyrighted material, share it illegally, or anything illegal then by all means... you will pay. But if you didn't and they say you did then it is your RIGHT to have the opportunity to trial, appeal, and so forth. AND it is everyone else's right to FUND their efforts as they see fit. Screw the corporate machine if they think they can railroad innocence.

[adamico]

American nightmare

What are you talking about. What American dream? We are talking about sony (japan). They bought practically everything there was valuable in the States. And you think you have won the war. The majority of American companies belongs to a British or a Japanese company. The few that are still American (Microsoft, Oracle and the like) are moving their jobs (thus their money) overseas. Practically everything you buy is made in the ?communist? China. There is nothing left ?American?. For one successful America dream there are thousand of nightmares. Wake up!

[Damned_Liberal]

Pull Der Strings!

copyright went copywrong. 75 years extension for Mickey? Ickey! our heritage has been bought and sold like cheap ****** by RIAA, MPAA, and the rest. falleth not for their Puppet State Mentality. believeth not in Defenders of the Status Quo. they have a corporape agenda and/or are the TRUE PUPPETS. they have a vested interest in seeing your rights copyrighted... for them and them alone. finally: now if you actually oppose them? you were manipulated. pathetic.

[Meerkat71]

Just because....

It seems to me that this guy just can't get over the fact that a person with a small income has the guts to take on the corporate world. I'd like to refer to it as the "Bug's Life syndrome". <br /><br />The "grasshoppers" are afraid that all the ants will rebel, and their "easy picking" will be over.<br /><br />Remove the reason (aka extortion prices) on music and movies, and you will remove the need for illegal copies. Oh, but wait, that will affect their bottom line...NOT... pricing it for the masses will create volume sales, thus higher income.<br /><br />Sheesh is that so hard to get?

[fmoolten]

99 cents per song

99 cents per song is not unreasonable. As a songwriter, I receive substantially more than 3 cents for a 99 cent sale. I agree that income could be distributed more fairly, but that requires a demonstrated (not merely claimed) willingness to pay for the music. Even so, you have the right not to buy music if you are dissatisfied. That does not translate into anyone's right to steal it.

[Sparky650]

99 Cents too much for compressed audio

99 cents is too much for compressed low bitrate audio which also has restrictions to use such as owning a particular music device or where it can be moved. As I've said before I can get used cds from local pawn shops/stores for .50-5.00 mark and changeover to any format I desire and what fits my needs/equipment. I would pay .99 for a song for uncompressed .wav files or flac.

[maleko1017]

So you're saying she's innocent?

Hmmmmm. Guess the jurors got it all wrong then during the 5 minutes it took them to find her guilty.

[maleko1017]

RE:

So you think supporting Ms. Thomas is in the best interest of America? Despite the fact that Sony invests millions of dollars a year investing in our country. Regardless of where products are made, keep one thing in mind. Practically everything produced in this world is made to market to Americans. Why? Because we are the most materialistic people in the world, and consequently spend the most money on non-essential goods.<br /><br />Nothing wrong with that, except the only way for American consumers to appreciate the lower prices is through competitive marketing and limiting the cost to do business. Unarguably, it's a hell of a lot cheaper to do business offshore. So yes, we do lose jobs to foreign markets. But that's why you only pay $15 dollars for a DVD, vs. $50 if it were manufactured here. I for one appreciate the trade-off.<br /><br />America has become a white collar nation. We do not have the resources or the ability to export domestic products as we once did. This will probably remain a fact for the next billion years. We all have to come to terms with that, but supporting activity that helps diminish our foreign business is not conducive to our materialistic values (quality product with a small price tag).

[mumonkan]

What is America

It is very difficult to sympathize with the record industry which is trying to crush one to ?send a message? to many. ?So you think supporting Ms. Thomas is in the best interest of America??. Yes indeed. Ms. Thomas is America. If I?m not mistaken a country is made by people, and any one of them is as important as the whole. A business is just an abstract entity which in its nature could prosper or perish (as many do). Luck of creativity doesn?t help to survive.

[jonfredric]

still an idiot

This is an interesting perspective...Jammie being pressured by music revolutionary groups. But I'm pretty sure this still makes Jammie Thomas an idiot.<br /><br />But hey you can still enjoy listening to the 25 songs she got sued for legally and free here:<br /><br /><a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.nutsie.com/member/view_member/129887" target="_newWindow">http://www.nutsie.com/member/view_member/129887</a>

[feliusrex]

End result for RIAA: Fewer sales

As a result of reading about Jammie Thomas being sued for such a staggering amount of money, I've decided that I'll no longer buy any music from RIAA labels. Sadly there are many 'innocent' labels that will suffer from the RIAA's actions, but perhaps they'll get the message and drop out of the RIAA. At 10 CD's a month, or $1800/year, just 100 people joining me makes the RIAA's victory fairly Pyrhic, and that's assuming Thomas can actually pay anything.<br />Just to make it absolutely clear to the record labels: Being part of the RIAA is going to cost you more and more money. Drop out now, and make a big deal about it before you get pulled under by the reprehensible actions of the RIAA.