arstechnica.com— A week say she would appeal a $222,000 copyright infringement verdict, Jammie Thomas has officially asked the court for a retrial, arguing that the six-figure award is unconstitutionally excessive.
Oct 15, 2007View in Crawl 4
.99 cents a song = to the value she would have spent if she bought it off of iTunes.That would be fair, plus court costs, not to exceed $ 99 dollars.The courts are not meant to be used as a lottery ticket station for anyone to get rich quick . . .
Why should she pay for it? So that record company producers can get filthy rich off of the sales?We're entering a new age where we no longer need to buy a physical copy of an artist's music. I don't need to buy a CD or a record, I can simply get the music from another source: by downloading it online. The old outdated model is now failing because the music companies can't adapt to this fact.The true creators of the music don't make any money from the sales of the physical copies of their music anyway. They make money almost entirely from concert ticket sales and merchandising. In fact, in recent years there's been the phenomenon of a band experiencing poor record sales, yet record breaking concert ticket sales.It would seem then that the future of music sales is to release music online for free, or for a low price, then make profits from concerts and merchandise sales. This is the new business models that intelligent bands will get behind, and this is the new business model that record companies, through the RIAA, are fighting tooth and nail. In this new business model record companies will no longer see a bands pilfered profits. The profit will all go directly to the bands, the creators and rightful owners of this music.
My understanding of this case is that they, the RIAA and their ilk, have no evidence that anyone downloaded any of the music that she "made available", so there is certainly a question of whether or not she "redistributed" the music.I believe that she did admit to downloading the 24 recordings. Since some services charge less than $1.00 a song for downloading, I'd fine Ms. Thomas a dollar for each song, and charge the RIAA et al court costs including the costs of the defendant's lawyer, for bringing such a trivial suit.
banq59Oct 16, 2007
The RIAA is the only one committing a crime here. Extorting money from poor mothers, raping artists, and generally sucking a huge c**k. Also I suggest you read the constitution. <a class="user" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Amendment_to_t ...</a> This is excellent grounds for appeal.
geminitojanusOct 16, 2007
Shhh!!! Don't say that too loud, the Authoritarian Authors Association of America will come along and try to shut down libraries everywhere.
leesoongOct 17, 2007
.99 cents a song = to the value she would have spent if she bought it off of iTunes.That would be fair, plus court costs, not to exceed $ 99 dollars.The courts are not meant to be used as a lottery ticket station for anyone to get rich quick . . .
xondarOct 17, 2007
Why should she pay for it? So that record company producers can get filthy rich off of the sales?We're entering a new age where we no longer need to buy a physical copy of an artist's music. I don't need to buy a CD or a record, I can simply get the music from another source: by downloading it online. The old outdated model is now failing because the music companies can't adapt to this fact.The true creators of the music don't make any money from the sales of the physical copies of their music anyway. They make money almost entirely from concert ticket sales and merchandising. In fact, in recent years there's been the phenomenon of a band experiencing poor record sales, yet record breaking concert ticket sales.It would seem then that the future of music sales is to release music online for free, or for a low price, then make profits from concerts and merchandise sales. This is the new business models that intelligent bands will get behind, and this is the new business model that record companies, through the RIAA, are fighting tooth and nail. In this new business model record companies will no longer see a bands pilfered profits. The profit will all go directly to the bands, the creators and rightful owners of this music.
mcraigwOct 17, 2007
My understanding of this case is that they, the RIAA and their ilk, have no evidence that anyone downloaded any of the music that she "made available", so there is certainly a question of whether or not she "redistributed" the music.I believe that she did admit to downloading the 24 recordings. Since some services charge less than $1.00 a song for downloading, I'd fine Ms. Thomas a dollar for each song, and charge the RIAA et al court costs including the costs of the defendant's lawyer, for bringing such a trivial suit.