Comments on: RIAA's $222,000 defendant asks for a new trial

Attorneys for Jammie Thomas, who was slapped with a whopping fine after allegedly "making available" music on Kazaa, say the penalty is unconstitutionally onerous.

[webdev511]

To do otherwise...

Would be Neapolionic. I thought the US juridical system was based on innocent until proven guilty, but the way the damages are awarded the court assumes that everyone with a Kazza account downloaded the songs.

My opinion? Unless the RIAA can come up with a number of downloads on which to base the damages, then the damages should be minimal.

[GGGlen]

Better yet

Jammie?

Claim you're a wanton violator of the law, demand a retrial, and
demand that you be held accountable for $600 million in damages.
Fight absurdity with the absurd.

[Renegade Knight]

Goose and Gander

As the saying goes, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

In this case, $220,000 for each song a member of the RIAA has made available without a corresponding payment to the artist.

Each song in a honeypot. Every "whoops" where they promo that they allowed into the wrong hands and so on.

[rdupuy11]

compare to Best Buy-Microsoft case

In the Best Buy-Microsoft case, where they are accused of breaking RICO statutes and basically cheating consumers by charging to their credit cards an MSN subscription that they never signed up for...

Best Buy took the case as far as they could, ultimately applying to the Supreme Court of the United States...claiming that paying treble damages was a 'nuclear bomb' and that RICO statutes were never meant to apply to them...

compare that to this case. Treble damages (times 3)...to this lady, who, has to pay over $9000 per $1 song. (times 9000).

RICO statues aren't supposed to apply to best buy....sounds like laws targetted at professional pirates weren't supposed to go against individual downloaders.

The people cheering that a woman paid damages that were 9000 times the cost of the songs she stole...go strangely silent or even support the reported activity of Best Buy to defraud consumers...who are only facing a times 3 penalty.

It's amazing.

I think the woman is guilty, but I've argued for reasonable fines and penalties.

Imagine if your next speeding ticket was $100,000. It would cut down on speeding, but it would also be ridiculous to fine someone $100,000 because they missed the sign where it said to slow from 45 to 35. Destroy lives over that?

I'm just saying...there are fines that are too great. Reason needs to prevail.

[Jesse Chan]

The failure of the RIAA

The RIAA has really put themselves in a tough situation: http://fishtrain.com/2007/10/02/the-failure-of-the-riaa/

[hassan_bin_sober]

RIAA

When is somebody going to have the balls to put a bullet in their ear. These people (RIAA) are the bandits. Time to shoot the lawyers?

[itango]

hassan_bin_sober

How on earth did you get from "the RIAA are the bandits" to "time to shoot the lawyers"? Do you think everyone at the RIAA is a lawyer? Do you want to shoot the lawyers that are defending Jammie, as well as the ones who are against her? What will happen to Jammie and others like her who are allegedly being railroaded by a large powerful corporation if they cannot find any lawyer to defend them in court, because4 idiots demand that "all lawyers should be killed"?

More importantly, next time you are accused of something and are innocent, or are injured by someone's negligence, let's see how you do without lawyers. I bet you sing a different tune then.

Instead of being a parrot and spouting anti-lawyer sentiment mindlessly, please engage the only 2 brain cells you have in your brain, and think before you post.

[Dr_Zinj]

Judgement is just plain stupid

No average person in the U.S. can afford a quarter of a million dollar debt added to their finances. That amount would be fine for seizing a business, but not for an individual storing the files there for personal reasons. People declare bankruptcy for far less.
"The Staten/Barron study indicated that chapter 7 debtors have an average of $41,228 in unsecured debt, and chapter 13 debtors report an average of $20,953 in unsecured debt." http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/public_affairs/articles/docs/abi98marnumbers.html, 16 Oct 2007.
This woman was not running a for-profit illegal publishing business, and no evidence that any of the songs on the system were illegally downloaded except from the RIAA itself.
In short, while the woman was guilty of making the copyright material available for download, she should have been sentanced as a private individual, not a business, and the fine(s) imposed should have been based on the actual illegal downloads, not the availablity of all the materials.
The judge showed a remarkable lack of common sense in defining criteria for penalties; unless it was his secret intention to provide the woman an excuse to challege the award in court. I kind of doubt the judge was quite so machevellian.

[da cyka]

RIAA suck a$$

this case is ridiculous. somebody should stop them please

[freestyl]

RIAA DOES NOT OWN US

Tired of BIG CORPS screwing the little person.
What about all thoses 331/3's,45's,cassettes & ( 8-Tracks,(they really SCREWED us there) we purchased with the intent of never having to purchase again,because they said SO. I think to bring down Da' HOUSE, we have to boycott the buying of music for ONE Month or Longer TIL' THEY CRY UNCLE, FOR Jammie Thomas! What do we say?

[Travis Ernst]

Very crazy fine

I think the challange of the fine makes an exellant point. The
charges they claimed she did, and the jury found her guilty of,
the fines were overly high. Reduction of fines is a valid request.
Why should she have to pay to finance their legal department.

If the fines went to the artists that would be reality... but we all
know they don't do that. If they would give say $250-1000 per
violation to the artist, thats still $6200-23,000. However at
least the funds would be going to an artist (or non profit fund if
the artist waves it).