Convicted Infringer Asked For No FineAdded: Saturday, December 18th, 2010
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Ridiculous Criminal Trials
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extrattorrent.com
Jammie Thomas argued that the Recording Industry Association of America is not able to trace the injury she’s caused to industry. Moreover, the RIAA made no attempt to trace it before alleging Thomas of copyright infringement. As the Constitution demands proportionality between actual damages and statutory damages, Jammie believes her verdict should be reduced to zero.
Last month Jammie Thomas was handed down her 3rd court ruling in the long-lasting dispute with the music industry over several songs she’s accused of illicitly sharing through P2P client KaZaA. Not satisfied with the judgment, Jammie has filed a motion to have it reduced from $1.5 million to nothing over the fact that the industry couldn’t prove she caused the RIAA any actual damages. There she pointed out that despite the fact that the plaintiffs provided evidence of the harm caused by file-sharing in common, they still didn’t present any evidence of any injury caused by Thomas in particular. Therefore, since the plaintiffs didn’t prove the point, any award of the statutory damages, even the minimum one, is simply unconstitutional.
Three years ago Thomas was first found guilty of copyright violation and ordered to pay over $200,000 in penalties for sharing 24 songs. Then, the retrial brought her even worse verdict of $2 million. Finally, the 3rd (but most likely not the last) verdict decreased damages to $1.5 million, which actually made no difference.
Attorneys of the infringer also pointed out that the music industry has admitted that such large judgments will only serve as educational instruments to warn other prospective infringers about the dangers of unauthorized file-sharing. In other words, they believe that it is quite unfair to hold one particular defendant liable for the actions of millions of other infringers.
Meanwhile, the main argument of Thomas’ attorneys is that the statutory damages assessed in this case have nothing to do with the actual damages she caused. The RIAA complained that this was because the damages it suffered because of the distribution of illegal music on P2P can’t be traced to a specific defendant. In fact, the testimony was clear that the industry can’t (and made no attempt) to trace the particular damages Thomas caused, and they simply decided to hold her responsible for the actions of the millions of other P2P users at large.
December 18th, 2010Posted by:
Saturday, December 18th, 2010
|Thats a bunch of bullshit! She only uploaded 24 songs and is charged $2mil? P2P actually helps the movie/music industry. I know If I like something, I go and buy it. So retarded.|
Thanks Sam for the news of the day.
|I agree with you 100%. apdunshiz. it does help most of the time. Perfect example, the Eminem Recovery CD leaked like 2 MONTHS before the release. I was burning it for everyone i know, Even with that |
The album debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200 chart, selling 741,000 copies in its first week in the United States
My stepbrother liked it so much he bought 2 copys and gave me one for burning him the cd 2 Months before the release
|posted by (2010-12-18 20:41:51)|
|Yep, yep JUGGALOTUS you're pointing out a great truth to file sharing. In the end a lot of people will buy the product because they love it and they want to support the people who made it. I personally got every CoD game in the series, before the official release, just to be blown away and to rush back to the store, upon the realease, to buy it so I could play the game online.|
There are pretty much two paths which a pirated product can lead to.
1. You get a pirated product and are either happy and most likely will support the creator or you hate it and you most likely hate the creator not that much.
2. You get an original file and are either happy and support the creator, which is pretty much the same as in point 1, or you hate the file and are upset for wasting money and most likely hate the creator of the product.
Now, if I was rich I could give a damn. Since I am not I have to rely on point 1 to filter out bad stuff so I can support products that I think are worth supporting. In a nutshell: Poor people have limited support abilities, rich people don't.
|posted by (2010-12-18 22:56:07)|
|what is the difference between blank tapes which have been sold in record stores (remember records?) and of course radio stations in the states that play album side weekends whereas the DJ says get ready to hit the big red button (record button) and I will tell you when..... I remember those days. Radio stations play records on the air sent to then for free from the record industry and guess they still do. LOL why does Blockbuster sell blank DVD's in their DVD rental shops????? Somehow I am getting mix messages can anyone else see this puzzle. If so please comment over 2 U!|
|The case started in 2005 only 3 of the songs were in the 2000's the rest were from the 80's and 90's here's a link to the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_v._Thomas.|
I don't understand why she is in an American court when she should fall under Tribal Law. Isn't it ironic that she would be charged for stealing from the same govt that killed her ancestors and stole their land. What were those Native Americans compensated. A small piece of land and fire water.
The only compensation they deserve is she should make them a ringtone telling them to F OFF and piss in a bottle.
She should have accessed her right to Tribal Law but now that she's in the US court Syst shouldn't her Constitutional rights mean anything? If not how can we be expected to recognize this legal syst.
|posted by (2010-12-18 23:56:48)|
|One of these days some pro p2p/torrent lawyer will get it right and slam the MPAA arses so that can t get blanket convictions which i think history has proven never stop what the hollywood lawyers think is an illegal acts and will be forced to prove 1 person at one time is guilty of the MPAA invented crime that will be fun . . .|
|spiritchaser...this tribal law stuff is so old and tired. if a caveman A wanted caveman B's cave. he fought him for it. if caveman A wins the fight he takes the cave. did caveman A compensate caveman B? I think not. It's part of life. Tribes deserve nothing. It's been going on since the beginning of time. He who's strong enough wins, and gives the loser nothing. Now back to the topic at hand. I for one have NOT bought a CD in 5 years. I have an MP3 player, I don't even own a cd player anymore. The majority of people who DL music do NOT buy cd's. Let's get real here. The few of you on here may still buy them. But I bet 80% of people that DL music do not.|
|posted by (2010-12-19 17:57:45)|
|Lol save.....your right......|
|People if I were you I would check out this link and see how far into the RIAA pocket DA Prez - OBAMA is to the RIAA...|
I also have a question? How long do you think a movie should be copyrighted?
Meaning five to ten years later the MPAA will go after a "violator" and sue them for millions of unfounded un documented lost income? Even from an old move that is being sold in the bargain bin at walwort for a dollar??
|they fail to say about how many people that download music and movies actually go out and buy the original for better quality or more features...|
example is dvds, there are a lot of people that if they download a movie, and like it, buy it, but if they dont like it they dont. that is a good way not to waste money and get what you really want, and the movie companies still make money, just not ripping as many people off with unwanted dvds...
|posted by (2010-12-20 09:00:13)|
menahunie I seem to always agree with you, I have bought movies on old laser disk, (Blazing Saddles), beta, VHS, DVD, and I now refuse to buy any BlueRay. How many times do I buy my favorite movie in different formats before I won't be fined 2 million$ for enjoying it on my new system that they have forced me to use?
|On the basis of proportionate damage, the music companies have received less than a pin-prick or small fleabite from each p2p downloader, yet THEY want to bankrupt poor individuals to 'prove a point'. Unless EACH AND EVERY p2p downloader is sued, the deterrent value is NIL, after all there's more likelihood of being mown down by a bus, car or lorry than being sued for most of us!!!!|
Copyright laws are a COMPLETE nonsense. How do you stop distribution of WHAT IS FREELY AVAILABLE? Record and film companies make billions from actual sales, selling mostly at 10 - 15 times cost of production, and most of their profits from diversification and spin-offs. Music artists make 95% of their income from live performances.
It comes down to money greed and jealous guarding of privilges of the rich. They ONLY want music available to very well off people!!!!
When is this MONETARY GREED across the capitalist world going to STOP???????
|chazzo shame on those rich people for being successful. how dare they want to make more money?...LMFAO you people are too funny. chazzo do you think the rich became rich from luck?|
|Long live capitalism! I never got a job from a poor person.|
|If I want to see a movie at the cinema I have to mute or turn off every time an ad for it comes on the tv. In the weeks before a movie hits the cinema they show all the best bits in promos. If you taped the different vignettes shown in the ads and on morning shows etc. you would pretty much have the complete movie anyway.||
Most Popular Stories