Jammie Thomas Loses another Round in Court, Owes $1.5 Million

20

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Mighty BOB!

The problem with this crap is that the laws were designed with corporate infringement in mind back in the day which is why the sums are so retardedly large.  The laws need reform.

avatar

KenLV

The sums may be large and yes, the laws need to be changed.  In the meantime though, "the problem with this crap is that" she broke the law and doesn't think she's done anything wrong.  She's been offered reasonable settlements.  She chose to not take them.  The "problem" is that she is now wasting a TON of OUR tax money.

avatar

Goolashe

I personally haven't ever payed for my music because 1) I don't listen to music enough to make it worth it and 2) I'm not going to give my money to an industry that won't get their heads out of their greedy asses. I mean, $1.5 million? Seriously? They're wasting their money as they aren't ever getting that money from a single person, and torrents are still going full-force, so it isn't exactly making an example for people to stop. If anything, this makes me want to torrent /more/! It makes me want to rub it in their greedy little faces that the more they push, the more people will resist. If a song is good enough and I have the money (which I don't most of the time. Right now I'm actually staying at a friend's place as I don't have a place of my own) then yeah, I'll pay for it, but the more they push and try to /force/ me to pay is the more I don't want to pay at all. All you are really doing is punishing the fans of your music, really.

avatar

skeezer

How are they pushing or forcing you to pay, LOL. I think most people want money for things they sell, or they would just give them away. You are an idiot. Get a better paying job(if you have one at all) and move out of your friends place.

avatar

mesiah

Your reasoning is absolutely ridiculous. If you want to steal music thats fine, but have some balls and admit the truth. The fact that you pirate music and or movies has nothing to do with some sense of morals. It is because you are a cheap bastard with an inflated sense of entitlement.

If you don't agree with a companies policies, you don't give that company your business. Just because a company has bad business practices doesn't make stealing their product right. I get so tired of seeing this bogus excuse to rationalize theft. Since its so easy to pirate music people do it without a second thought, and then spout this bullshit so they don't have to feel bad about it. What if you didn't like the interest rate on a loan? Would you walk into the bank, guns drawn, and steal it? And if you did, would you expect anyone to sympathize with you when you tell them you did it because the bank "deserved it" or it wasn't worth it to get a loan because you "don't use money that much."

I'm not going to lie, I have stolen my share of music in the past. But I didn't try and hide behind some warped sense of morals. I stole it because I was cheap, I was poor, and I was greedy. So, if you are going to steal, steal. But for Christ sake man up and take responsibility for your actions.

avatar

violian

The purpose of the RIAA and MPAA is to "terrorize" consumers. The purpose of this lawsuit does just that. They know the exorbitant amount would make headlines, and thereby spreading the message of their agenda freely. If anything, Jamie Thomas should countersue the RIAA for their cause of: anguishment, stress, etc.

avatar

Peanut Fox

Technically she brought this on herself.  In that light it's hard to sue someone else for anguish and stress.  I wonder what school is like for her kids though.  That's gotta be rough.  

avatar

schmitty6633

Maybe she should have just agreed to pay the first fine they offered her.  Trying again to lower the fee dosnt seem to be working.

avatar

Peanut Fox

I'm willing to bet that she goes to bed every night thinking just that.

avatar

w2ed

I hope she countersues them once this hits the Supreme Court (which is where I see this heading) - because right now, I see her getting screwed at both ends.

If she wins at that level, there's going to be a mountain of legal fees of which she won't be able to afford without suing - each win and loss so far has been at something far exceeding the value of the songs in question. 24 songs should, at most, cost $24 - a dollar a song - and even if there is a fine for it should not exceed $1000.

I shouldn't need to point out the obvious, but if she loses at that level, she's obviously going to be screwed for life.

This is why the RIAA, MPAA, and other groups of the media and entertainment industries should be disbanded:  they are more concerned about screwing the customers than they are about protecting the groups of people they represent.  When reasonability goes out of the window - and greed factors in its place - no good can come of it.

avatar

D00dlavy

You could commit rape and be in less trouble.

Common sense, please prevail.

avatar

Goolashe

THANK YOU!

avatar

someuid

If 24 stolen songs are worth $1.5 million, then the thousands/millions/billions of songs stolen so far are worth more than the entire music industry's net worth.

I'm surprised someone in the legal system hasn't charged the RIAA with either inflating their actual damages in this case or misrepresenting their financial information to the SEC and IRS.

No matter how you slice it, the RIAA's numbers don't add up.

avatar

Peanut Fox

She isn't just paying for the songs. She is now paying court fees, as well as the RIAA's lawyers. 

avatar

Cache

At a certain point the RIAA is going to look like it's just smacking the crap out of some poor woman who is being fined in a highly inequitable manner.  It will be interesting to see if the news media takes on a sympathetic tone with her or if it will report more-or-less as it has been.

avatar

Vegan

She may be guilty and owe damages but that's just a ridiculous price. It shouldn't be a life-ruining offense.

avatar

Caboose

Ok, she needs to just stop. She's prob. spent a shitload of money on legal fees alone.

And hows can the RIAA justify $62,500 for each song? I'd really like to know how...

avatar

I Jedi

I am assuming that your question is rhetorical, but in the off-chance that it is not a rhetorical question. The reason they charge her so much money is because, in the courts opinion, for ever song she downloaded, she helped distribute a bunch of more copies of each song to her friends, family, and other people. While this can be disputed, they will never really know for sure how many people got a copy of the song she pirated off of that service, if any; therefore, the court is charging her for the loss in purchases, that otherwise would have resulted in legit purchases. $62,000 per song is basically the same as saying that for every song that now will cost her 62,000 dollars, she is paying $1 for every person who downloaded it, or a total of 62,000 people. Obviously this is a ridicilous number of people per song, and I doubt it is anywhere near that, but again, no one will ever know just how many songs were distributed because of her, if any! I think she is trying to play this off in the courts as a cruel and unusual punishment, but in the eyes of the law, she stole property that otherwise did not belong to her.

avatar

harbingercmt

...whatever happened to "beyond a reasonable doubt"?  Oh yea, the electorate (and thus jurries) are now so Constitutionally illiterate - that having absolute proof that a crime was committed - is no longer necessary.  God help us all!

avatar

damicatz

"Beyond a resonable doubt" only applies to criminal cases. The standard in civil cases is a "preponderance of evidence".

If we were talking a percentage of how certain the jury is about someone's guilt or innocent, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is about 85-90% certain whereas a "preponderance of evidence" is 51% certain. Essentially, the burden of proof in a civil trial only requires the plantiff to prove that, more likely than not, the defendant is liable.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.