Comments on: For RIAA, a black eye comes with the job

Despite negative public image, record industry group has little choice but to continue lawsuits, insiders say.

[dannie francis]

CMON guys ths is crap

Jammie Thomas did f all. get serious. digital music can be paid for and shared and protected to protect the artist (even the label). lets not take the legal BS to persecute a single person. Pirates are out there... go get them. leave Jammie Thomas alone.

[bobby_brady]

If it wasn't for pirates, digital downloads wouldn't exist

File swapping is the only form of competition for the big monopoly. RIAA is a joke. HAVE NO GUILT DOWNLOADING AND SHARING!!

[onlyauser]

So she did something wrong...

According to the law and the RIAA she broke the law. She made a mistake either out of not knowing better or just wanting something for nothing. Everyone makes mistakes though the penalties needs to be appropriate. 200 grand plus is so over blown it amounts to a sick financial rape by the RIAA and our understanding justice system.

APPEAL!

[iheartmonday]

Go Look Up The Law

The law clearly states that the fine is $200k plus and you could get up to 3 years in prison. She should've realized what she was dealing with before she did the crime. Also, if it were less of a fine, do you think it would be such a deterrent? Maybe after this case, people will think twice before illegally downloading.

[btcnet63]

Stop Yer Cryin' Already!

Much is being made about the Jaimme Thomas case. Let?s do a little background on this. Originally the RIAA would attempt to rubber-stamp cases through the judicial system. They managed to get a few people to settle out of court. Then some judges decided the RIAA wasn?t really presenting enough information to actually prove the guilt of the people whey were after. The cases started getting thrown out of court.

The RIAA tried a new tack. This time the RIAA actually presented what is known in the legal profession as ?evidence? to this group of people called a ?jury? and this ?jury? weighed the ?evidence? and found without a ?reasonable doubt? that Ms. Thomas had been making ?copyrighted? music available to others to take (which violates ?copyright?). Sounds like a reasonable way to determine guilt or innocence. But wait, it isn?t. That is because the RIAA represents a bunch of multi-billion dollar entertainment conglomerates and Ms. Thomas is a single mother of two. There?s no way that Ms. Thomas should be found guilty. My bad.

Oh well, that?s a lost cause. Let?s look at something else. Why is it when the RIAA?s role on this is discussed, we refer to them as ?greedy,? but when we discuss the people who swap files, we call what they are doing ?file sharing?? No one seems to mind taking off the gloves when referring to the RIAA; let?s accord the sharers the same courtesy: they are ?stealers.? Thus, they engage in ?file stealing.? Let?s be honest. The main purpose of peer-to-peer networks is to steal copyrighted works. I hardly think there?s much traffic in Aunt Minnie?s ?Bodacious Brownies? recipe.

?But we?re on a righteous crusade to protest the way the recording industry pays the artist for their music!? people say in defense of their stealing. Seems to me the way you protest something like that is to not buy the music. But that means you do without the music, period. Although some would say music is an essential part of their lives, no one is going asphyxiate if they don?t have the latest song from Britney Spears (though same may if they do). The possession of the physical manifestation of music is a luxury. If you need to hear music so badly, listen to the radio, or go to concerts. And by the way, where was all this protesting back when vinyl was king and there were no PCs? And if it?s so awful for the artists, why do so many people seem so keen to make it in the music industry?

Let?s look a little deeper into this. I was at a dinner party when this discussion came up. One of the guests haughtily proclaimed that he was not going to support the record companies when the artist?s only income from the sale of a CD was one dollar. If this person was the only one stealing music, I guess it wouldn?t be such a big deal. And I just had to admire his taking a stand on the artist?s behalf. I?m sure the artist would love to know this fellow was taking the moral high ground in support of the artist?s right to a bigger cut. I bet we could cure cancer if we managed to harness the moral superiority of 1,000,000 such high minded souls. The aura alone would probably stop global warming, fix the hole in the ozone layer and maybe even bring peace to the Middle East. Never mind that these people have now left the artist $1,000,000 worse off?as long as they have their principles.

The issue of file stealing was taken on in a South Park episode. One of the characters who had downloaded a file and was subsequently busted by the RIAA was driven around by an RIAA spokesman to be shown the ?hardship? caused by his reckless behavior. The gist of the ?hardship? was that the musicians would not be able to afford some ridiculous extravagance or another.

But why shouldn?t the musicians have their ridiculous extravagances? We exist in an entertainment economy. Why is it people don?t begrudge paying increasingly larger sums to watch a transitory athletic event which provides outrageous salaries to athletes who, let?s face it, are playing a game, but they bristle at paying a much smaller price for something which they can use over and over? I guess it?s because people haven?t figured out how to steal the experience of being at a stadium. Maybe when the home theater experience gets good enough?

Another argument is, ?the record companies haven?t lowered the price of CDs since they first came out!? Again, you don?t like it, don?t buy it. It seems that if people stopped buying CDs due to price (and people weren?t stealing the music), maybe the prices would drop?simple supply and demand. But amid all this noise, has anyone noticed the price hasn?t gone up either? I remember back in 1986 a CD cost around $15 ? 16. Nowadays you go into a Best Buy and the price is roughly the same (if not one or two dollars less). If we take the Consumer Price Index into account, then the $15 CD of 1986 should have cost $27.59 in 2006 (Source: U.S. Dept. of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, using the CPI-U for the entire U.S. [ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/cpi/cpiai.txt]).

What other industries (I?m including the film industry now) have the misfortune of having their product so easily stolen and on such a massive scale? If these industries have to act like ogres to protect their product, so be it. Obviously, many consumers cannot be trusted to be honest?surprisingly many. It makes me wonder what other products would be treated in this way were it so easy. I guess I?m glad more can?t be?an economy can?t survive if nobody pays for anything.

Sure it seems heavy handed for a behemoth like the record industry to take on a single mother with two kids. Maybe Ms. Thomas bought into the cult of entitlement that?s sprung up around file stealing. But, the RIAA did everything right here, legally and morally. I?m sure Ms. Thomas has heard the old saw, ?You pays your money and you takes your chances.? Looks like it didn?t pay off this time.

[Smoothjedi]

Civil case

I won't respond to the whole article because frankly I am lazy.

I mainly just want to say that this is a civil case, so your sarcasm is misplaced. She was not found without a ?reasonable doubt? to be "guilty". She was found liable. Kinda like how OJ Simpson was found liable for his wife's death, but not guilty.
Secondly, I think that if a more reasonable share was given to the artist instead of the measly 1 dollar per cd you seem to defend, people would want to buy the music off the shelf because they would know they actually were supporting the artist directly.

[Spyers]

Did the PR person admit they don't know who is shareing?

"We know someone was using a computer and IP address to distribute songs. We know information like the time they used it but we don't know anything about that person."

Kinda sounds like all they really know is that a particular computer is being used to share not who it is, which I think contradicts what they said in the trial.

[Smoothjedi]

mac address matching

Well, I think when you can match to the mac address you can know who perpetrated the incident. The point they were trying to make is that although they knew someone in that house was sharing, the did not know if it was a 12 year old girl or a single mom or Abraham Lincoln resurrected and squatting at that address.

[John1235]

STILL uses tereastarr, but so did someone ELSE..

People who don't understand hacking (such as the prosecution and jury), have missed the point. Yes, Thomas did, and still DOES use the name tereastarr. She still has it on her mySpace profile. She was also sloppy with security, it is clear from the evidence. If I leave my keys around, and someone gets in my 'secure' house, they have the freedom to use MY telephone (that I don't say IP address), and my name, nickname, DOB, and anything else they can use rummaging around my desk. As long as no one knows my voice.

The motive to hack (distributing music, and not in Thomas' name only, it's probably been done hundreds of times elsewhere), the potential for profit, and the methods are available. (Ever hear of compromising computers for DOS attacks, ever hear of Trojans, no? never heard of viruses even? Spyware? Still no? No, no such thing, those things don't exist, your computer is 'password protected', only fools go out and buy antivirals, passwords are IMPOSSIBLE to compromise.)

If she's innocent, I hope she wins her appeal. And it's time for juries to learn something about IP addresses, 'passwords', and computers.

[lorcro2000]

RIAA represents the MUSIC INDUSTRY, not artists. Thus the name.

Recording Industry Association of America, people.

Not Benevolent Society for Protection of Artists Everywhere! The operative words there are "recording industry".

RIAA is paid by the industry, they protect the industry and they thus help exploit the artists, not protect them! The biggest pirates in the entire chain is the music industry itself; precious few artists that get signed get beyond getting paid around minimum wage or thereabouts - and that is when the industry makes millions off them.

It's one thing that they are blackhearted thugs with their own enforcement squads complete with police-style jackets with RIAA emblazoned on it (yes, really), and that they have no qualms extorting people and destroying lives by using the threat of litigation as a club. If they'd admit that profit maximization is their goal then at least they'd be honest thugs.

Harping on about how they are protecting artists while the industry bleeds the artists dry every chance they get is just disgusting.

Every time you hear the RIAA reps bleating on about how they are protecting artists you can be darn sure they are just putting up the usual BS smokescreen. Ugh.

[Ilgaz]

Need filenames of mp3s

RIAA can't do anything if record company or producer or the
BAND she ripped the work from says "OK, enough, this is
stupid".

I think RIAA is being victimised. We need to know which "mp3"
files she shared on net, which bands.

If that information doesn't leak, you may see same band on
some liberal TV speaking about how copyright is evil etc. etc.

On metallica case, we knew, Lars Ulrich. He was honest enough
to stand behind his thoughts. Notice this time, RIAA RIAA and
nothing else mentioned?

[sharkattacksteve]

To Hell With Hypocrites

The recording industry may have the legal right but they certainly don't have the moral right.

If you had a family in which the mother and father were professional thieves by trade would they have the right to punish their children for stealing?

I'm no fan of Courtney Love but her letter to the recording industry is the obvious truth.These shyster's have no moral legs to stand on.

[Bill_A]

Waaa Waaa

Instead of feeling sorry for the poor single mother of two, who apparently, according to the court, DID illegally offer to share music on a peer to peer network, why don't you do an article on the poor starving musician who cannot make ends meet and dejectedly watches their music distributed peer to peer with no money coming in.

The message is clear: DON'T steal things, DON'T help others steal things, DON'T break the law, and DON'T expect the fact that you're a single mother with "proud indian blood" should gain you sympathy. Was it your "proud indian blood" that prompted you to share files in the first place?

I'm sick of hearing about this. The money award is too much, but then again, there would be more of an uproar if there was jail time wouldn't there.

[sharkattacksteve]

Starving Artists

If the artists are starving it's because the " shyster's" who run the music industry are ripping them off and have been for decades and it's getting worse since Cheney has been in power.

These slave traders deserve to be ripped off,it's our(p2p) moral obligation.

[onlyauser]

RIAA starving mothers

RIAA is starving mothers.

I the money amount would only really matter say, if you were a single mother to feed with chidren.

Somethings are evil. A penalty is not evil for breaking the law. This EXCESSIVE penalty is evil.

[rex007can]

Waaa waaa what???!!?

You've been drinking too much of the RIAA's kool-aid Bill.

The reason why there are starving musicians IS because the record labels are thieves. They could not care LESS about music, arts or the artists. They are in it for the money...theirs. They have no problem taking it from moms, kids, dads, anyone they think is "taking their stuff". And they certainly dont have a problem taking it from artisis either.

Y'all need to go read "the problem with music" from Steve Albini (Nirvana's producer). Then you might see the RIAA as they really are. Enforcers for corporate bully sacs of menure willing to go through ANY lenght to make sure their pockets remain as full as they possibly can.

[mikalg]

I have no idea what u r saying

Too many unfinished thoughts (if they can be categorized as such), as well as unintelligible scribbling via the keyboard.

I do not like "W" as you call him, however what has the President got to do with a CIVIL court case? I will tell you; nothing at all. Paranoid schizophrenics should be prohibited from posting and spreading the disease of mis-information, and irrational thought.

The RIAA is doing their job as they see it. I do not agree with them, their tactics, methods, or these civil allegations of loss and monetary reimbursement. I would interpret the law (poorly written as it may be) as crucially REQUIRING the loss to be proven, in order for a judgment of monetary torte (as an amount to be awarded). I see in the case here, that ample proof was submitted to imply that a crime was committed (criminal court)via an IP address. That satisfied in my mind, that the burden of proof was met (for a criminal prosecution)to continue a case in that manner. As for a civil case, I see absolutely no attempt (nor was it required) to prove any loss had actually occurred. The mere act of sharing these files did not mean they were downloaded. It is a point of law that sharing them is illegal. That is for a criminal court to decide. A civil court should require a burden of proof for loss, considering that is what the court is asked for in considering a monetary reimbursement judgment.

I do not support the RIAA, and do not purchase ANY music at all. I suggest others do the same. RIAA will continue as long as their members have faith that they are doing good business on their behalf. Until consumers, who have exception with the RIAA tactics make their dissatisfaction known, this will not change. This is a waste of my time, as RIAA has continued unabridged to date. No one is listening and purchases the products that finance the RIAA to take such actions as it has so far done.I have done my part, it is up to you.

[onlyauser]

RIAA is just a legal machine---Maybe monster?

There is not soul it is just a hugh lawsuit threatening machine.

No feeling not heart just blind justice. Isn't it time more of us look at the extreme of our justice system and the victims of that system.

America, land of the free. With more prisons and prisonsers (globally) than any other nation worldwide. More people than any other nation are incarcerated for victimless crimes. All American institutions seem very corupt and broken IMHO. Who's to blame? We the people because we really are much more concerned with who wins American Idol than this sick nation of ours. Vey sad and very true.

It is time for the people to take the power back. It is time for a revolution!

[Penguinisto]

I don't wan't to refuse buying Big Music Label products...

...but it's a form of tough love. If the RIAA membership cannot see fit to act like human beings and instead turns to extortion and overkill just to insure their members' insanely high earnings, then I'm afraid I have little choice but to continue not purchasing music from them.

I think I'll keep buying from independent labels and artists instead - the music seems much more honest, the artists get better compensation, and I've rather come to enjoy listening to it.

/P

[kobyaaron]

Bigger than you or the RIAA

When I read these comments and articles I see all of us arguing about only one thing--copyright law and its validity in the digital age.

We have officially entered a new age. The RIAA, the file-sharers; these are all symptoms of a larger problem. That problem is the fact that our laws of how to define who owns what and how such a thing should and can be distributed is seriously out of date. These laws are based on an economy without the internet--without a free exchange of ideas. And now instead of adapting to a new environment we struggle against the urge to maintain a status-quo. Instead of letting the free exchange of ideas flow, we attempt to put a price on it.

It will come in time. Redefinition of ideas like these are extremely hard for our race. Its happened before and it will happen again, but I hope--scratch that--I PRAY we as the human race will be able to change with the times with less of the growing pains we have seen all through human history. With cases like these, I'm increasingly convinced we won't.

[ktmotox]

I agree with kobyaaron

With today's technology - the big record labels and the RIAA have become obsolete. RIAA is just fighting to save themselves, but they are no longer needed. Artist can now produce, market, distribute, and perform their art with a direct link to the people who appreciate their art. The business model has changed. Instead of a few ultra-wealthy artists, there will be many artists who earn a normal income - just like the rest of us. Multi-millionaire record company executives will no longer exist. The quality and variety of music will increase. There will be less formula music and more innovation and creativity. The middle men will be eliminated.

[-hh]

Copyright Law is what's BROKEN

The real problem that underlies the whole RIAA mess is simple: COPYRIGHT LAW.

Constitutionally, an allowance was created so as to protect Intellectual Property (IP). Because printing a book cost a lot of money upfront, the idea was to allow for a __reasonable__ period of exclusivity with which to recover one's investment cost.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 says: "...securing for limited Times".

Originally, the term was 14 years, with the right of renewal for one additional 14 year term if the author was still alive.

Fast Forward to today.

From the Sonny Bono act (1998), it is now:

Private: "life of the author plus 70 years"

Corporate Authorship: 120 years after creation or 95 years after publication (whichever's earlier).

Now let's go back and look at the basics of Capitalism again: with a legalized monopoly of roughly 100 years, do we really expect much innovation? Much efficiency? Much price sensitivity?

The answer is absolutely not. Legislated monopolies are an anathma to free markets, and by big businesses successfully bribing ...er, "lobbying" our Congressmen to longer and longer and longer Copyright extensions, all that they're doing is perpetuating their monopolies. As such the RIAA is a simple product of our Laws.

Where the system is broken is at the duration that is afforded to Copyrighted works.

Fix that and the RIAA problem will subside greatly, for the bloated and inefficient Labels will lose much of their current "book" and be effectively forced to INNOVATE with new works that consumers are willing to pay for, and the public will be morally okay with it.

You see, the problem is illustrate in real terms as follows:

Elvis died 30 years ago (1977), but under current Copyright Law, NONE of his works can make it naturally into the Public Domain until the year 2047 (assuming no additional extensions).

The (Life+70) term is often justified under the rationale of: "...its to protect the wellbeing of the family in case of early death" excuse.

Statisically, this means that royalties on Elvis's music will be around for longer than all of his children - they'll all die of old age before the royalties end.

For the grandchildren, a few of them will statistically probably be still alive, but won't be young. Is it really a "burden" on the grandkids to expect them to have ever gotten a job worked but even a single day in their life?

YMMV, but Life+70 is a hell of a nice "Golden Parachute" of a safety net. Compare it to your own pension provisions: at best, you'll get spouse survivorship at 50% pay, which statistically will only last around 20 years (until death of spouse): it is one heck of a generous "Golden Parachute" that covers the lifetime of all children, let alone one that covers their children (your grandchildren) too. And it is all paid for on the backs of the consumers, because the only choice we have in the matter is to not buy the product at all.

Which brings up the final point: boycott. It is the only viable form of economic pressure that consumers can bring to bear, but the problem is that consumers won't hold out over the time required, which will be measured in YEARS, not months.


-hh

[MTGrizzly]

Bad precedent

"In all the talk about the RIAA beating up on Thomas, Lamy wanted people to know that the RIAA doesn't choose any of the people it files suits against. There is no way for the RIAA to know anything about the people it files lawsuits against, Lamy said."

Who believes this? Of course they pick the people who they sue. They aren't stupid, they only sue people when they think they can win, (can you imagine the precedent that will be set when they lose? probably when this case is overturned on appeal). They pick people who they think won't fight back and/or who don't have the resources to fight back. They publicize it to the ends of the earth and then sit back and say, "Look we were right, this is piracy."

The ironic thing about this particular case is, if the plaintiff is allowed to appeal, it could all go away, (and probably will). If I was an attorney for RIAA, [I am not an atty, not do I work for the RIAA], I would settle with the plaintiff before she could appeal. That way the lower court ruling will stand. RIAA will be able to use the lower court ruling to bully even more people into paying, even though it isn't law in any case but this one...

[Bubulus]

RIAA needs to go back to their roots

One of the original goals of the RIAA was to set high standards for music recordings. MP3 is a lossy compression method which is junk. As for online distribution and copying, it's a cost of doing business. The movie industry went nuts over VCRs until they realized they could make more money selling tapes or DVDs of movies than at the box office. Bands like Phish made a fortune by permitting fans to duplicate and distribute their music. I'd like the RIAA to focus more on pressuring the recording industry to improve the quality of recorded music and less on trying to make scapegoats out of people who are easy to target when they've already pretty much blown their case by failing to defend their intellectual property rights against Asian CD mills. Copying can be fair use, it can be word of mouth marketing, it can be piracy. The latter is the role of the FBI, not the RIAA.

[ludicrousrex]

Local bands want YOU!

Seriously, haven't we all had enough of big label music? Large corporations rip off artists and then whine about artists' "rights." Meanwhile, they're ignoring wonderful talent because it doesn't sell as well as their manufactured clones of what sold well last week.

There are great bands out there in YOUR city who deserve to be heard. Go out there and put money in the hands of the people who matter -- the artists! Forget big music, it's junk anyway! Many of these local bands are giving their stuff away, hoping you will hear it and like it. They are there for YOU, are you there for them?

[bkeliikoa]

Read the story before replying

You obviously have not even glanced at the story. She is not accused of stealing she is accused of allowing others to have the ability to download songs from her PC. They cant even prove that people actually downloaded anything from her. I love it when people try to add there 2-cents when they know nothing at all about the subject.

[cliffhersh]

Jammie Thomas

The boycot should not be of CDs which are on their way out, but against the companies perpetrating the injustice. Start with Sony. Don't buy their game machines or games until they change their ways and tell them you are doing it.

[maverick_nick]

Free music for all

I truly do my best to support artists, and I am greatful for their creations. However, I have no sympathy what-so-ever for organizations like the RIAA.

I'd rather buy music from independant artists and copy everything else. Perhaps everyone should do the same to show the RIAA that they need us -- not the other way around. They're not protecting the interest of artists as much as lining their own pockets.

[blindlemonjim]

The Artists Hide Behind the RIAA

When the Napster scandal first hit, there were several groups vocal about "illegal downloading," and one of the most vocal was Metallica. The backlash against Metallica cost them their careers. Has Metallica done anything successfully since the Napster scandal? No, they have not. The music industry then realized that lest they became faceless, to pursue the matter further was career suicide for any artist.
The artists themselves hide smugly behind the RIAA, which is little more than a puppet organization to begin with. It's really clever PR acrobatics to create the illusion of "industry vs. the people," instead of "the artists vs. the people," as it truly began, and it seems that vast numbers of people have become fooled by this.
Ultimately, it's the "Marie Antoinette" artists telling the starving masses to eat cake.

Where are the artists speaking out against the outrageous "RIAA" action against Jammie? They don't speak out because they are hiding behind the RIAA making victims out of their unwitting public. All it takes is one look at the extravagant escapades of someone like Britney Spears to realize that something is seriously wrong in Hollywood.

I think that people need to wake up and recognize the implications of all of this. If an organization can run slipshod over the lives of individual citizens with impunity, then how fragile are our rights, really? And how much more do we have to lose before we stand up against this travesty and say "enough."

[NDK Creative Artist]

Artists do speak out, but...

...the incestuous nature of the industry and its ownership means that they do not get heard, and if they do, the spin put on what they say crashes their careers, and they end up in Creative Gitmo--it's 'the American Way Today.'

It becomes pointless and ineffective to protest as it changes nothing. Hence Janis Ian, Korn, Radiohead and Prince among others are setting examples of independent business models. The problem is creating economies of scale, without losing your independence and being able to wield enough power and influence to create an economic model that the public will be happy to support in sufficient volume that selling out a good model becomes unnecessary. But few are there who have the integrity to look 9 zeroes in the face and say "No."