Jammie Thomas

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:07 pm

I know the whole subject of file-sharing music etc has been discussed a thousand times, but I thought I had to mention this with the attention being drawn to the outragous fine and the lack of evidence.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... s-landmark
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/1 ... finds.html

This happened a few days ago in the USA and is quite unbelievable, especially that the judge asked the jury to ignore lots of evidence, or rather pretend that there was evidence that could lead to a conviction.

I would like to know what is going to happen with that enormous fine. As I have a very poor outlook on american law and the governments ability to look after the impoverished I would guess that she will end up having her children taken away from her and put into adoption followed by her loosing her house (being sold) and ending up on the streets. Can anyone clarify this please.

As you can buy a song on the net for $1, and she was fined $9,250 per song, presumably they would need to have evidence that each song was downloaded by other Kazaa users 9,250 times.!!! This entire case seems to be bullshit, and as many people have pointed out how many CD's would you have to steal from a shop to get a fine that big.

Andy

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Mon Oct 08, 2007 4:29 pm

I suppose the argument is that each and every download of the 24 songs she was convicted of sharing equals a lost sale. That's nonsense of course, but I think that's why it's actually considered worse than stealing the physical CDs.

Whatever anyone feels about copyright infringement, this does seem like a ridiculous amount of money, and under the current law it could have been a lot higher.

Of course according to the record industry most of us have committed copyright infringement and stolen music. According to Sony's top copyright lawyer, even copying a CD you purchased to an MP3 player is the same as stealing those songs. According to them 'fair use' is a myth with no legal basis, and they're actively working to make it harder to use your legally purchased music how you wish.

From what I've heard she'll have to pay 25% of her wages until it has all been paid off. Considering that she's on low income that'll take many years. A serious impact on her life for a crime that's about as serious as a minor traffic violation in my opinion.

Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if the money went to the artists who are supposedly suffering due to file sharing. However I believe that those damages will go to the RIAA to fund more music industry legal action. To me it's obvious who are the bigger crooks here...

Apart from anything else this kind of legal action seems totally counter productive. It isn't going to win the record industry many fans, and I doubt that it'll do much to stop file sharing.

I think it's another good reason to avoid buying CDs from the RIAA associated major labels. Instead support the indie labels, go to see your favourite bands live (they get more money that way), and if you have to have a major label release buy a used copy. Along with other consumer hostile activities, such as price fixing and the inclusion of insidious DRM like Sony's rootkit, I don't feel comfortable funding them with my money.

I used to work for a housing charity, dealing the homeless shelters, women's refuges, supported accommodation for drug addicts, that kind of thing. You'd often see extremely dangerous people get away with violent crimes with a slap on the wrist, or escape punishment on technicalities, or by intimidating witnesses. People like violent pimps and drug dealers, or men who had repeatedly abused women. It often seemed like people just didn't care and couldn't be bothered doing anything to help. It puts it into perspective when you compare that kind of thing with the 'crime' of sharing a couple of dozen MP3s. It's a crazy world where more effort seems to be put into stopping people sharing a bit of music...

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:40 am

As you would guess, she if filing an appeal.

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/ ... er-appeals
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-979275 ... 47-1_3-0-5

Seems that she thinks that evidence is necessary, unlike the judge and the RIAA.

The RIAA seem to think that just because someone shares a file it breaches copyright, even if there is no proof that anyone has downloaded it. So how is this any different from renting a movie, there is no proof that they have NOT copied the movie.

I hope the next judge isnt so easily bribed by the RIAA as the last idiot was

This is no different than someone being accused and found guilty of murder because they own a gun, even though there is no other evidence at all of any wrongdoing

Andy

jhhoffma · Post by **jhhoffma** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:48 am

There's a big difference between her case and a lot of other RIAA lawsuits out there, which is why they went to trial with this one. In her case, the MAC address of the modem and NIC of her computer was logged for specific time periods which the files were downloaded over. Since she didn't have a router and her computer was connected directly to the modem, they know it wasn't another computer doing the downloading. Since that ties it to the computer, we need to tie it to a person. Simple: her computer was password protected and she herself admitted that the password was only known to her.

Not to mention the id on Kazaa used to download the files in question is a screen name she's been using for 13 years...

Having said that, the amount she is being ordered to pay is ludicrous. I think it's disgusting when courts award punitive damages when actual damages aren't proven to exist.

Please remember that in our courts you only have to prove beyond a "reasonable" doubt, not beyond "all" doubt. That doesn't preclude the necessity for ANY evidence, it just allows us to convict someone of doing a crime even if there were no witnesses.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:30 am

According to testimony, Thomas replaced her hard drive weeks after RIAA investigators accessed her share file and discovered 1,702 files. The industry sued on just 24 of those files.

Seems she is not little miss innocent. She willfully, knowingly, and rather abundantly disregarded copyrights.

the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.

Not entirely true. My house wont have any such software loaded. I bet a lot of others wont either.

=================================

Perhaps we can add at least a little thanks to all the peer-to-peer users for Vista's less appealing aspects, like sluggishness and hardware lockouts:

Content Protection

=================================

I personally have little sympathy for Ms. Thomas and others who have shared her fate. I don't like to see harm come to anyone, but nonetheless, she stole their music. If you don't like CD prices don't buy them and don't listen to them. Easy enough. I don't!

All this is about is getting it for free, not because it costs $20 for a CD. Ms. Thomas and everyone else on those peer-to-peers would still be there if CD's cost $2.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:48 am

Copper wrote:I don't like to see harm come to anyone, but nonetheless, she stole their music.

She did NOT "steal" their music, unless she went to their studios and removed the masters without their permission. Stealing is a criminal offence, unlike copyright infringement which is a civil matter unless it's done for commercial gain (and hence there are less stringent requirements for evidence).

What she did was to allegedly deprive them of putative future sales, which may or may not have materialised in fact.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:36 am

She did NOT "steal" their music, unless she went to their studios and removed the masters without their permission. Stealing is a criminal offence, unlike copyright infringement which is a civil matter unless it's done for commercial gain (and hence there are less stringent requirements for evidence).

What she did was to allegedly deprive them of putative future sales, which may or may not have materialised in fact.

I aggree, she would be in a better possition if she got 5-years for armed robbery trying to steal the CD's, she would only be screwed for 5-years, this has screwed her for the rest of her life.

Again.... this is totally disproportionate to her alleged crime.

I bet people who copy and then sell CD's on street corners get less, even though they are actually profiting from their actions directly.

Andy

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:04 am

Just today I read a piece in my local paper about a thug who had been making the lives of local people a misery with violence and intimidation. He'd committed a string of crimes, but was eventually convicted of animal cruelty after he threw half starved dogs into the path of moving traffic.

His punishment was a ban on keeping dogs for five years and an Anti Social Behaviour Order, essentially little more than a warning not to do it again. To a lot of thugs an ASBO is something to be achieved, like a badge of honour. It'll make his punishment harsher the next time he commits a crime and breaks the ASBO, but how much harm should you have to do before getting a real punishment?

It makes me sick that people get away with causing suffering, yet someone else is punished harshly for a virtually victimless crime.

frostedflakes · Post by **frostedflakes** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:16 pm

Maybe the jury was pissed that the defense was feeding them blatant lies and decided to throw the book at her because of this?

It's pretty obvious IMO that she's guilty. It seems to me that their legal strategy shouldn't be to try and prove her innocence, but rather to convince the jury that a victimless crime like file sharing is worth no more than a slap on the wrist. A $220k fine is totally unreasonable for the offense committed.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:30 pm

nick705 wrote:She did NOT "steal" their music, [....]

Sure she did. She and her peer-to-peer partners are thiefs no different than if they went to the local shop and stole CD's off the shelf. They want it for free so they stick it in their pocket and hope no one is looking.

You know? iTunes and I think Walmart too sell songs for a $1 a piece. A freakin' $1 and they still steal it instead. That's right. It's as dumb as stealing a pack of gum off the shelf, 1700 times no less. I think it's just stupid and I can't blame the recording industry anymore than I could the shop owner.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:39 pm

if somebody peered into your window, looked at your kitchen table, memorized it, then proceded to build an exact copy of it, you think you could make a case of larsony?

Steve_Y · Post by **Steve_Y** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 1:05 pm

Copper wrote:
nick705 wrote:She did NOT "steal" their music, [....]
Sure she did. She and her peer-to-peer partners are thiefs no different than if they went to the local shop and stole CD's off the shelf. They want it for free so they stick it in their pocket and hope no one is looking.

Surely you can't be serious? It's copyright infringement, and I can understand people being strongly against that, but in no way is it the same as actually stealing something.

Unlike stealing an actual CD, someone who downloads a file isn't depriving anyone of that product. Most of the time they probably aren't even costing the record company a sale.

Calling it theft is the same kind of hyperbole that the record companies indulge in, it's just silly rhetoric.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:03 pm

Copper wrote:
nick705 wrote:She did NOT "steal" their music, [....]
Sure she did. She and her peer-to-peer partners are thiefs no different than if they went to the local shop and stole CD's off the shelf. They want it for free so they stick it in their pocket and hope no one is looking.

Bollocks. Find yourself a dictionary and look up the real definition of "stealing" or "theft," rather than parroting whatever the coke-snorting RIAA executives want you to believe.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:13 pm

I think it's far from rhetoric. It's probably even worse than what I have described so far. When we look at what Frostedflakes asks (it's kind of hard to take ourselves seriously when we have to interject names like these

) I can see a little insight:

Maybe the jury was pissed that the defense was feeding them blatant lies and decided to throw the book at her because of this?

Why did they throw the book at her? Maybe the jury is seeing what I see. It isn't just stealing a pack of gum to save a buck (as utterly stupid as that is). It's much more. In partaking in the peer-to-peer, she is doing much more. She is also redistributing that material to countless others flat in the face of the copyright. She should be happy she's not in prison. I would put her theer if I had the option and been a member of her jury.

So contrary to thinking my view is hyperbole, I can't understand why anyone would think it's harmless. They are freakin' conspirin' thieves.

All that said, I couldn't care much less about the whole thing. I certianly have a view about it, but it's the recording industry's problem, not mine.

So I wont be loosing any sleep one way or the other.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:29 pm

nick705 wrote:coke-snorting RIAA executives

Makes it easy doesn't it? It also explains the popularity of peer-to-peer in face of what "poor innocent moms" wouldn't otherwise do. When someone takes what is owned by someone else without their permission it is theft. Copyright affords just that - ownership.

nick705 · Post by **nick705** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:51 pm

Copper wrote:
nick705 wrote:coke-snorting RIAA executives
Makes it easy doesn't it? It also explains the popularity of peer-to-peer in face of what "poor innocent moms" wouldn't otherwise do. When someone takes what is owned by someone else without their permission it is theft. Copyright affords just that - ownership.

No, "a person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and "thief" and "steal" shall be construed accordingly."

Making an unauthorised copy of copyrighted material is not depriving the owner of the property, therefore it is not theft.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:14 pm

And yet, they are still easily recognizable as the thieves they are - stealing what it owned by someone else so they don't have to pay for it. And, redistributing so others might do the same. No different than how any of us would see someone who sneaks onto a pleasure cruise so they don't have to pay fair and, even more, producing and distributing material to others both encouraging them to do it and showing them how to get away with it.

It seems pretty obvious why the jury decided what they did. Wouldn't you agree? They probably weren't thinking those coke-snorting execs got what they deserved, which is about the only way one can see it otherwise.

A heads up to all! Stealing copyrighted material and/or redistributing it is an indefensable position. You just look like a thief trying to get away without paying. Spewing coke-snorting exec blurbs about is just going to make you look even more deserving of the penalty the jury is about to dish out. Deserving to the very people you don't want to look that way to: The jury.

I understand your technical point, Nick. And I don't despute it. But just the same, for all intents and purposes, theft is exactly what is occuring on peer-to-peer. People are taking and redistributing copyrighted material that is owned by others for no other reason than so they don't have to pay for it and others might do the same. It's repulsive. And it sure hell doesn't require being duped by coke-snortin' exec's to see it this way. It just requires common sense.

klankymen · Post by **klankymen** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:37 pm

So? The republican party is to ME "easily recognizable" as "repulsive", but just because it's my opinion doesn't make it the word of the law. However what nick is quoting IS the word of the law.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:43 pm

So, klankymen, (again with the names that makes this so hard to take seriously

) no we wont be charged with theft when we peer-to-peer copyrighted material. We won't be charged with such because it doesn't fit the legal description of theft.

But! The jury is going to see us as the thieves we are. They wont take sympathy on us when we attempt to portray ourselves as an innocent little mom just listening to a little ol' song being persecuted by greedy, coke-snortin' execs. They will see us for what we are really doing: Taking copyrighted material so we don't have to pay for it and redistributing it so others might do the same. They'll see us doing just what a thief does.

They'll see that we're not doing it to feed a hungry child, put food on the table that otherwise wouldn't be there. No, they'll see that we just don't want to pay for something we don't even need for nothing more than self gratification.

qviri · Post by **qviri** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:53 pm

Copper wrote:
nick705 wrote:She did NOT "steal" their music, [....]
Sure she did. She and her peer-to-peer partners are thiefs no different than if they went to the local shop and stole CD's off the shelf.

Blatantly false. If you steal a CD from a store, the store loses the amount it paid for the CD.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:16 pm

Continuing on such that we might understand the simularity to which I spoke:

Copper wrote:Sure she did. She and her peer-to-peer partners are thiefs no different than if they went to the local shop and stole CD's off the shelf. They want it for free so they stick it in their pocket and hope no one is looking.

qviri · Post by **qviri** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:25 pm

You said "no different", not "similar". English isn't my first language, but as far as I am aware these terms are generally not considered to be interchangeable.

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 6:53 pm

English is my first language, but that doesn't help me much.

I think, though, the context of the entire statement would imply a simularity between the two. A manner in which they are identical, but not identical in every, or even more than one respect. And I went on, in the last sentence, to identify the simularity to which I spoke. The respect where they are "no different."

"They [the peer-to-peer user and the dude who lifts the CD from the store] want it for free so they stick it in their pocket [proverbial pocket called 'PC folder' in the case of the peer-to-peer user] and hope no one is looking."

Plissken · Post by **Plissken** » Wed Oct 10, 2007 7:24 pm

Imagine that instead of music, the object in question was the new Harry Potter book. She downloads (illegally) scanned PDFs of the pages to read the book, and also distributes them to friends. How is it any different? She's guilty of criminal possession and distribution. It doesn't matter if it's widgets or bytes; intellectual property is still property.

jaganath · Post by **jaganath** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:56 am

Imagine that instead of music, the object in question was the new Harry Potter book. She downloads (illegally) scanned PDFs of the pages to read the book, and also distributes them to friends.

OK, let's run with the book analogy. let's say her friend has bought the book, and lends it to her to read: where is the crime?

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:41 am

I knew this was going to turn into a debate about whether its right/wrong, wether its theft/copyright infringment, and I know for a fact that we will never have aggreement on these issues.

My original point, and this discussion is actually about whether her punishment was fair and just.

Copper, I put 3 questions to you, and would like you to answer each one fairly, justly, and seperately of each other, as they are 3 different people.

1), If someone who doesnt break into a shop, but manages to steal 212 CD's at the cost of $20 each, what should their punishment be.?

2), If someone uploads 1,700 songs onto Kazaa allowing an unknown quantity of people to download them for free, what should their punishment be.?

3), If someone gains 1,700 songs (how is not relevant to this question and should not be part of your answer), and proceeds to sell copies of the CD's (212 different CD's) for $5 per CD, no one knows how many CD's that person has sold, what should their punishment be.?

Andy

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:26 am

The answer is an amount great enough such that it will strongly discourage her and others who would do like her to not do it. The amount Ms Thomas received seems to fit that bill well, but in comparison to the recording industry's cost to bring and defend the suit is probably too small.

It matters not whether a single song was ever redistributed or not. It matters not whether the recording industry suffered the loss of any sale. It matters that Ms Thomas knowingly stored that music such that it would be redistributed in violation of the copyright. It matters that Ms Thomas knowingly downloaded an kept material in violation of its copyright.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 5:50 am

Congratulations Copper, you managed NOT to answer any of my questions in a fair and just manner, and you failed to answer 2 of the 3 questions entirely.

Unless you do so you will be ignored by pretty much everyone within this post as you have proved that your argument (lack of) has no bearing whatsowever with fairness, and little to do with justice, and as I have given you a good oportunity to answer the questions I have set out you have proven that you are not willing to participate in any kind of level headed thinking, and thus prove that your opinion is wothless and should be ignored.

Of course you can decide to edit your post and use a bit of common sense, and if you do, then I will edit this post mocking your silly attitude to a question about a fair punishment and not a question about whether any of the persons in the 3 questions I laid out for you are innocent or guilty, they are all guilty of something, you decide the punishment.

Andy

Copper · Post by **Copper** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 6:38 am

I explained my view against Ms Thomas and her fellow peer-to peer members whether you mock me or not. I also explained my view regarding the punitive damages levied against her, the subject, as you put it, of this topic. If you'd like to discuss the reasoning I offer I'll be more than willing.

Any who would like to devise punitive damages to your hypotheticals is welcome to do so.

andyb · Post by **andyb** » Thu Oct 11, 2007 7:00 am

I thank you for making your position clear beyond doubt.

I explained my view against Ms Thomas and her fellow peer-to peer members whether you mock me or not. I also explained my view regarding the punitive damages levied against her, the subject, as you put it, of this topic. If you'd like to discuss the reasoning I offer I'll be more than willing.

Any who would like to devise punitive damages to your hypotheticals is welcome to do so.

I would also like to see other forum members select their punishment for the 3 person and their crimes I have listed above.

Andy