Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict
Summary: Jammie Thomas-Rasset will appeal that almost $2 million verdict for having 24 songs available over Kazaa, P2PNet reports. Here's what she told the site:Will they be answered in my favor?
Jammie Thomas-Rasset will appeal that almost $2 million verdict for having 24 songs available over Kazaa, P2PNet reports. Here's what she told the site:
Will they be answered in my favor? I truly hope so because then every other person who has been targeted in the RIAA’s litigation campaign might have a better fighting chance.Meanwhile, Richard Marx, whose "Now and Forever" was one of the songs in Thomas-Rasset's folder, offered apologies for being associated with this particular travesty of justice.I will admit this battle is wearing me rather thin, but I have to continue as I don’t know of anyone else to have ever reached this point, and we might help to establish a more fair set of laws in a new digital age.
I didn’t ask for this, it was thrust upon me by the RIAA and now they get to deal with the consequences of their extortion litigation tactics of using the law as a hammer to squish innocent bystanders in their war against everything new and not under their control.
Wish me luck.
As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels.These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.
So now we have a “judgment” in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive.
Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I’m ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
She sure did ask for it.
Guilty as sin... but it's not my fault.
"...and now they get to deal with the consequences of their extortion litigation tactics of using the law as a hammer to squish innocent bystanders in their war against everything new and not under their control." - - I'm somehow innocent because stealing music is legal. Wait, what?
This is such a crock. She should beg the RIAA for a reduced settlement and agree to be the poster child for "thou shall not steal."
Waste of the courts time and taxpayer money to keep appealing. YOU DID THE CRIME - NOW PAY THE PIPER!
RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict
In any case 1.9 million for 24 songs is ludicrous, farcical, and immoral, even if she did do it.
The market value for those songs are, at most, $24. And the amount of people who downloaded from her machine, if it did indeed occur, is purely speculative and unprovable.
Also, forcing settlement amounts to extortion. The RIAA should be forced to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone has indeed infringed. And they can't. They're just using the flawed laws as an extortion racket, because few of the people they sue can afford the attorney's fees to defend themselves, and are forced to pay $3-4000.
Remember, the RIAA has sued grandmas, dead people and other innocents.
And, has any of their settlement money gone to artists? Nope. Not one dime.
The bigger issue is the outdated business model the members of the RIAA are trying to protect. With the internet, and affordable software for recording material, and the ability to promote through other means, have all rendered the "service" that the big record companies provide to be completely useless. Really, the big record companies provide absolutely nothing of value to society. They only artifically inflate music prices, attack and inconvenience innocents and paying customers alike, exploit artists, and otherwise get in the way of great artists and the listening public.
And the members of the RIAA are unwilling to change with the times and technology, and try to reinvent themselves to provide value to both artists and the music buying public alike.
They are using cases like this one to intimidate the public into keep using their outdated business model.
And I'm saying this as someone who buys regularly from eMusic and Amazon MP3, and I never share my music in public folders. I'm completely against stealing of people's hard work. But I'm even more against the extortion and bullying and exploiting that is the members of the RIAA.
May they experience a very swift demise. The music industry will surely flourish in their absense.
RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict
"Questions that didn?t come up in this trial include:
* whether the recording companies had valid copyrights to the tunes she was accused of having downloaded
* whether the RIAA?s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators
* what her own technical expert witness found
* whether the RIAA?s technical expert?s procedures and findings were sound
* what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual ?distribution? of copyrighted music files
* what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages
That was a lot to leave off the table in such a trial, we would think.
Therefore, forget the courtroom theatre, including the RIAA cartel companies? wailing that this defendant, at the time a single mother, somehow must pay penalties of nearly $2 million, and Thomas-Rasset?s performance as the defendant in the witness box where she showed her anguish at all of the one-sided proceedings against her.
No, this trial was merely the prologue for the real battle, which we believe will be played out in the appellate courts. Jammie Thomas-Rasset?s lawyers are, we think, playing a long game, and we?ll see how that all works out, over several more years."
'nuff said.
Sorry, in this country you innocent until proven guilty. In a civil trial, that's not the case. But nonetheless, with the above list of very important elements being left out of the trial, the trial was a complete, absolute, farce.
Thomas-Rasset is far from "Guilty as sin". Fark and ye, let's hope you never have this happen to you. It could easily happen to you, me, and anyone, thanks to things like DHCP (which ISPs use), and IP spoofing, or simple hacking. The RIAA is free to sue anyone they wish, without any evidence whatsoever.
Uh yes, they did come up.
The RIAA did provide evidence as much.
[i]* whether the RIAA?s ferrets at Media Sentry were licensed as private investigators[/i]
Brought up prior to trial and ruled Media Sentry did not need to be licensed as a PI.
[i]* what her own technical expert witness found[/i]
She did have her own technical expert witness testify to what he found.
[i]* whether the RIAA?s technical expert?s procedures and findings were sound[/i]
Not sure if this was brought up or not but if it was not the failing was on her attorneys and not the system/RIAA.
[i]* what precisely were the legal elements of what she was alleged to have done and whether those were established by the plaintiffs, that is, actual ?distribution? of copyrighted music files[/i]
Wasn't that the whole point of the trial?
[i]* what facts the RIAA companies needed to establish in order to claim statutory as opposed to actual damages[/i]
I don't believe they have to establish facts in order to claim statutory damages. All that's required is for the RIAA to ask.
In my opinion there is absolutely no doubt she infringed. It's not even in question. I can see taking issues with the size of the damage award. But for her to pretend she wasn't infringing and this is all the RIAA out to get her is an insult to the intelligence of any rational person.
Sources?
Apart from that, let me ask you this:
Have ever done any peer to peer file sharing or downloading?
Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?
Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?
Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?
Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?
Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?
If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.
Remember, Peer to Peer, unto itself, is completely legal, and is used for many completely legitimate and legal activities.
In other words, p2p is fine, just like roads are. Just because bankrobbers can use roads to get away, does not mean roads themselves are bad.
I really suspect that if there were no grounds for appeal, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers would not attempt such an endeavor. They would advice on a settlement. They would not continue on a fools errand, even if their only motivation is publicity. Ultimately, they need victories for their clients, and to bring in money (not the case here, as they are doing it pro-bono).
I really think that the trial was completely one sided, with the jury and judge hand-picked by the RIAA.
ok...
***No.
Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?
***No.
Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?
***No.
Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?
***Such as? Drivers, sure. I have downloaded things from tech sites that are free to download (freeware from cnet, that kind of thing).
Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?
***Depends on what it is? Condsidering the amount of crap send via e-mail, I don't open attachments unless they are from people I know. And most of my friends agree you pay for what you take.
Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?
***Legally ripped data via Zune Player - sure.
If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.
***Doubt it highly.
You can find a lot of good information at Ars Technica.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars
At the bottom are five links covering the trial.
As to your questions:
[i]Have ever done any peer to peer file sharing or downloading?[/i]
No
[i]Have you ever used BitTorrent or Gnutella (apart from copyrighted music, sharing/downloading "open" files)?[/i]
No
[i]Are any folders or locations on your machine available for others to access, even within a corporate network?[/i]
No
[i]Have you ever downloaded anything from a public website?[/i]
Yes
[i]Have you ever downloaded an email attachement?[/i]
Yes
[i]Do you have MP3 files, legal or otherwise, on your machine?[/i]
Yes, all legal
[i]If you answered "yes" to any of these, then you could easily be one of RIAA's lawsuit/extortion victims.[/i]
This is a lousy case to hold up as an example of extortion. There is no doubt in my mind she was infringing. Two juries found her liable for [b]willful[/b] copyright infringement. While I agree the RIAA has targeted some very questionable people she is not one of them.
The only thing left to discuss about this case is the size of the damage award. Her liability is a point which has already been decided.
Won't happen to me...
I think I'm safe from RIAA boogiemen!
Sorry ...
By the way, I don't steal music either. All of my digital music on my computer is either ripped from my extensive, legally purchased CD collection, or purchased from Amazon or eMusic. My family is taught the value of hard work and not to steal from others, just like you.
Which is why I'm against the RIAA on this one (and in all cases, really). Extortion has nothing to do with hard work. Just because you have deep pockets and can afford the best lawyers doesn't mean you can haphazzardly, indiscriminately ruin the financial lives of people that are often quite innocent.
Btw - Thomas-Rasset has a collection of over 200 CDs (the fact is in the link I provided).
If she has spent that much money on that many CDs, why would she willfully, illegally download or share 24 songs?
What is the motive?
I could see ignorant mistake, or her boyfriend or kids screwing around on her computer as being plausible (or someone hacking her machine, or IP spoofing, or something else).
But willful infringement, when she is a huge, legal customer of CDs? That is completely implausible and nonsensical.
Fact is, Thomas-Rasset is a great customer of of the Big 4 (the main members of the RIAA).
The RIAA is literally biting the hand that feeds it.
And if the RIAA continues with this course, they will drive both artists and consumers away from their wares.
Try ~1,700 songs.
The RIAA only pursued her for 24 of them.
formats
And?
Not just 24 songs...
The other artists who didn't? It's ok to screw them because she bought other guys work? That makes no sense.
The question of 'Should the RIAA go after a woman who is actively buying CD's' is a good question, just not the question at hand.
Did she steal the work of some artists? Yes. The law says you can't steal - and then lays out a price range for said theft.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Music (especially the crap they are pumping out now) is not worth jail or huge penalties.
RE: Thomas-Rasset to appeal $1.9m verdict
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars :
But the outrage isn't confined to the blogosphere. The Washington lobby group CCIA, backed by AMD, Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, and others, calls the verdict "ridiculous."
"Our copyright laws are overbroad, being misused and enforced with a zeal out of proportion to common sense," said CEO Ed Black. "When Sony BMG massively and illegally distributed music CDs containing spyware that compromised individual users' computer security and infected government and military networks worldwide, the FTC only ordered them in 2007 to reimburse end-users up to $150 for computer damages. Yet when Ms. Thomas shared 24 songs belonging to Sony BMG and other labels on the Internet, she was penalized $80,000 for each single track."
I agree the penalty is too high...
Saying the reward is too high is fine - saying she's done nothing wrong is totally insane.
Remember, they only went after her for 24 songs - the easiest 24 to prove - she had downloaded and shared many hundreds more. Even if all the stuff she stole was tallied, the judgement is huge, but sometimes the courts make a statement about willfully breaking the law.
Madoff got 150 years... he MIGHT live another 12 if he has no 'issues' in jail (or a lot less if he's ever in general-population as some convicts hate people who prey on the elderly and childen).
Again, look at the Ars details of the trial ...
Yeah, they focused on 24 songs. But many of the other songs were death metal, something the a 30 yr old mother of two is highly unlikely to be into. Also, the stuff she ripped from her 200+ CD collection was done in WMA format (a default when you use Windows Media player), not MP3, which is the format used in the alledged infringement.
It is in my opinion.
You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.
Bold statement. Back it up
Just repeating something does not make it true.
Again, read the Ars link I provided. It's an unbiased article about the stages of the trial, from jury selection to Attourny summations and Jury verdict. And there is plenty in there to give reasonable doubt about her guilt.
I have the information from the two trials and the reporting...
[i]Just repeating something does not make it true.[/i]
I agree. Good thing for me I have facts presented at trial and two independent jury verdicts to back me up.