Comments on: Odd-couple lawyers aim to save Jammie Thomas

Attorney Joe Sibley and partner Kiwi Camara may be an unlikely pair, but that's partly why defendant Jammie Thomas-Rasset is in good hands.

[Electro_Fox]

I like these guys, gonna keep an eye on this...

[contentcreator--2008]

Ah, recursion.... I love how the damages are too large "because" the songs might only cost $25 to buy.* It's kind of like jewel thieves arguing the merchandise isn't worth much because you can buy it real cheap on the street if you know who to ask.

The attorney is fanning the flames, dear readers --- he knows that the $25 is irrelevant, it's the amount of damages inflicted on the plaintiffs that matters. You could slander the heck out of someone and it wouldn't cost you anything, just a little hot air, and you'd get sued for just as much.

* Ignoring the other 1680 she shared that aren't the direct subject of the suit

[Random_Walk]

*psst!* In your zeal to look like a total '****, you forgot something:

"It's kind of like jewel thieves arguing the merchandise isn't worth much because you can buy it real cheap on the street if you know who to ask."

Unless you're prepared to claim that iTunes "stole" their music for resale, your analogy doesn't work.

If you;re going to shill for the RIAA, it helps to have a halfway believable argument, kid.

"it's the amount of damages inflicted on the plaintiffs that matters"

Fine... then you should have zero problems proving the damages, even if the plaintiff hadn't managed to do that in any sort of admissible manner... right?

[Lerianis3]

Yeah, contentcreator--2008 is a record industry shill, who doesn't think through the arguments that he is making before he makes them.

The fact is that a lot of people today don't think that there is anything such as 'stealing' when it doesn't involve actually taking any PHYSICAL product from someone. The blunt fact is that many of these things are available for free in various fashions, and I personally don't think that something being 'higher quality' unless it is a real, can-put-my-hands-on-it thing makes it stealing if you download it online.

[contentcreator--2008]

Stochastic-man --- Prices are being artificially depressed by theft, think you should crack the SAT study guide again. And this is what statutory damages are for ... hard to say exactly when people hide behind "privacy," (please don't look now, I'm stealing!!!!) so you can get whacked 100K$ per.

Hey Lerianis, still trying to legalize IP theft, huh? Talk about not thinking things through. Here's something for you to ponder --- I come into your mommy's house and take your TV. You take a TV's worth of intellectual property from me without paying. We're both out a TV either way, eh? But somehow it's OK for you to take my TV? I don't think so. Can't pay for what you want? Awwwww, welcome to the real world.

I guess every night you guys check under your bed and in your closet for the RIAA bogeyman. Everything's always about RIAA this, RIAA that. Get a grip.

[Random_Walk]

I can give you props for catching the math reference, but you're still shooting blanks otherwise:

"Prices are being artificially depressed by theft,"

Really? Because...

1) a typical cassette in the 1980's held an average of 10 songs and cost and average of $10. A typical CD in the early 1990s held an average of 10 songs and cost an average of $15 (but had higher audio quality to compensate). I can go to Amazon or the iTMS right now and buy individual songs for anywhere from $0.69 to $1.49, depending on quality (audio, not content). Not much has changed over the years in absolute terms there.

2) you need to study basic economics: prices are generally agreed upon by consumer demand, not held by seller fiat. If no one wants to pay $50 per song, the song won't sell.

3) The music cartels agreed to the pricing structure in iTMS, Amazon, etc. because that is what the middleman wanted as a price range, and that is what the consumer has been shown to be more than willing to pay.

"And this is what statutory damages are for .."

Yep, but you listed an "amount of damages ... that matters", which points to a quantity... so what is that quantity?

[Thad Boyd]

@CC2K8:

Well, I've always thought argument by analogy is for people who know they can't possibly win by arguing the actual facts, but I'll bite:

Let's say you steal my TV and a jury then says you owe me 80,000 TV's. Would a sane person think that's reasonable?

Or, you know, the Supreme Court. Ever hear of Gore v BMW? That was the one where they said awarding 500 times an item's value is unconstitutional.

Oh wait, I used an analogy that's actually directly relevant to what we're talking about and not just some stupid hypothetical I made up. Whoopsie.

[C0mmanderB0nd]

Wow so the "geniuses" thought an unknown hacker was too unbelievable so scapegoating family members was a more plausible approach???? Only an attorney would hang out a loved one like that. After following this coverage on Cnet I have wanted to cheer for these guys, but the simple fact is they keep losing and the case just keeps getting worse.

I bet the typical $5000 settlement is looking much better now that facing bankruptcy over 1.9 million. Even if the diversion worked and jury bought the family member did it on her computer, if they thought it was the kids isn't she responsible for what her children do? I guess the BF was an ok scapegoat but even then its pretty thin.

The simple fact is she was an idiot who thought everyone else is doing it why can't I, got caught file sharing and is trying to stall with no really good reason.

Of course they can still pull out the "chewbacca defense" for the next trial, since nothing else seems to be working.....

[Random_Walk]

"I bet the typical $5000 settlement is looking much better now that facing bankruptcy over 1.9 million"

So if my business called you up and filed preliminary lawsuit papers on you (w/o anything really proving it was you who violated copyright), stating that you can make it all go away for $5000, you'd be cool with that, right?

[Ortaias]

There seems to be a fairly large body of studies that document that file sharing does not adversely affect the music industry. Simply based on that; where are the so-called "damages". If there are no damages, as these studies suggest, than the fine is clearly outrageous.

Additionally, the legality of any "law" that protects or gives special consideration to a special interest should be questioned. We seem to be opening up ourselves to "some of us are more equal than others". Laws that favor X over Y will be ignored by the public through civil disobedience and will ultimately result in disrespect for our legal system.

[gertruded]

"Laws that favor X over Y will be ignored by the public through civil disobedience and will ultimately result in disrespect for our legal system."

I think it has already happened. The poor are convicted with long sentences and the rich get off.

[Random_Walk]

"The poor are convicted with long sentences and the rich get off."

Well, technically Madoff is poor right now... and the legal fees prolly put a dent in the Enron convicts' nest eggs...

Inicdentally, I don't see a jail sentence for Thomas in the article.

[toomath]

This award is in my view criminal inand of itself - this woman's life is destroyed over a trivial matter. The jurors who served on this case were gullible and vindictive people and should be deeply ashamed. I see no moral difference between physically attacking someone and destroying them with a jury award like this. What this woman did harmed nobody. There can be no damages when there is no harm. The artists themselves have all spoken up about this and expressed disgust at the ruling. And at the same time this case was moving through the courts, the biggest online music retailer, Apple, did what? They took DRM off all their music. With the permission of the same RIAA members who claim to be harmed in this suit. Why take DRM off the music if sharing 25 songs is a $2 million dollar crime? I'll tell you, there is a term called "legal terrorism", and frankly, this fits the bill. Sick, sick stuff.

[fazalmajid]

The music industry has a perfect legal record because it is very careful about which cases it goes after. I was surprised it took them so long to target Napster in the first place. While I agree Ms. Thomas' $1.9M fine is excessive, she is clearly guilty of the offenses she is charged with (her Kazaa login was the same as one she used on some social network). The amount of the fine can be disputed, but her guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. The RIAA has offered to settle, probably because it knows this could easily turn into a PR disaster and a pyrrhic victory. I am not sure her lawyers are doing her a favor by pursuing appeals instead of a settlement. They don't stand to lose anything, she risks bankruptcy or worse.

[Random_Walk]

"The music industry has a perfect legal record because it is very careful about which cases it goes after"

Actually, no. They have a "perfect" legal record (over their absurdly tiny sample of, err, one) because they're smart enough to drop the case and run like hell if there's even the slightest hint that they'd be in for a real fight, or if their BS arguments begin to fail in front of any halfway intelligent judge, or...?

[Bill_I]

If a tune is playing on the radio, so anyone can listen, you can expect it to go everywhere on the internet. --- Do you think that all those sound-alike bar bands which play covers of pop tunes ever pay royalties to the writers and publishers? --- What about those DJs who play copyright performances which are only licensed for home use? --- Once the horse is out of the barn its too late to lock the door.

[Garken]

I think everone is missing the point here.How long before the RIA can just come into your home and check what you are doing with your music collection ( did you lend a cd to a friend ) ? Maybe you think its okay that soon they will just have a rep come to live with you just in case you want to let your spouse or your kids listen to your music without buying them the cd which you already own. Big Brother is all over this and looking for more ways to control people. How long before they sue you because you shared your tooth paste ? Far fetched ? I think not !

[4thehorde]

Although they seem like nice guys, I hope it wasn't THEIR advice to reject the settlement offer, or they will start their practice out with a big legal malpractice judgment against them.

Also, the ex-Ranger keeps talking tough but he's smaller than the other guy, is this just a Napoleon complex at work?

[DJR978]

I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine how the damages awarded could be allowed under the Eighth Amendment. I wish Silby and Camara and their client every success.

[boy444]

The reson people steal music is cause they can get it FREE! It's harder to have a free market sharing area for people to get free products to and from somewhere with someone not seeing the thief. Plus people will go cheep even if they have to be in jail for it. Plus nobody thinks they'll go to jail for it.