“Appalling” $1.5m File-Sharing Verdict Slashed To $54,000

enigmax
July 22, 2011
103
capitol,
Judge Davis,
RIAA,
Thomas-Rasset
Print

A federal court has slashed the verdict in an infamous file-sharing case from $1.5 million to ‘just’ $54,000. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis branded an earlier jury decision in favor of the RIAA and against Jammie Thomas-Rasset as “appalling.” Judge Davis has now overruled a jury three times in this case. The RIAA are reportedly unhappy with the verdict and are considering their options.

Back in November 2010, Jammie Thomas-Rasset lost her re-retrial against the RIAA.

The jury found her guilty of infringing the rights of Capitol Records and awarded a $62,500 fine per song punishment.

Sharing just 24 songs using the file-sharing client Kazaa was set to cost her a cool $1.5 million.

But now, following a decision by a federal court, that verdict has been slashed to ‘just’ $54,000. In delivering his verdict, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis slammed the November decision.

“The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable,” Judge Davis wrote in his verdict.

“In this particular case, involving a first-time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file-sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

“This reduced award is punitive and substantial. It acts as a potent deterrent.”

This latest verdict marks the third occasion that Judge Davis has overruled the decision of a jury in the RIAA’s case against Rasset-Thomas.

In 2007 a jury hit Jammie Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 verdict. She appealed and in 2008 a mistrial was declared. Judge Davis ruled that the fines were “disproportionate to the damages suffered.”

The case went for re-trial before a new jury in 2009 and a guilty verdict was reached yet again, this time with even harsher fines. Thomas-Rasset was ordered to pay $80,000 per infringement, a massive $1.92 million in total.

Just a few months on and this amount was slashed to $54,000 when the award was deemed unconstitutional.

In November 2010 the appeal of the retrial was heard and once again the RIAA and Capitol Records came out on top. The jury decided that Thomas-Rasset had to pay a $62,500 fine per shared song, a total of $1.5 million, a verdict which has today been overturned by Judge Davis.

Today’s decision is unlikely to mark the end of the road in this case. The RIAA are said to be dissatisfied with the result and are reported to be considering their options.

Lawyer Ben Sheffner, who broke the news, posted a copy of the decision online (embedded below).

Order on Motions to Amend/Alter Verdict in Capitol v. Thomas-Rasset

Previous Post | Next Post

Follow @torrentfreak

Carrian74

lol i wonder how much the lawyers spent to get 54k thoasand
- Ven
  
  It’s all about the rulings they can use in future cases. Just one of many moves in a chess game that is the legal and lobbying industry.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
    
    There’s so much bad PR from this, that the RIAA gave up the deterrent factor. That’s why they’re pushing 3 strikes.
    - liquidmonkey
      
      can someone pleeeeeeeeeeeeeease pass me what the RIAA is smoking.
      
      i mean seriously, how can a group of adults consciously sit around a table and actually think that a fine of ONE point FIVE MILLION DOLLARS is proportional to sharing 24 single songs?!?!?!!?!?!?
      
      totally
      
      blows
      
      my
      
      mind
  - Henry
    
    I don’t understand how they can impose such high fines.
    One silly song costs 1€ and she downloaded 24, so she “stole” 24€.
    Maybe she shared 2:1, as everybody ought to, that’s a “damage” of 48.
    Total “damage” 72. Give her fines twice this amoung, so she as to pay about 200-300€…and that’s much…because most of us would never buy the shit we download…lady GAGA? jesus, that’s not worth a penny.
- Ven
  
  It’s all about the rulings they can use in future cases. Just one of many moves in a chess game that is the legal and lobbying industry.
Gargamel

54k is still insane. Leave her alone already.
- Anonymous
  
  So she is now down to $2250 per song which in my view still ranks as cruel and unusual and quite unreasonable. Still compared to fines the jury awarded then it is at least a lot better.
  
  Jammie Thomas-Rasset is clearly your average file-sharer. She downloaded music and was kind enough to spend time seeding what she downloaded. Sharing is caring and all that. Now simply because she wanted to explore music she has this hideous case to deal with taking up years of her life.
  
  And what is wrong with this jury? The original jury imposed fine was later branded as unconstitutional and then a second jury imposed the same fine. Is this like f**k you judge and your rulings? F**k the US constitution and the Bill or Rights?
  
  Now as the judge says this $2250 per song is still beyond the real damages caused when he maxed it out with punitive damages. Does this really act as a deterrent to anyone? All it does for me is to p*ss me off and I can begin to see why people spend so much time and effort uploading promo CDs.
  
  Life would seem much better had she just been fined some realistic value like $1 per song when everyone could then say “well she was fairly punished” and life moves on. At least $2250 per song, down from $62,500 per song, is a large step in the right direction.
  - Ven
    
    The jury isn’t handing down fines, they are making the ruling that she is guilty and should be fined the amount that law allows. The judge is the one who can take that decision and tweak it based on pertinent factors.
    
    Juries are only there to decide guilt or innocence. Everything else they get named responsible for is misinformation.
    - Mouse
      
      Incorrect. Juries award damages.
    - Anonymous
      
      According to the article here and on Wired and previous articles, the juries in the case have been the ones handing down the fines. Til just this one time when the judge finally said essentially “enough is enough, this has gotten out of hand and the damages are ridiculous, I’m using my power as judge to make them more reasonable”.
      
      And no, juries don’t just decide guilt or innocence. Just look into lawsuits where insurance companies have been sued and a person has won against them. Juries decide what they’re awarded.
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_PFCI5VRUCYT6AVBT3P6ILV3COI Ophelia Millais
      
      It is correct that civil trial juries do get to decide on the amount of damages, in this case within a specific range defined by the law (so 99 cents a song is not an option), but it’s alarming that TorrentFreak consistently and incorrectly refers to “guilty verdicts” in these cases. In a civil (not criminal) trial such as this, at least in the U.S., the state is not accusing the defendant of committing a crime, and there is never a “verdict” of “guilt” or “innocence.” Rather, civilian/corporate plaintiffs are merely claiming they’re entitled to damages (i.e. money) based on the conduct or negligence of the civilian/corporate defendant, who is only found “liable” or “not liable” for those damages. This may sound like splitting hairs, but there’s a good reason file-sharers are not being subjected to criminal court proceedings in the U.S.: in civil court, as compared to criminal, burdens of proof are much lower, and the tolerance for theatrics and shenanigans is much higher. It’s far easier to get a liability finding, especially with an ignorant jury (no file sharers allowed), than it would be to get a guilty verdict. Conflating the two outcomes plays into the hands of the plaintiffs, who stand to gain from the public’s incorrect perception that it was proven that a “crime” was committed by small-time file-sharers.
    - Ven
      
      @electric_worry and Mouse
      
      Juries “award” damages based upon the arguments they have heard. The Judge is then the one who decides if those damages are acceptable or if they should be lowered or simply deemed unconstitutional.
      
      Considering that (in the USA) only 2% of punitive damages are ever enforced in civil cases, I would hazard the guess that the jury is not free to do whatever it wants.
  - Ven
    
    The jury isn’t handing down fines, they are making the ruling that she is guilty and should be fined the amount that law allows. The judge is the one who can take that decision and tweak it based on pertinent factors.
    
    Juries are only there to decide guilt or innocence. Everything else they get named responsible for is misinformation.
  - Elisa ? Knockout™
    
    Yep $0.99 per song sounds way more reasonable. Riaa can’t shut up i hope she sues for endless harassment.
    - Anonymous
      
      This case is likely to end up in the Supreme Court. She has free lawyers who benefit from the publicity. So this costs her little to just play this legal conflict out until the end or until they provide a value she is happy with.
      
      I doubt it is in the RIAA’s interest to continue this case. Her only interest now is the value of the fine. The only real value here is us file-sharers who may well get some epic ruling from the Supreme Court.
      
      The best option for all seems to be the fake fine. Let her pay what she wants on easy terms but hold her to contact that states super high fine was agreed and paid with contract banning her to state that any other value was paid at risk of losing this large discount.
      
      She then escapes without ruining her life. Then the RIAA get proof enough of a massive fine to scare infringers. The only loss would then be us.
      
      Well they call her a liar so why not have her lie for their benefit?
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      Yeah i can kinda see what you mean. The riaa will just continue to push the case hopefully the right judge will come aorund and tell the riaa screw it .THEN SHE’LL PAY LESS IF NOTHING ;)
    - Anonymous
      
      Based upon the law they are using and in applying statutory damages the minimum amount Congress allows a Judge to impose is $750 per infringement.
      
      The Judge in question here based upon her non-profit interest to simply build herself a music library, including sharing to others without profit, concluded her damages should be based around this minimum.
      
      He then concluded that any statutory damages jury imposed must be within the range of 3 times this minimum or $2250 maximum. Any statutory damages awarded about this value would be unconstitutional.
      
      Without personal judgement on this case he then reduced the former unconstitutional jury imposed statutory damages to the maximum of this range to make this fine constitutionally valid.
      
      So we will have to see where her legal team go from here. The $750 minimum is set by Congress and therefore not easy to change. The fine level is set my jury and also not easy to change. Little hope in getting the 24 songs reduced to a lower number either.
      
      Consider the Court’s low opinion of her and known lies then she sure needs a good legal team.
    - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
      
      Actually, the 750 minimum is easy to change by the judge saying that the statutory limitation goes against the right of the court, and therefore the fine can be LESS than that.
      
      They can try to take that to the Supreme Court, but I think that the Supreme Court would come down (even though it is stacked with conservatives right now) on the side that it infringes on the court’s prerogative.
    - Anonymous
      
      It seems right to say that $750 minimum is wrong for non-profit file-sharing but set by Congress would take a major reason for a Judge to say Congress is wrong. I cant see it happening outside the Supreme Court and even they could just brush it off.
      
      These are two reasons to say $750 minimum is wrong. The first is that even the copyright side believes her fine is too high and they have always been offering her less to settle.
      
      The second fact of course is that $750 is far before the $0.99 cost of a song. Sure if they spent weeks uploading that is not an issue, but if they only did the 1:1 aspect like many then cost would be between $0.99 and $1.98.
      
      This woman did some major uploading (or so they say) and already she is hitting around the minimum level. So what if 1:1 can be proved? They are then doing much less so need a lower fine beyond the minimum.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      Yeah she only downloaded 24 songs. Which is totally ridiculous.
      I <3 Aerosmith. But if Steven Tyler was going broke from file sharers he wouldn't be on American idol as a judge raking up profit and getting more exposure. So it's the riaa trying to cause all this hysteria and making money off of an artist. She happened to have been targeted in the worst way.
    - Anon
      
      It’s not true she only downloaded 24 songs, Eliza. Her computers revealed she had downloaded and distributed thousands of songs and you would know that were you actually following the case. They prosecuted for only 24. It’s also untrue the “industry demanded” her penalties. The transcript of the court case states very clearly the RIAA lawyer made no recommendations at all, none, suggesting to “leave this to the good judgment of the jury.” It’s the 12 person jury who assigns penalty, not the judge, not the prosecution.
      
      It also helps the RIAA cause that pirates are so amazingly poorly informed, you do not know they law, you don’t know the facts of these cases and yet pirates love to flap their lips about all of this as if they were the experts.
      
      Good.
      That works for us, too.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      First off it’s elisa not eliza!!! Secondly don’t tell me what i do and don’t know just to make yourself feel proud!! I’m not a pirate I’m a fucking gyspy!!
      
      Um ok stop right there 1700 songs is not “thousands” you hypocrite.
      
      All the services i use are legal and for one i use hulu,spotify etc. So don’t put me in some category like you assholes love to do. Secondly we know our rights and you hypocrite pro copyright scumbags think you know everything.
      
      I’m not poor nor am i stupid as you boldly like to spout out of you fat ugly OLD balding head of yours. It’s hilarious when you assholes think you can dictate.Then when the courts don’t go in your favor you have to continue as if you think the second time around is going to save you in anyway.
      
      The same thing happened when Sumner Redstone owner of cnet/download.com tried suing Youtube for 1 billion dollars and ultimately lost. Oh let’s not for get Sumner the crook Redstone. Hmm isn’t he being sued and by Alki Davids -cough- god knows how many artist in the lawsuit..
      
      you do not know they law, you don’t know the facts of these cases and yet pirates love to flap their lips about all of this as if they were the experts.
      
      Obviously, you’re to involved in paying off people to make laws pay off a paid jury or lawyer or judge etc. Kindly go fuck yourself.
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
      
      @ Violated0
      It’s within the RIAA’s interests to see this case hit the Supreme Court for one main reason. They want that deterrent factor. Whitney Harper’s case (that Scotus turned down) showed that they’re determined to use the law for egregious amounts to cover their lawyer costs.
      
      Also, Jammie-Thomas is saying she’s not spending *ANY* money on this. Period. The fact is, the world has changed, there’s free streaming now and she would not have to pay in this day and age.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      Very interesting point made. Where will all this amount to? Absolutely nothing neither side will win and more money being spent to not receive any money at all. I guess will have to see. Again the artists receive nothing in return.
    - Anon
      
      If you have evidence the jury was bribed or the judge was paid off, you should find it and post it. Without that, you remain part of the problem of relentless pirate bullshit.
      
      I apologize for spelling your name wrong, Elisa. You’ve gotten everything ELSE wrong. lol
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      I don’t have to prove anything the Internet exposes it all the amount of money being spent to the senators and people in government the protect ip bill, coica, sb 978, net neutrality all this amounts to everything.
      Judge Beryl Howell in the hurt lockers case. Oh that’s right wasn’t judge beryl howell a former LOBBYIST for the riaa? I might be young and blonde but I’m not stupid. What exactly did i get wrong? Stop contradicting yourself please. How exactly am i the problem?
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
    
    Think about if the 12 jurors knew about jury nullification, to show the RIAA how frivolous this lawsuit really was.
    
    It would be awesome.
  - Mr. Perfect
    
    Why should she be fined $0.99 per song? In that case we are only taking into consideration the damage caused by her infringement. What about the millions of people who downloaded those songs from her for free? Its because of her that millions of people got access to them for free and damages for those downloads should be counted too.
    
    Where I live, if you get on a train without buying a ticket and are caught by the ticket checker, you have to pay a fine which is almost 50 times that of the cost of the ticket. Do you think anyone would bother to buy a ticket if the fine was the same as the cost of a ticket? They would just gamble on not getting caught 9 out of 10 times. If the high cost of penalty that forces us to buy the tickets. Same with copyright infringement, the penalty for infringement per song needs to be extremely high so that it acts as a deterrent.
    - Anonymous
      
      But deterrents aren’t as effective as they’re made out to be. The best example to be given is drugs. Drug laws are insane. Not insane in like “crazy” just insane as in how harsh the laws are and penalties for drug use, drug trafficking, etc. Most of the people in jail in the U.S. are in jail for violating one drug law or another. The punishments are pretty harsh. But that doesn’t deter people from using drugs in a recreational manner or trafficking in narcotics. If anything it only makes it more worthwhile to do those things. Well maybe not recreational use, but trafficking. If the punishments were tiny, it wouldn’t be a big risk. But because it is a big risk, people can make more money doing it. Same with drug use. The more they seize, the less there is. Thus making street values go up. Which means what people can bring in is worth more money. Thus making the reward worth the risk. And control of the drug trade a multibillion dollar industry.
      
      So the laws to punish people for those things, which might be seen to be good deterrents are if anything actually making it more worthwhile to pursue those things. And are encouraging people to take more chances and to fight more determinedly to keep control of it. Those laws aren’t deterring at all. Casual people, sure. But casual people venturing into those things aren’t that many. Or not as many as you’d be led to believe.
      
      As I’ve mentioned in other comments, I had a friend who stole 2 cds. He got a ticket for $180 for the theft. He ended up on a payment plan, and because he paid it in “full” in under a month, the police department municipal court gave him a discount of $40 on the ticket. So he only ended up paying $140. I mean that’s not much of a deterrent. If anything, it seems to me that’s kind of a “hey do this instead” type thing. Stealing the physical equivalent of that music (2 cds) will cost a person under $200 (on average). Better to steal the actual physical product in that case. The risk is greater (of being actually caught), but it’s not that big to begin with. And the punishment is way less. So what then? Should people just actually steal? Because the “deterrent” in that case isn’t as harsh? (I’m not advocating theft here, just making a comparison and pointing out what it might be interpreted as. Before someone says I am. There’s always one out there.)
    - Anonymous
      
      But deterrents aren’t as effective as they’re made out to be. The best example to be given is drugs. Drug laws are insane. Not insane in like “crazy” just insane as in how harsh the laws are and penalties for drug use, drug trafficking, etc. Most of the people in jail in the U.S. are in jail for violating one drug law or another. The punishments are pretty harsh. But that doesn’t deter people from using drugs in a recreational manner or trafficking in narcotics. If anything it only makes it more worthwhile to do those things. Well maybe not recreational use, but trafficking. If the punishments were tiny, it wouldn’t be a big risk. But because it is a big risk, people can make more money doing it. Same with drug use. The more they seize, the less there is. Thus making street values go up. Which means what people can bring in is worth more money. Thus making the reward worth the risk. And control of the drug trade a multibillion dollar industry.
      
      So the laws to punish people for those things, which might be seen to be good deterrents are if anything actually making it more worthwhile to pursue those things. And are encouraging people to take more chances and to fight more determinedly to keep control of it. Those laws aren’t deterring at all. Casual people, sure. But casual people venturing into those things aren’t that many. Or not as many as you’d be led to believe.
      
      As I’ve mentioned in other comments, I had a friend who stole 2 cds. He got a ticket for $180 for the theft. He ended up on a payment plan, and because he paid it in “full” in under a month, the police department municipal court gave him a discount of $40 on the ticket. So he only ended up paying $140. I mean that’s not much of a deterrent. If anything, it seems to me that’s kind of a “hey do this instead” type thing. Stealing the physical equivalent of that music (2 cds) will cost a person under $200 (on average). Better to steal the actual physical product in that case. The risk is greater (of being actually caught), but it’s not that big to begin with. And the punishment is way less. So what then? Should people just actually steal? Because the “deterrent” in that case isn’t as harsh? (I’m not advocating theft here, just making a comparison and pointing out what it might be interpreted as. Before someone says I am. There’s always one out there.)
    - Mr. Perfect
      
      @electric_worry,
      
      If you look at it that way, then we can say none of the laws are effective. Criminals know they will be either sentenced to death or imprisoned for life if they murder and yet can you say people aren’t murdering anymore? No. Then what do you suggest? A society without any laws, fines or punishment just because a few degenerates will break them despite the steep punishments?
      
      One thing’s for sure the laws (fines and penalties) definitely act as a deterrent. It doesn’t deter everyone (nor is it possible) but if it weren’t for the laws, we would all be out there killing people we hated and stealing things from the market we needed without any consequences.
      
      I think the drug analogy doesn’t quite work in this case. Despite the high risks, people still take chances trafficking drugs because the pay is so good that one might get by without having to do any other work for the entire year. Not the same in case of piracy. If piracy laws are made as strict as drug laws, then people will be taking a massive risk without any monetary benefits and I am pretty sure 99% of the people won’t risk a $1 million fine or 10 years behind bars just to pirate a few songs which can be bought for a few bucks legally.
      
      As for your friend, I would wager that he knows very well that if he keeps getting caught stealing CDs again and again, the outcome won’t be as good as the $180 fine the first time.
    - Anonymous
      
      Yeah true. But I think comparing murderers and the punishments for that crime to people downloading some music or movies is a bit of a stretch, don’t you think? That’s not even remotely similar. Killing someone. Downloading a song. Not even in the same league of crime. I do get what you’re saying, but the silliness of that kind of comparison doesn’t help the debate. It just shows how ridiculous things are.
      
      Also, note, I didn’t say anything about a society with no laws or anything. I’m not saying your putting words in my mouth, but one could interpret it that way. But I think harsh penalties for things that aren’t as serious as other crimes is a waste of tax payer money and of courts’ times. I’d rather my tax dollars go to putting murderers away, and rapists, and people who deal drugs and things like that. Those are much more harmful crimes and the people doing them actually deserve to be in jail.
      
      Laws don’t act as deterrents. Penalties for breaking the laws do. That’s a difference. Semantics. Whatever. But we should be specific. Also, I doubt we’d all be out there killing and stealing. That’s putting very little faith in the human race. While it certainly has shown throughout history that we are flawed and a random species, I think we’re better than that. We wouldn’t devolve to that kind of thing. So again, I get what you’re saying, but the example you make is a bit much.
      
      Also, I think the drug analogy semi-does work. In regards to severe punishments. You’re focusing on the profit aspect. Not the punishment. And even then, you seem to be under the impression that people make a score and stop. That’s not the case. You don’t go for one big score and stop the drug dealing or trafficking. They keep going. Also, only highly placed people make a bundle through trafficking. The average trafficker makes a couple thousand, but nowhere near the amount you might think. Not enough to live off of for a whole year. I live in an area where drugs are dealt and trafficked on a regular basis, so this type of thing is something I’m aware of and read about in the local papers and see on the news every day. I’m not quite sure though how super strict punishments are merited by the sharing of a few songs. If someone profits off copyright infringement then fine, I understand that. But say a stay at home mom like the lady in this article, just getting songs for her own gratification. How does that deserve a harsh punishment? 10 years in jail? For a few songs. Do you realize how ludicrous and unreasonable that is? The punishment definitely does not fit the crime. I’ve met people who committed murder who didn’t even get 10 years. Manslaughter gets you 5 to 7, depending on the circumstances. But you think 10 is acceptable for file sharing? Come on now. I agree there should be some kind of punishment but nothing that excessive. That’s basically saying that the value placed on a human life is nowhere near the value of a few songs. Which isn’t the kind of thing we should be saying. More value should be placed on human life.
      
      As for my friend, nope. He’s are aware if he were to keep stealing that COULD happen. But could doesn’t mean will. He’s also noticed that while times have changed, plenty of things haven’t. Security measures certainly aren’t being updated regularly and I know he laughs when we go to stores and starts pointing out all the ways to steal and get away with it. I usually tell him I’ll leave without him if he even looks like he’s about to steal something. And either way, even if he did steal repeatedly, he won’t get hit with a $1.5 million fine. It’d stay reasonable in regards to his crimes.
    - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
      
      LOL! Millions of ppl who download those songs? Please Mr. Perfect, don’t embarrass yourself. Let’s do some math here: 1 million downloads times 3Mb an average lame mp3 would equal 3 million megabytes. If we round 1 Gb to 1000 Mb then we’d have stunning 3Tb (less than we should so I’m actually decreasing the amount). Even if we consider all 1700 songs she had available we still have an upload limit. I’m a heavy seeder. I use QoS so when no1 is using the connection my upload goes at 150 k/s. But I turn off the computer so I have like 8-10h daily for uploading. And SURPRISE SURPRISE I rarely max my upload unless I’m seeding big torrents with few seeders. Same happened with Kazaa when I was less educated in p2p and used it, my upload rarely maxed out, it depends on time of the day. And I keep track of my uploading habits and it’s like 40-60Gb a month average for a few years now. So it would take me like 4.5 years to upload those same 3Tb I mentioned. Those 24 songs were uploaded 3-5 times, nothing more than that. So, uh, you fail and you are completely clueless. Flawed like MAFIAA’s evidences and claims.
      
      And wow, here you are stretching the applicability of the law and what other ppl say. O wait, you copyright trolls do that all the time.
      
      As electric said, the absurd fines applied not only don’t work but also turns the public opinion against MAFIAA. My thought would be “I don’t have much anyway and I won’t be able to pay so to hell with it”.
      
      And for God sake Mr Perfect, people don’t see a problem with sharing. As much as they don’t see a problem with paying if they like or for ease of access. Even if they can get for free. Push for harsher laws? I’ll ask you: which law has ever worked when ppl (the majority sane part of us please) don’t agree with it? There are plenty of stupid laws that are ignored out there, just takes up some Googling to find one near you.
      
      And why I’m not surprised to see “The RIAA are said to be dissatisfied with the result and are reported to be considering their options.”? I think they need to be educated on how much one can be an asshole towards ppl and a completely greedy douche bag.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FCNK7C55CBUYFVSC5LNWKB322E Buglord

can someone message al-Qaeda and give them a proper target? I think their aim is a bit off.
- Zzzz
  
  Al-Qaeda probably love these guys as they’re also trying to destroy our freedom.
Ryzzo

It didn’t mention it in this article, but if you look at the court’s summary opinion you’ll find this quote:

“It is a higher award than the Court might have chosen to impose in its
sole discretion, but the decision was not for this Court to make. The Court has merely reduced the jury’s award to the maximum amount permitted under our
Constitution.”

Basically what he’s saying is that even this reduced verdict is too high, and given his own discretion it would have been much lower. This very important to note, especially since the RIAA themselves got off on massive commercial infringement with a measly $175.00 per track settlement. In my opinion, no non-commercial damages should ever be able to exceed that 175.00 amount.

Although I still think verdict is grossly disproportionate, at least Judge Davis seems to have enough common sense and foresight to realize the MAFIAA’s demands are ridiculous. What truly amazes me is that a jury of regular people could have ever found her guilty with a 62,500 per track verdict in the first place!?!?!
- http://tinyurl.com/ANoiXioNA-personal-info ANoiXioNA
  
  hear hear…… +100
  
  175 usd max for commercial sharing….
  
  <175 usd max for Non-commercial sharing….
  
  Or are the riaa bound by different rules of law ?
  - Ven
    
    The short answer is yes, there were different laws at play in the case against the RIAA.
  - Josh C
    
    Didn’t anyone ever tell you – those in power (ie those with money) aren’t bound by the law like us regular folk are
- Anonymous
  
  Yes it is strange how the RIAA are so quick to call people thieves when they themselves are the biggest thieves around.
  
  If I recall correctly then the big record labels behind the RIAA assembled and sold special mix CDs compiled from songs artists sent to them to preview. The problem then cropped up that these record labels had no intention of ever paying the musicians for these songs they profited from and simply put them on an eternal “waiting to be paid” list.
  
  About 20 years later some musicians got tired of waiting and then thousands of musicians sued the record labels behind the RIAA.
  
  As that would count as copyright fraud in my books then the court should have sent these bastards to prison. Major decades long organized crime to maximize personal greed and to stifle artistic creation in the United States.
  
  At only $175 a song they got off lightly. Yes file-sharing without any money or greed involved should never be fined more than commercial fraud has to pay.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_UJ4XRIA3A3E6MYGK755EGWLN4Q Dani A
    
    the problem here is… the jury’s job was to find her guilty or not guilty.. not whether the punishment fit the crime, that is up to the judge. The jury determined she did share those files, thats all there is to it. : it sucks shit though a straw though.
  - http://twitter.com/icanhazsake Ninja
    
    Non-commercial file sharing shouldn’t be any civil or criminal case before anything. It should be free and should fit in the law as it fits socially.
    
    But fear not Violated0, your favorite thugs will push it further: “The RIAA are said to be dissatisfied with the result and are reported to be considering their options.”
    
    If you want ppl to agree with you, give the example MAFIAA. Don’t go with “you wouldn’t steal a car” at us when it seems you ppl would steal not only the car.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=743613835 Bigg Russ

Silliness. Why don’t they just charge her the $0.99 per song that iTunes or Amazon would’ve charged her?
- Ven
  
  That would just be the cost. These fines also take into account legal fees, court fees, and an amount deemed necessary to prevent future infringement.
  
  If the worst thing that happened was that people were charged retail value for the stuff they stole, they would steal everything and only pay when they got caught.
  - Anonymous
    
    I would expect someone getting a criminal record that affects their job prospects and having to pay the court costs would be punishment enough. Should such crimes be repeated then courts can ban people from the area they cause the problem. Shops themselves can and do monitor or ban thieves. They can also be jailed if they violate court orders or for more serious crimes.
    
    I live in a county where a civil case, like copyright infringement, are not awarded punitive damages. I cannot see any rampant crime because of it.
    - Ven
      
      This is a civil case – it has no effect on their criminal record.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000345113163 Neal Bhalodia

WDF even 54k is a lot of 24 songs…come one this is crazy, someone needs to shut the RIAA down!
- Anonymous
  
  The real problem is that the law they are using is aimed at people who make lots of money infringing other people’s copyrighted media. The law makes no allocation at all for someone who made no money from what they did. So the law has been misapplied and the law needs to be fixed.
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1166100191 Nick P.

How bad is her lawyer? At most, she should maybe pay the price of each song as it would be sold in stores or on Itunes. How do you prove the punitive damage to company that can afford to sue over and over is the burden of a random person? How do you tie an ISP to a specific person? How do you conclude she was file sharing unless you were downloading the files from her, and what other content might you have found that you don’t “own?” When you lend someone a CD and they burn it, does that constitute massive copyright infringement to be taxed $175 dollars per song?

Either she’s standing up there saying “screw you guys I do what I want” or literally not merely out-of-touch people have an odd way of making it to juries.
- Ven
  
  When you admit to it, you are admitting guilt. Her lawyer could have gone all day on how, “The fines are unreasonably high for the crime,” but high fines don’t make her innocent and the laws are fairly clear on how much those fines should be.
  - http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
    
    Just because the laws are ‘clear’ does not mean that the law are ‘right’…. two different things there.
    - Ven
      
      I’m merely pointing out here that people are complaining about a jury and judge with their hands tied by that law, and name-calling an industry currently trying to work within current law.
      
      Yelling at the wrong people won’t change anything.
- Mr. Perfect
  
  How bad is her lawyer? At most, she should maybe pay the price of each song as it would be sold in stores or on Itunes.
  
  Are you dumb or what? How can you say that she should only be fined the price of each song? Why should anyone bother to pay for anything if the fine imposed is the same as the cost of the item stolen? Then people would just steal and pay only when they are caught. I know you pirates are usually dumber than the average Joe but anyone with a single brain cell would understand what I am saying.
  
  How do you conclude she was file sharing unless you were downloading the files from her, and what other content might you have found that you don’t “own?”
  
  So what if the RIAA downloaded the files from her to prove her infringement? The RIAA owns the copyright to those music files and they can download them, copy them and do whatever they wish with them. If you wanna have the same rights for distribution, why not apply for copyright to the author instead of thieving around?
  
  When you lend someone a CD and they burn it, does that constitute massive copyright infringement to be taxed $175 dollars per song?
  
  Another utterly dumb comparison. Lending a CD to a handful of friends is not the same as uploading to the internet and making it available to millions of strangers for free. Don’t tell me you can’t understand the difference.
  - Benjamin Bookbinder
    
    so instead of replying to the points, you throw insults… good to see the people supporting the RIAA make themselves look more retarded as the days go on.
Anonymous

As I am now starting to remember past news on this case then I now wonder if a certain 24-song music pack dedicated to Jammie Thomas-Rasset is still being seeded on BT?
- Anonymous
  
  Here is a list of the 24 songs involved…
  
  Aerosmith “Cryin’” 1993
  Bryan Adams “Somebody” 1984
  Def Leppard “Pour Some Sugar on Me” 1988
  Destiny’s Child “Bills, Bills, Bills” 1999
  Gloria Estefan “Rhythm Is Gonna Get You” 1987
  Gloria Estefan “Here We Are” 1989
  Gloria Estefan “Coming Out of the Dark” 1991
  Goo Goo Dolls “Iris” 1998
  Green Day “Basket Case” 1994
  Guns N’ Roses “Welcome to the Jungle” 1987
  Guns N’ Roses “November Rain” 1992
  Janet Jackson “Let’s Wait Awhile” 1987
  Journey “Don’t Stop Believin’” 1981
  Journey “Faithfully” 1983
  Linkin Park “One Step Closer” 2000
  No Doubt “Different People” 1995
  No Doubt “Bathwater” 2000
  No Doubt “Hella Good” 2001
  Reba McEntire “One Honest Heart” 1998
  Richard Marx “Now and Forever” 1994
  Sarah McLachlan “Possession” 1993
  Sarah McLachlan “Building a Mystery” 1998
  Sheryl Crow “Run Baby Run” 1993
  Vanessa Williams “Save the Best for Last” 1992
  
  They do claim she distributed 1702 songs in all via Kazaa.
  - Josh C
    
    I love how all of these are older songs from groups that are pretty much considered epic in mainstream media…
    - Benjamin
      
      …in other words, that they play 10+ times a day, everyday on the radio!
Pingback: “Appalling” $1.5m File-Sharing Verdict Slashed To $54,000 | We R Pirates
Anon

I love how pirates bray “the people are with us!” while the Pirate party can’t gather 3% and every time a jury is charged with thinking deeply and carefully about this, they fucking crucify her because she roundly deserves it. THREE times a jury of her peers slammed her for lying, destroying evidence and blaming her live in boyfriend and it takes a judge legislating from the bench to bail her out. lol Let’s watch her sell used thongs online again and raise $54,000.
Who wants a stinky Jammie thomas thong? lmao.

Little by little piracy of digital merchandise is being associated with poorly adjusted, disaffected losers who hack wifi, hide because they have zero principles while spoofing other people’s Ip addresses and generally acting like poorly raised hooligans with a temporary place to hide so they can steal.

You suck so incredibly hard and no one deserves thieving, selfish Jammie Thomas—the one who tried to blame it on her kids while under oath– more then the pirates themselves. The tide has turned. Now we hunt you. You haven’t been getting your stuff for “free” you selfish fucks.

You’ve been trading OUR LIBERTIES for it.
- Shiny Jirachi
  
  Sounds like you’re anally anguished. Perhaps you should stop trolling around here. It’s still insane and when compared to a similar circumstance that the big industry itself broke the same laws (infringement) they got off WAY easier. It’s unfair. If anything, she should be paying around $4,200 instead of this outrageous fine.
  
  It’s a double standard and something needs to be done.
  - nnoonoi
    
    Also she didn’t make money off of it, the record companies DID. So it’s not even a case of double standard, it’s worse, the record companies did actual fraud.
- Mr. Derp
  
  WARNING: Contains toxic troll food!
  
  Normally I don’t comment or feed trolls but the fact that you are spewing incoherent non-sense on ALL the posts recently is getting very irritating. If you want to post that is fine, if you want to disagree that is also fine. But the fact that you are spewing hate and garbage everywhere is simply sickening and unpleasant for others.
  
  Therefor I do say, STFU good sir…
  - Anonymous
    
    I’m with you. It’s one thing to disagree and debate a point logically and reasonably. But it’s quite another to just hate and hate and hate like this guy or gal is doing. There are a few who are on his “side” of the argument on this site, they don’t resort to his type of post though. Even his “arguments” are stupid. He demands that you cite sources and post links to any proof you have of anything you say. But if you ask the same of him, he responds with “well I can’t find any proof, which means that I’m right, so I don’t have to post anything, I’m just right by default”. If that’s not like the stupidest argument for “being right” I’ve ever heard, I don’t know what is. Same goes for if you say you’re right. If you don’t have proof, then you’re not. The rule of “no proof needed to be right” applies to one person, him.
    
    The part that sucks is someone obviously agrees with everything he says. He always gets at least one “Like”. Which is probably only encouraging him to post the nonsense he does. But then again, I’ve seen plenty of trolls on other sites actually talk to themselves (using other usernames) and like their own comments. And sometimes, if you check his comment history it’ll show you things someone else with an entirely different username said. So it certainly makes you wonder.
    - Anon
      
      Electric, you are like a little girl hypocrite. In this very thread there is a remark about taking a gun into RIAA offices and you want to “discuss the issues.” right.
      
      For a decade artists have been told to “go fuck [them]selves when they turned to government for help protecting their professional entertainment products that pirates claim is crap while they steal copies of every bit of it.
      
      Then you hide behind ‘infringement isn’t stealing” BS while tens of billions of dollars that once supported artists goes missing while their work is distributed everywhere illegally.
      
      You cry out “they can’t catch me” but when they do, as in Jammies case when she stole and lied under oath and destroyed evidence, you cry out how unfair it all is when it’s actually a jury, THREE of them, who found it fair to punish her severely. Three times.
      
      You celebrate when artists lose their rights to sell products in the digital marketplace then bitch when your rights to privacy are violated by a government trying to balance rights for all. Not just pirates.
      
      Pirates demand industries “adapt” to blatant and institutionalized content theft but would be the first to scream if after decades of education and investment into their own personal work it was now considered “worthless” because technology provides a way to steal it behind their backs while hiding. Very classy, piracy.
      
      I wrote to my congressman and thanked him for helping to sponsor the Protect IP bill here in the states, partially because it will go a long way to bringing real punishments to people who steal online, but also partially because it is serving as a framework for Asia, India and the EU as they struggle with their own content thievery.
      
      And my congressman wrote back to thank me, and invite me to a public referendum on increasing the privacy crack down online and increasing the punishments for those who are caught and you can bet, I’ll be there to advocate for punishments that will ruin a pirates life.
      
      What did your government say when you wrote to them explaining why you should have all your digital content for free because ‘they can’t stop you” ? Hm? How’s that going? And now that the laws are coalescing and our privacy is being lost and little by little we are getting serious punishments finally into place, FINALLY, NOW you want to “discuss the issues.”
      
      Right. Screw you, hypocrite.
    - Anonymous
      
      @ Anon
      
      How am I a hypocrite? I didn’t even notice the “gun” comment. I try and overlook such blatantly idiotic statements. Those comments can be ignored, just like the ones in other sites and articles about the government, which always get a ton of “liberals are ruining everything” and “America’s becoming a socialist state” etc. Those are just the ramblings of completely ignorant people.
      
      Also, artists HAVE NOT been told to go fuck themselves. You sir are a flat out liar. The ones who have been told to go fuck themselves though, are the suits at the labels. The guys who DO NOT actually create any music. You know, the executives and their high priced lawyers.
      
      Thirdly, infringement isn’t stealing. That’s not BS. That’s a fact. If it were stealing, ALL countries would consider copyright infringement theft. But not all do, because no product is being physically stolen. Just copies of 1s and 0s. Also, can we get a citation on this figure of yours? “tens of billions of dollars…” Because I keep hearing things like that, as do others here, and yet all the figures and facts are to the contrary. Record album sales have dropped, yes that is verifiable. What isn’t commonly acknowledged in those same figures is that single sales and digital album sales have gone through the roof. Also, “distributed everywhere illegally” is a crock. You yourself constantly love to point out there are legal ways to get music. Which is a form of distribution. So yeah, it might be distributed in some places (NOTE: some does not equal everywhere) illegaly, but it’s also distributed legally. (I’ll be waiting on you to cite your sources though.)
      
      Also, I haven’t cried out “they can’t catch me”. You keep aiming your replies directly at me, as opposed to file sharers in general. I’ve never said that, nor will I. I don’t need to. I avoid buying products or downloading from these types of industries. They don’t deserve my money or attention. In regards to this case, I didn’t cry out about anything. I commented once so far and said the judge thought it was excessive. And that was in regards to someone else asking a question. Also, a jury is not the end all be all when it comes to fair. They aren’t experts. They are just told “facts” by lawyers and then have to make a decision. Just because they say “guilty” does not make it so. In regards to any case. It just means that one set of lawyers was able to convince them to decide that way. And even then, 3 times doesn’t matter. The first time, if you read the articles the judge made a mistake in his instructions to the jury. Which nullified that decision. So that would make it only 2 times. TWO TIMES. (see I can do that too)
      
      Artists HAVE NOT lost their rights to sell products in a digital marketplace. They can sell all they want. No one’s taken that right from them. Just look. Their products are sold by them directly on their own websites. On various markets (iTunes, Amazon, etc.). No rights have been taken. I have one favorite artists that directly e-mails me when they release a new album and then sends me a link to a hosting site to download their latest record in whatever format I want. THE ARTISTS does that. Seems to me like they are completely in control and well aware of their rights. But I do not like that rights can and will be trampled on behalf of the music industry. (Again, note: the music industry and artists in it are two separate entities) If someone wants to monitor me 24/7 and what I do online WITHOUT proof that I’m committing a crime, that’s a violation of my privacy. If someone wants to block sites to prevent me from looking at something, that’s f*cked up too. That’s a form of censorship. And no, they aren’t trying to balance rights for all. In enacting or attempting to enact some laws, they’re doing so NOT FOR ALL. They’re doing it for a few companies, with money to lobby to have their wants and needs put ahead of everyone else’s.
      
      And while some “pirates” say what you said about the adapting. Most don’t. Most just want the industries to adapt in general. Come up with new business models. You can’t say that they don’t work or it’s still untested. iTunes, Amazon, Netflix, etc. All those are examples of the business models they can adapt. All those are successful. All those have been proven and shown to work. All those “sell” the products at reasonable prices and in reasonable ways. That’s what people want. That’s what “pirates” want. Give them legal alternatives at reasonable prices and they’ll take it. Also, you’re making assumptions about how “pirates” would feel. You are stereotyping an entire group of people off the feelings and thoughts and beliefs of some. I mean, plenty of people distribute music and movies and software online freely. To be copied as often as wanted and further shared. Open source and creative commons. It’s not stealing. It’s literally sharing. Just credit the creator. And please, the last person who should say anything about “hiding” and “very classy” is the guy using the moniker, Anon. THAT MAKES YOU THE HYPOCRITE. Saying one thing, doing another. Hypocrite. You.
      
      As for congressman, I didn’t write. I don’t write letters, never have never will. It’s something I’ve never been able to do. So I don’t know what he/she would’ve said. And my government is the same as yours, idiot. I live in the United States. I’d also never put “they can’t stop me” because as I’ve said repeatedly, I don’t feel a need to download anything. Again, you’re making assumptions that don’t actually apply to me and in the process showing how biased and angry and moronic you are. You’re dead wrong about a ton of things. And your anger is showing. I can write in a calm manner, can you say the same? Or are you fuming? Because based on what you have written, it’s obvious you are.
      
      Also, I’ve yet to hear about any “serious punishments”. Disregard this one article. Please, by all means, share with us some of these things being put into place. I’m not aware of anything serious. I don’t think anyone else who lives in the U.S. on here has heard of them. So share with us, what’s coming?
      
      And yes, some here do discuss the issue of the article. That’s what is meant by “discuss the issues”. Let’s talk about the article. Not our petty comments. “WRE WRE WRE ALL PIRATES ARE THIEVES AND F*CKING LOSERS AND HIDING AND WRE WRE WRE.” That’s not discussing the issues. That’s you just being a pissy spoiled child who’s throwing a fit, cause not everyone is doing what you are or cares what you’re doing or thinking or anything. You’re mad, you can’t deal with it like an adult, so you vent and insult others and whatnot. Yeah, that’s not on topic at all. That’s you just being a child. Some of us try and stay on topic. As I’ve pointed out, I don’t always agree with Ven or Friend Of The People or Guest123. Guys who are on your side of the argument. But I do read what they write, we do have occasional back and forths. Others do too. Why? Because they discuss the issues, they stay on topic. They don’t go off on rants like you do that are irrelevant to the article. You know who you should talk to? Lakawak. That guy and you would have a ball. Both angry little c*nt nuggets who hate everyone and everything and just want to insult people. You get called out on it and you come up with this huge piece trying to sound holier than thou. But it doesn’t work. Why? Because you’ve already shown your true colors. You’re unreasonable, you’re angry, you want from others what you won’t give yourself. Basically, YOU’RE A F*CKING HYPOCRITE. So yeah, f*ck you. And the horse you rode in on.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      <3
    - Anonymous
      
      Lol. Thanks.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      anon seems to say the same stuff to crap to everyone. look up a bit and see a similar argument he/she/it left me and your welcome. ;) I’m working on a blog so maybe we can talk away from tf. Follow me on disqus. It’s too bad we can’t message one another on Disqus. I’m sure as hell not giving me email publicly.
    - Anonymous
      
      Indeed he does. Still kinda annoying. Followed. Never even noticed I could do that. Also, nice profile. Lol. Very groovy. Yeah, I wouldn’t give my email publicly either. And I’ve got quite a few. One for work, one for personal stuff, one for purchases, etc. I’ve got a throw away one for randomness, but I still wouldn’t share it on here. Look forward to checking out that blog you’re working on though. Be sure to share the link with us when it’s up and running.
    - Elisa ? Knockout™
      
      there’s allot of interesting things you can do on the dashboard in Disqus.I’m commenting from within Disqus and not directly from tf. Yeah I’m very cautious on who i speak with online. I have irl stalkers… Anyways I’ll have it up asap.;)
- Anonymous
  
  People may care to note that despite all the actions of the RIAA that Jammie Thomas-Rasset has NEVER agreed a settlement with them. She REFUSES to admit responsibility. Then to top it off the copyright side has NEVER provided any physical proof that she herself did this. All a case of MediaSentry tracking her IP address and we all know the issues with that.
  
  So sure dirty this mother of four all you want but she is sure giving you a hard fight.
- Mike
  
  Troll. But your actually wrong it is you who is being f***** up the ass by the pirates and will continue to be so as they all move over to VPN’s and all your IP spying gets stuck in the mud. How much do you think they stole off you today. Millions. Who is being f***** up the ass?
- Guest
  
  I lol’d @ brainwashed idiot
DarknezzMadnezz

Ive always wondered… if the person being accused murdered themselves in public with a message stating that their personal suicide was only done to escape the stupidity of lawyers and corrupt judges would make any difference?
I know that killing one’s self over someone else who is attempted to rob you of your life is stupid but lets think about it for a moment… what would the Anti Piracy group do then?
Would they attack another family member over what the other did?
How many people would it take committing suicide over these judgments, to change the law in which these lawyers are able to abuse and loop hole their way around in order to steal money from the public?

The world is currently at war with it self over economic issues, yet we are spending more time fighting over coping files then we are over how to correct the current state of our world and its lack of resources.

Let them continue their illicide process’s against the public, as soon as these idiots take their head out of their ass because of the recent sporting event, they will turn and attack the government for allowing another NON European country to invade with their laws.
- ANON
  
  Stop uploading and downloading illegally and the RIAA wouldn’t harass you. Its simple as that. Its stupid to think you can screw over the music industry sitting at home and they wouldn’t do anything to mess up your life.
  
  Who cares if a couple of people commit suicide because of that? It their own misdoing that brought it upon them. RIAA is only doing what it takes to protect their own rights, nothing else.
  - Benjamin Bookbinder
    
    “Stop uploading and downloading illegally and the RIAA wouldn’t harass you. Its simple as that.”
    
    Anybody who actually kept up with this issue knows it isn’t. Tell that to those falsely accused.
    
    “RIAA is only doing what it takes to protect their own rights, nothing else.”
    
    Bullshit.
- ANON
  
  Stop uploading and downloading illegally and the RIAA wouldn’t harass you. Its simple as that. Its stupid to think you can screw over the music industry sitting at home and they wouldn’t do anything to mess up your life.
  
  Who cares if a couple of people commit suicide because of that? It their own misdoing that brought it upon them. RIAA is only doing what it takes to protect their own rights, nothing else.
koom

Why don’t they just fine him zillion and slash to trillion?
Pingback: P2PTalk » “Appalling” $1.5m File-Sharing Verdict Slashed To $54,000
Anonymous

lol, like 54k isnt ridiculous??

http://www.net-privacy.us.tc
Sdgag

Haha, if they ever fine me that much i’d just buy a gun and walk in to the local RIAA office.
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay

They should just make people pay the price of the song. $.99. If someone stole 26 candy bars, do you think $1.5 million would be a fair?
- Captain obvious
  
  Logic fail, copying and sharing isn’t stealing, also the riaa are staffed by morons.
  - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
    
    If its not stealing, then what is it, exactly?
    - Anonymous
      
      Well, it’s copyright infringement to be exact. It’s been pointed out abundantly on here that copyright infringement (sharing files, downloading music/movies, etc.) is NOT stealing/theft. Not by the definition used in most countries/courts.
    - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
      
      Economic abundance.
      
      Think of it this way, you don’t have to pay for the music anymore. You don’t have to pay for the bundled CD that was filled with 11 bad songs and 1 good one. You now have more money for secondary merchandise that goes into the pockets of the artists, not the record holders who want to sue you for finding a better deal. Hell, if they really want to be pedantic, they should try to take down Youtube. Every last song on there can be streamed, same as a download without ever paying the industry.
      
      Sure, she caused infringement. No doubt or question. But did her infringement cause any economic damage to the industry? No? Case closed and she should go home without penalty.
    - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-4-new-skins-themes-launches/740147-neurotech-hd.html#post5637502 Jay
      
      Economic Abundance? So you’re essentially telling me that it’s OK because
      everyone else is doing it?
      
      But then you go on to say that it is in fact infringement. But even though
      she infringed and broke the law, she should not be penalized? One can break
      the law without doing damage to someone or something. Trespassing, for
      instance: No one is hurt, nothing is damaged, but it’s still against the
      law. You think trespassers should not be penalized? Do you think all land
      must go to the public domain? The right to ownership is a HUGE thing in
      America, and if there were no penalties for that we’d be what? Communist?
      Everything must be shared? Bullshit.
      
      I don’t think 24 songs shared is a big deal, no, but at least have her pay
      the price of the songs, and maybe a few thousand for the copyright
      infringements. $54k is absurd, though.
Needlez

What I’d like to point out here, is that one, how can they prove it was her? Do they have her IP, and are they 100% sure that IP is hers? I mean just because my computer says my IP is 80.80.80.80 and my MAC address is 00:11:22:33:44:55 doesn’t mean that that computer is even real. Because something called MAC spoofing which is when I change the physical card that connects out so it gets a new IP automatically, so everytime I log on to the internet my IP changes, furthermore, if I use something like Tor, or a VPN, or a proxy, how can they be sure that the computer is even mine. Her lawyers shouldve been able to get her off with that. It should be a proven fact that an IP isn’t a person. Just because you have an IP address and the ISP doesn’t mean you’ve got the right person. Its called spoofing for a reason. And frankly I think she should sue the RIAA for unreasonable damages and this bogus court case. And for you trolls who want to talk smack about what I just posted. If you think anything can’t be proven about what I’ve said, then you should go google Macchanger, and IP spoofing as well as what a VPN is or freenet. Seriously it amuses me how ignorant people who troll can be. This is my opinion, you don’t have to agree with it, and if it offends you in anyway then you don’t have to read it, or comment back. Thank you
- http://profiles.google.com/zerianis10 Christopher Kidwell
  
  BINGO! I was surprised that IP address spoofing and MAC address spoofing wasn’t brought up sooner here.
  - Mr. Perfect
    
    Very soon every cyber criminal would hide behind the excuse of IP spoofing, MAC address spoofing & hacked Wifi and get away with seriously dangerous crimes if such crap were allowed to fly in court.
    
    Its also impossible to prove who exactly is the person using a computer behind an IP address. Law enforcement officials can only blame the person to whom the IP address is registered, for the crime. Does that mean all cyber criminals should be allowed to go scott free because of this uncertainty?
- Anonymous
  
  They also have her Kazaa user name. Unfortunately this name also matches her personal email address, shopping account and much more in her life. Not at all a good thing to do and soon ruled out the some mystery person did it reason.
  
  So on the second try she tried to blame her family saying they could access her accounts. It did not work when they said she lied about her HDD swap as well. It also seems her former education involved file-sharing.
  
  Well the only thing that is true is that any hacker spending time in her computer would soon notice her common alias name and could have reused it in a hidden Kazaa. Strange to do but maybe her alias name came to mind as he needed a Kazaa user name.
  
  I think she is screwed. She was not clever enough to hide her tracks and all she did in life they noticed. I expect the same lack of brains was what left her downloads in her share folder without realising that it was still uploading.
  
  Not a happy ending in this case but at least she can give them a good run for their money.
  - http://pulse.yahoo.com/_IZ5BM5GNLA54OADSWGSXAMA7SY Jay
    
    You gotta admit… She makes a good poster child for filesharing though…
    
    I know it’s mean, but damned if people didn’t react the most violently to the extortion tactics of the RIAA because of her case.
    - Anonymous
      
      She sure became a poster child. Her lying has helped her none but I expect many file-sharers would also try to worm out of it. Honest no but she is a fighter.
      
      It was thanks to her and other people that this became a PR nightmare for the RIAA and they shut down setting lawyers on home users. They would want this case to be over but it is still on-going.
      
      What is most insane here is that she has been to this $54,000 before and they offered her half that Judge+Jury imposed fine to settle. She said “no”. To put this in context than the RIAA’s legal expenses over almost 4 years is likely to be over 10 times higher meaning that there is no way they can make a gain. It is also be true to say that her own lawyers could easily pay her fine for her when they have got lots of free publicity and rich clients from her case. Even if not then she could also hold public appeals to raise funds.
      
      So her fine is pretty much arbitrary and right now it is only a case of lawyers hoping to shape a new law. They do have some hope when she is the only file-sharing case ever to go to court. Also the only other non-profit infringement also was declared as unconstitutional. So two cases in violation of due process and getting minimised as a result does focus need on getting that minimum value reexamined.
      
      It is completely true to say that this statutory award system was created for people who made profit selling other people’s copyrighted works. The award is aimed to be high enough to have exceeded the profit they would have made.
      
      So even now her $54,000 bill is inappropriate to her case. I also cannot recall anyone here, pro-copyright or not, who says that $54,000 for 24 songs is valid. She was just one of tens or hundreds of thousands of people on Kazaa that day sharing these same 24 titles.
      
      Well this case will make history. File-sharers versus copyright giants. Whatever her end value ends up as will be a strong guide to every case that follows. The copyright side may also have doubts if every file-sharer starts fighting them all the way to the Supreme Court running up huge legal expenses for them.
      
      Best they stick to those people who infringe and profit. Plenty of those cases have gone before after all. They do have the money as well until a single mom of four.
Pingback: === popurls.com === popular today
Anonymous

$5400 per song and that is supposed to be fair.
fuck you riaa you should go to the hell you so rightly deserve.
Pingback: Tech from a Man
Pingback: MakinMo's Tech Blog
Thisemailthingisboring

It’s still nonsensical. But what the RIAA sharks don’t want is a small fine, which would be the only faire issue.
If people just risked a $500 fine plus the price of what they downloaded, it wouldn’t be a Damocles sword.
The highest the damage, the best governing by fear you get. And that seems to be the problem.
By wanting that kind of treatments, the RIAA considers itself to be an organization as powerful as a state, and every single music sharer as a member of a criminal organization.
Paranoid and completely wrong, in every aspect one can imagine.
Pingback: Anonymous
Pingback: Mennyibe fáj 24 dal letöltése? | Gépnarancs
Kryssa

Perhaps as file sharers we should all walk the walk, band together and support this woman through whatever donations we can afford. That’s a powerful statement. All this back and forth on is it or isn’t it stealing is by now useless and non-productive. We need a new approach. We’re human, we like free, we have a hard time with temptation. You put it out there, make it easy to access and don’t torment our collective conscience, and we as vulnerable humans are going to go for it. It’s like providing consumers with all the drug paraphernalia they’ll ever need and then condemn them for using it!

Have we learned nothing from prohibition?

TorrentFreak

The place where breaking news, BitTorrent and copyright collide

“Appalling” $1.5m File-Sharing Verdict Slashed To $54,000

Related Posts

Previous Post | Next Post

NewsBits

The Pirate Bay Isn’t Down Completely, Just Having a Few Issues

Pirate Bay Founder Gottfrid Svartholm on Freedom of Speech

Blu-ray Anti-Piracy Tech Stops Discs and Promotes Purchases

Foxtel Breeds Pirates by Locking Up Game of Thrones

UK Student Admits Breaching Sony Copyrights With Leak of PS3 SDK

MostDiscussed

Pirate Bay Takes Over Distribution of Censored 3D Printable Gun

McAfee Patents Technology to Detect and Block Pirated Content

Pirate Bay Finds Safe Haven in Iceland, Switches to .IS Domain

Copyright Trolls Threaten to Call Neighbors of Accused Porn Pirates

The Pirate Bay Moves to .SX as Prosecutor Files Motion to Seize Domains

CopyQuote

PopularArticles

VPN Services That Take Your Anonymity Seriously, 2013 Edition

Top 10 Most Popular Torrent Sites of 2013

Which VPN Service Providers Really Take Anonymity Seriously?

What’s The Best VPN / Proxy for BitTorrent?

BTGuard Review: How Does it Work?

Optimize Your BitTorrent Download Speed