jeez.

this seems a bit excessive on the RIAAs part. the war is over and they lost. in rainbows.

Mmmmmm... garnish.

She could have settled out of court for a few thousand. Instead she tried to erase her hard drive and denied everything (ALLEGEDLY).

But I kind of believe she's guilty because why would the RIAA target a random innocent single mother in Minnesota when there are hundreds of thousands of guilty people they could bust. It sounds to me like she tried to sneak out of it and lost.

It's ridiculous to fine someone over $200K though (and they COULD have fined her over $3 MILLION!!!) But at the same time, downloading/uploading copywritten material is against the law. There's no way to argue that.

I wonder if the RIAA will start doing this rampantly.

that is a ridiculous fine. I don't care how much music she uploaded, she's a scapegoat and I doubt it's teaching anyone a lesson.

So let's see. The punishment for "stealing" 24 songs was $220,000. I wonder what the penalty for shoplifting 2 cds is.

That's so fucked.

I think everyone that has shared files should toss her $10 to help... She needs to set up a site for this. I would do it, but I don't know how and really don't want the added resposibility. But it does seem only fair.

Hopefully some good, sane people will come to her aide

I have been following the case since the beginning and while i agree that she is guilty of doing this, the riaa did not prove this in court "beyond a reasonable doubt". The jury was left no alternative as a result of the dumb judge amending his instructions to the jury by saying that the woman(or anyone) is guilty if they only MAKE AVAILABLE said recordings and not actually transfer them to anyone. Meaning if you have music in a shared folder and you happen to sign on to a service like Kazaa or Limewire you are already guilty of infringing even if no one actually downloads the songs from you. Originally the judge was not going to put this in but caved into pressure from the RIAA's lawyers. This judgement will be most def set aside on this point alone. This will be appealed for sure.
It was a startling trial though. The RIAA's own person testified that they believe it is a crime if you rip a cd you bought to your own ipod even if you dont give it to anyone else. Just ridiculous.

It is IN FACT a crime to rip your CDs into your iPod, stupid as that fact may be. However, it is considered a frivolous lawsuit to sue or go after someone who is ripping their own CDs into their own iPod.

220k for 24 songs? I can only imagine what some of the people reading this (including me) are worth...

"It is IN FACT a crime to rip your CDs into your iPod, stupid as that fact may be. However, it is considered a frivolous lawsuit to sue or go after someone who is ripping their own CDs into their own iPod.

Posted by Anonymous | October 5, 2007 10:27 AM"

You are so incredibly WRONG about this it is not even funny. It is not a fact at all. No court of law has ever weighed in on this and there is no law saying that it is illegal. In FACT, fair use law would contradict the above statement. As far as the RIAA is concerned, believe me they dont think it is frivolous to go after people who do that. They just have not done it yet.

I am going to illegally download SO MUCH music today, just out of spite. What a bunch of dicks.

This was a civil case of copyright infringement, not a criminal case. The civil burden of proof IS NOT beyond a reasonable doubt, it is the much lower standard of preponderance of evidence(generally thought to be greater than 50%). The plaintiff (RIAA) did not need to prove their case beyond a reasonable only that it was more than likely than not she had infringed their copyrights. As you may recall OJ was found "not guilty" of murder in his criminal case, but found "liable" in the civil suit brought against him for "wrongful death".

There's something I've never been able to figure out - it seems that it is only people sharing music on filesharing networks that are getting sued, is that correct? Haven't seen anything about people downloading full-length albums from music blogs using download services like rapidshare getting sued. Any thoughts about this?

"I kind of believe she's guilty because why would the RIAA target a random innocent single mother in Minnesota..."

Seriously?

Bumpershine,
I posted the above paragraph above and misspoke on that point. You are right the burden of proof in this case was not beyond a reasonable doubt. Still though even with the lower burden,from what i read the RIAA had not fully proven their case. And the "making available" instruction to the jury was still wrong and left them no choice but to find her guilty.

Neglektra Recordings is offering their mp3s for almost free in support of Jammie Thomas.

http://www.neglektra.com/

"Out of Solidarity with Jammie Thomas who was charged $9250 per song by the RIAA, we are changing the price of our records to $.09 per song. That is roughly 100,000 times cheaper then what the RIAA is charging Jammie.
Screw the RIAA and don't buy major label music (and yes this includes our previous major label records)"

"There's something I've never been able to figure out - it seems that it is only people sharing music on filesharing networks that are getting sued, is that correct? Haven't seen anything about people downloading full-length albums from music blogs using download services like rapidshare getting sued. Any thoughts about this?"

I often wonder the same thing. It's gotta be a matter of time.

She was NOT found "guilty". Its a civil case, as has been posted above. She was found LIABLE, and the plaintiff (RIAA) was awarded DAMAGES. She's not "guilty" and there was no "fine".

if i'm not mistaken, downloading music is not illegal. rather uploading (sharing) music is.

"She was NOT found "guilty". Its a civil case, as has been posted above. She was found LIABLE, and the plaintiff (RIAA) was awarded DAMAGES. She's not "guilty" and there was no "fine"."

Legal semantics knucklehead, no one said she was going to jail. You think the chick gives a fuck right now if the 220,000 she has to pay is called a fine or damages?

Criminal liability (i.e. criminal record and all of its ramifications) v. civil liability is NOT "legal semantics".
And who said anything about jail?

Re: ripping your own CDs is illegal

Hey 10:27 AM, are you talking about the U.S. or a different country? I've read in the U.K. that's technically not allowed, but in the U.S. that should fall under fair use if we go by previous rulings in court. Just because a RIAA rep says it's illegal doesn't actually make it illegal. (of course, the RIAA is trying to change that)

Now, that doesn't mean the record & movie companies have a obligation to make it easy for you to copy/backup media you purchased, thus all the encryption on DVDs & so forth.

yes she be ordered to go to jail if she doesn't pay the money.

the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard only applies to criminal cases. this was a civil case. the standard is "preponderance of the evidence" - a much lower standard than beyond a rd.....

"Criminal liability (i.e. criminal record and all of its ramifications) v. civil liability is NOT "legal semantics".
And who said anything about jail?"

Again, kucklehead, no one said she was a criminal or even said she was convicted of a crime or that she was going to have a criminal record. Although i ask again, do you think the woman in question cares right now if the 220,000 she owes is called a FINE or DAMAGES??? And although it was a civil case, what she was in fact charged with doing is considered criminal and a person can go to jail for it.

"There's something I've never been able to figure out - it seems that it is only people sharing music on filesharing networks that are getting sued, is that correct? Haven't seen anything about people downloading full-length albums from music blogs using download services like rapidshare getting sued. Any thoughts about this?"

I'm curious about this as well. Anyone know?

11:19 AM, having music files or CDs without a license for them (eg: you didn't buy them) is illegal AFAIK. But the chances of anything happening to a downloader would be slim. The RIAA's tactic is to sue the people sharing out the music files, make enough people afraid of sharing out music files & hopefully nobody's sharing anything. Then there's nothing to download anymore.

(..not that it's working so well, but that's their tactic)

Anon 11:39, are you being intentionally dense, or is this your natural state? GUILTY is a criminal term. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" is a criminal trial standard. "Fine" is a criminal sanction.

When half the people in the topic are discussing this as if its a criminal trial, its hard to have a realistic assessment of what this trial will mean for on-line downloading.

I am fairly certain that this woman knows that this was a civil matter, and is probably relieved that she has not been convicted of a felony, or that her damage liability is not a criminal fine--the failure to pay which could actually land her in jail.

You can continue to delude yourself that criminal v. civil liability is just "legal semantics", but really, there's a huge difference. You may want to educate yourself past that 3rd grade level before posting again.

This is all bullshit. You know it, I know it, and it's nothing to be scared of. They picked a pity case with TWENTY FOUR files to beat up. Gee, that's the mentality we're dealing with. Who's on that jury?

Come on, the law needs to catch up. Sorry if these massive companies couldn't adjust to a drastic technological shift, but tough luck assholes. There's gotta be 100,000s of people with 10,000s of files each, and growing, and making a "lesson" of one of them is ridiculous. I even think it might be staged. 24 files? So how did they pick her? They went on a file-sharing network, and with all the shared folders of 10000s, they picked ms. 24?

this doesn't make sense. what the hell.

lefsetz:

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2007/10/05/the-riaa-victory/

Anon 11:52
you are a fucking idiot. simple as that
No one is saying she was found guilty of a criminal charge you halfwit
and i would guess the woman knew right from the start that she would not be going to jail. I dont think you could call her relieved though right now as i dont think any woman who is a single mother with 2 kids and a low paying job would feel relieved at the propect of having 25% of her wages garnished for years to pay back a 220,00 dollar judgement. But hey dont take my word for it. Look her up on her myspace page and see what she has to say for herself.

The fact is even though this was a civil trial, the ramifications for the future are both in civil and criminal because, as stated above, that while she was prosecuted in a civil case she could have also been prosecuted in a criminal one as well.

Anon 11:54
umm the riaa didnt pick anyone. They have sued the shit out of tons of people already. It is just that this particular person did not pay the settlement fine and instead tried to fight them in court. In actuality though she was originally hit with downloading even more songs but for example Virgin records dropped out of the case before it started.

assholes. money hungry bastards who have no hearts and have no concept of what art is or how it should function. they don't hear music, they hear money.

and the one artist they song they showed was Journey's Don't Stop Believeing... Yeah, that one's not making anything from royalties.

fuck 'em

>No one is saying she was found guilty of a criminal charge you halfwit

Um, let's see.
"Guilty":
1. BV main post
2. 39 9:56
3. Anon 10:20
4. Anon 10:48

From the RIAA website:
We are located at 1025 F ST N.W., 10th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20004.
You can contact us at 202/775-0101

Letters, phone calls, tell the fuckers what you think of them. In fact, tell 2 friends to write/call and they can tell 2 friends - y'know, the viral thing...

">No one is saying she was found guilty of a criminal charge you halfwit

Um, let's see.
"Guilty":
1. BV main post
2. 39 9:56
3. Anon 10:20
4. Anon 10:48

Posted by Anonymous | October 5, 2007 12:24 PM"

ugh you halfwit lawyer. SEMANTICS. No one was saying she was "GUILTY OF A CRIMINAL CHARGE" None of those posts said that. She was found liable(guilty) of the civil charge levied against her. I believe it is quite clear to everyone that she is not going to jail nor was she in jeopardy of it. WE GET IT DUDE, THANKS. The fact remains that she could give a good god damn right now if they called her liable, guilty, shamed, scum etc. She knew she was not going to jail or going to have a criminal record as a result of this. All she cares about is that she is looking at owing 220,000 dollars.

Wow, when did BV become inhabited by rabid douchebag hipster lawyers. Dudes, not everyone carries Black's Law Dictionary around with them. Chill. There are more deserving arseholes at whom you should direct your anger. Stop your whining and start contributing constructively to how we will destroy the RIAA. First, I think a full boycott of Journey is in order. I will tell my Dad to destroy his cassettes. Any other suggestions? Who pays for the RIAA?

Fuck the RIAA. Fuck ASCAP. fuck all the commercial music industry bullshit.
I can't believe this... it's pure evil. This country sucks. It's embarrasing...

id rather go to jail than pay $220,000

either you know the law, or youre a douchebag third grader. fuck you man

I'd rather kill myself than give the RIAA $220k! This woman should kill herself in protest.

i have an idea, instead of endlessly discussing this or that band why dont we get up from our computer screens and actually try to do something about this?

"umm the riaa didnt pick anyone"

well she certainly didn't volunteer.

she should take out everyone on the jury first though. She should also pay a visit to the RIAA office. That would be "justice".

fuck this, i call for an all out boycott of all music industry, NOW! all the bloggers should band together and call for this boycott. come on people lets do something this is not right.

stop giving major labels your money. I'm NEVER buying a record released on a major again. EVER.

if people set up pickets I will gladly join. I would say outside the Sound Fix tomorrow might be a good place to start, before the Fiery Furnaces in-store.

4 people posted "GUILTY". Ok, yes, so they didn't post "guilty of a criminal charge". You complained about semantics, and now you're the one engaging in semantics.

And "dudes", the RIAA is destroyed. They've served threat to sue letters on a few thousand people. Millions of people download songs every day, and the standard record industry CD sales system is dead. Instead of attempting to understand and adapt to the technology, they've fought it all the way and all they have is a 22K judgment against some single mother.

who the hell do they get to sit on the jury. Their is no way in hell I would have agree with the RIAA if I was on that jury.

I would love to see them go after someone who only downloads live shows and the person has all their bands cd's and heck even concert tickets. This the case I would like to see.

DOWN WITH JOURNEY. Don't buy there new album.

The RIAA has also only targeted people who use Kazaa. The lesson to be learned from this case, don't use kazaa.

@1:13- "I'd rather kill myself than give the RIAA $220k! This woman should kill herself in protest."

Self-immolation in response to this would be righteous. Just righteous.

I would LOVE to see that RIAA lawyer hung from a tree with his dick in his mouth.

it's amazing that the artists aren't even the focus anymore, it's just the greedy exploitative companies. i see they don't even care about trying to mask that anymore.

I wonder if the artists whose music was downloaded will see any of this money- I bet not.

The RIAA is mishandling this digital age to a ridiculous degree.

A friend was at the Grammy's with John Kolodner and he said "Look around, what do you see?"

The friend didn't say any thing.

John said "Old people. The business is run by old people. It's over."

Let's get some lawyers and destroy our dwindling audience!

God I hate this fucking country sometimes. Oh, and shithead lawyers too now that I think of it.

This is interestingly timed with the Radiohead release, which if hugly successful would seem to be a big step towards the RIAA rolling over and dying.

stop giving major labels your money. I'm NEVER buying a record released on a major again. EVER.

Ditto. Majors, you're not getting one pe nny out of me

Anonymous | October 5, 2007 1:20 PM
"fuck this, i call for an all out boycott of all music industry, NOW! all the bloggers should band together and call for this boycott. come on people lets do something this is not right."

This is the music industries boycott of consumers. The music buisness is in shambles. stealing is stealing, guilty is guilty.
I'm surprised they haven't gone after people for downloading the new bruce springsteen album yet. He's one of the few big names that can still sell records. Can you name anyone selling records in big numbers these days?

""umm the riaa didnt pick anyone"

well she certainly didn't volunteer."

obviously she didnt't volunteer but pick meaning they did not handpick her to fight the settlement. She chose of her own free will to attempt to stand up to them.
You should get together with the douchebag lawyer running around on here.

$220K *PLUS* THE RIAA'S LEGAL FEES!!!
HA-HA!

anon 4:51
there's a difference between the music industry and the record industry. The record industry just sells records, the music industry is everyone else (bands, studios, etc.)

If I was this woman I would leave the country (a lot it's done for her). I mean 220k? it might as well be 3mil. She will never be able to pay this off.

and the people asking if the record industry will go after people downloading from blogs, etc., don't worry about it. That stuff is way harder to track than Kazaa users. and all these suits are from years ago.

and the people asking if the record industry will go after people downloading from blogs, etc., don't worry about it. That stuff is way harder to track than Kazaa users. and all these suits are from years ago.

so thats the solution buy a new computer every year and burn your old one. haha

anon 5:45,
Thanks for pointing out my mistake of saying music industry. I should have been more clear and said recording industry.

but lets be real...nobody is making money, music and recording companies.

"If I was this woman I would leave the country (a lot it's done for her)."

HA HA HA. She should ask for political asylum.

Moral of the story: Only share indie music on Kazaa.

Ok...so she stole, yeah, but imposing such an excessive fine on her only makes the record companies look like greedy butt wipes wallowing in their own piles of cash. What ever happened to the 8th Ammendment from the Bill of Rights: Excessive bail shall not be required, NOR EXCESSIVE FINES IMPOSED, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. What they're fining her seems excessive to me. As though they need more money anyway? They sell over priced CD's with just a few decent songs, but wait, theres a nifty little invention called the radio that allows one to hear music for free. Maybe not always what you want when you want it, but that keeps things random anyway, hence the reasons I've not bought more than 10 CD's in my entire life. And now another reason to add to the pile: To boycott those greedy pigs!

yeah, it's about time for a boycott. this is ridiculous. furthermore, major labels drop 220K all the time making albums they don't bother promoting, and sometimes just shelve. this kind of ruling is such a bad sign. I'm indie from here on out. Probably gonna buy some Radiohead more on principle as well.

10:09
Not to jump on the legal semantics bandwagon, but the 8th amendment simply does not come into play in this case because the money she owes is neither a fine, nor punishment. A fine is paid to the government. Restitution, which is what she now owes, is paid to a successful plaintiff in a civil suit, which is what the RIAA is. The purpose of restitution is not to punish, but to make whole the party who was wronged.

You can disagree with whether the RIAA was wronged here, and whether it was wronged to the tune of $240K, but that doesn't change the fact that the 8th amendment is wholly inapplicable.

This woman punished while the media and others laud the 17 year old hacker who claimed to have "unlocked" the iPhone?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/25/MNSARP0MN.DTL&tsp=1

Why the disparity between the white-collar hobby of "prestigious" hacking vs. copyright violation?

All I know is I will never buy songs/cds/videos etc from the plantiffs again: EMI Group PLC's Capitol Records Inc.; the Arista Records LLC label and its parent Sony BMG Music Entertainment, which is run by Sony Corp. and Bertelsmann AG; Vivendi SA's UMG Inc. and its label, Interscope Records; and Warner Bros. Records Inc., which is a unit of Warner Music Group Corp.

Anon. Oct. 5 11:25 PM:
Those lauding the kid who cracked the iPhone and unlocked it are people who favor the consumer over the big corporations (Apple and AT&T Wireless). Apple may have a legal case against him and everyone else who has unlocked the iPhone, but if they do, they are choosing not to pursue the matter in court. Instead, the latest iPhone firmware update they released (version 1.1.1) is turning unlocked iPhones into "bricks."

As for everyone who is saying they are boycotting major label releases from now, how many of you were buying such releases before this court case?

Hmm..stupid on her part not to settle.
And no matter how many people get sued for this
its not gonna teach anyone anything. People aren't going to stop illegally downloading music. So many people do it, they'll never catch them all. They might as well just give it up. Jeeze.

Great business model -- sue your customers. The only thing destroying the music business is record companies.

I will be downloading unauthorized mp3s tonight in honor of Jammie.

"Hmm..stupid on her part not to settle."

not stupid at all. It would be stupid for her to allow herself to be pushed around by these fat-cat lawyer parasites. What's the difference in paying a few thousand or a few hundred thousand if you don't have the money anyway. If I were her I would do whatever I had to do to make sure the RIAA doesn't see a dime of my money.

it is NOT A CRIME TO RIP YOUR CDs to your ipod. the practice is known as space shifting and it is explicitly allowed.

"I will be downloading unauthorized mp3s tonight in honor of Jammie."

You mean, "Tonight, I will dedicate my regular unauthorized downloading of mp3s to Jammie."

cf "I stole a TV for Rodney King!"

if only RIAA was bombed. Oh well. Lesson learned; dont use kazaa.

i'm not sure if you guys realize that radiohead totally took a shit on the music industry.