What is Digg?Sponsored by newegg
Ready. Set. Shop view!
newegg.com - Newegg.com Black Friday Sale starting 11/25 3PM PST. No Lines, No Crowds, Click and Save.
84 Comments
- shnuffy, on 07/02/2009, -7/+103Stop being cheap and just pay the $1.90 already.
- junkfoodjoe, on 07/02/2009, -3/+77***** the RIAA
- mysql101, on 07/04/2009, -0/+37The 25 britney spears songs she downloaded aren't worth anywhere near that!
- BrandonJM, on 07/02/2009, -1/+32Good. Maybe she (and the rest of us) can still win this one.
- rubixcubez, on 07/03/2009, -2/+31Looks like LtGenPanda accidentally a word...
- Irishsmurf, on 07/04/2009, -0/+23But would you steal a car?
- earthforce1, on 07/04/2009, -1/+18So what? At this point, one million might as well be a billion. She might as well go bankrupt fighting the good fight instead of going bankrupt paying off the MAFIAA. I would burn all my assets before paying those @ssholes a thin dime.
- PeaceShot, on 07/04/2009, -2/+18Route 1:
Lose case.
Declare for bankruptcy.
Pay nothing.
Route 2:
Win case.
Pay nothing. - MastaQ, on 07/04/2009, -0/+14As Three Dog would say, keep fightin' the good fight.
- studiopenguin, on 07/04/2009, -2/+16The thing about the Jammie Thomas case is that she was as guilty as sin, she was caught in numerous lies throughout both the trial and the appeal, and instead of fighting her case based on the established facts, she and her lawyers keep throwing new and increasingly ridiculous defenses at the wall in hopes that one will stick. Her first lawyer bailed on her with good reason, her new (24 year old) lawyer is best known for being a racist, and while the $1.9m judgment that people are so worked up about is certainly a scary precedent, it was quite obviously the result of the jury resenting her for her willingness to blatantly lie to their faces.
I'm as upset with the RIAA as anyone, but I don't think Thomas is a very good poster girl for the cause, and copyright reformists should be distancing themselves from her. I'm sure I'm going to be dugg down for not hopping on the "***** the copyright cartel" bandwagon, but Thomas stopped being an innocent victim when she started lying on the stand. - GenkaiNashi, on 07/04/2009, -2/+15I still don't understand how the damn jury decided that it was fair to make her pay 1.9 million. What kind of logic is that? If her appeal doesn't work out again that's going to set a terrible precedent. What is the world coming too? Plus, I love the attitude of the RIAA spokesman... "needlessly prolonging this case." I bet if he was in a case where he had to pay a ***** load of money he wouldn't keel over and pay up. As far as I know - not to many people would.
***** the RIAA. - RHollister, on 07/04/2009, -2/+14Hopefully this will get appealed all the way to the supreme court and we can get some final ruling on these matters. It's really the only way this stuff will ever end.
- kopiwrite, on 07/04/2009, -0/+12***** that, I wouldn't give a damn penny to those asshats.
- Scira, on 07/04/2009, -0/+11You wouldn't shoot a policeman, and then steal his helmet.
You wouldn't go to the toilet in his helmet, and then send it to the policeman's grieving widow.
And then steal it again! - theblueprint, on 07/04/2009, -0/+11Wait... you eat balls?
- KibibyteBrain, on 07/04/2009, -1/+12Part of her appeal is that Due Process as guaranteed by the constitution does not allow for such extreme statutory damages aside from provable damages. I'm not sure this will be ignored by the appeals court, as many lawmakers and legal scholars have expressed similar opinions in general. I don't think she will flat out win an appeal, but I think if anything the damages will go down, not up.
- jonglebeats, on 07/04/2009, -2/+12I don't care who she is, $1.9 million is a ludicrous amount of money for sharing 24 songs, for anyone.
- inactive, on 07/04/2009, -0/+9Why does it matter how many kids she has? STFU ***** for even judging her for that.
- sparkie, on 07/04/2009, -2/+11$1.9 ... I'd pay a dollar nintey.
- earthforce1, on 07/04/2009, -1/+10> She could very well be piling up unforgiveable debt with new appeals.
They still can't take what you don't have. I could rack up a billion dollars in unforgivable debt, but good luck ever collecting it from me, no matter how many court orders or collection agencies try. My understanding is she is married now, she can just keep all her assets in her husbands name and remain a stay at home mom.
- kentifer, on 07/04/2009, -2/+10I'm sure the government can issue her a bailout package.
- Travelsonic, on 07/04/2009, -1/+8"love how children bury comments simply because they know they can't out debate. "
This, ladies and gentlemen, is called delusion of grandeur. - Mistlefoot, on 07/04/2009, -3/+10Yes. You can sue.
But the constitution certainly comes into play.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._F ...
When Falwell was awarded $150,000 in a civil suit it was overturned on appeal for constitutional reasons. - nextekcarl, on 07/04/2009, -1/+7@Krayziekyd, yep, that is exactly what Mistlefoot meant. A civil case was overturned on constitutional grounds.
- greevar, on 07/04/2009, -0/+6This case has gone beyond absurd. Yes, she lied. She probably did commit copyright infringement. But the damages they are awarding are just stupid. These kind of damages should be reserved for cases of willful infringement with the intent to profit from it. Jammie Thomas obviously was not trying to profit from this since these files were shared on Kazaa. Applying these damages to ordinary citizens is not only excessive, but implies that it doesn't matter that they even distributed files to anyone. I think the plaintiff should be burdened to prove that someone (That is, other than MediaSentry. They were given permission and therefore doesn't count) actually downloaded the shared files. In the end this case is going to hurt her children and husband more than anyone else.
- MacBandit, on 07/04/2009, -0/+5Umm, yeah, I see you're a little slow so let me explain. See most of us read the article last week and know how much it is but since we're bored we decided to focus on the error in the description and.... ah ***** it who am I kidding we would have made fun of the description no matter what.
- Travelsonic, on 07/04/2009, -1/+6"Win how? Are you implying that she will somehow get off scot free?"
Not having to pay 1.9million != not having to pay anything. She probably will (and will agree to) pay something else, 1.9m is overkill. - Louis11, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4"I love how children bury comments simply because they know they can't out debate."
I love how losers have to respond to being dugg down. - bdbr, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5The appeal isn't about whether she is guilty or not, its about the size of the penalty.
- KrayzieKyd, on 07/04/2009, -5/+9This is civil law, not criminal law. A private party can sue anyone for any amount, it has nothing to do with the Constitution. The federal government, if it were taking action against an individual for breaking federal laws, that would involve the Constitution.
- ozydingo, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5"Investing in new creations and actually expecting people to pay for them"
Rather broad for a business model, don't you think? You must have an MBA.
No. The business model I refer to is that of media distribution by way of individual track sales as if they were equivalent to physical personal property. Online distribution and social media are making them obsolete as bands no longer need an organization such as the RIAA to reach a large number of fans, and as the cost of entry for both studio recording and media distribution is dropping. Hell, I'm a broke student and I run a studio from my home in some of my spare time. Now don't get my words wrong; the kind of fame that the top RIAA artists have is even less easily achievable without the RIAA than with; but that I take as simply am effect of the changing marketplace. Due to online distribution, I would predict more bands will reach more moderate groups of fans, and few bands will spread to such large levels of popularity as we have now. But I personally have no problem with that scenario, and certainly do not think we should use the courts to attempt to prevent it.
It seems you're falling victim to the debate of extremes fallacy that is so common in online forums. You attribute to me positions that you have associated with others that are also against the RIAA. I do not expect the RIAA to just suddenly allow music distribution sites to offer music for free. I do expect them (well, want them, maybe not expect them) to adapt to digital media in a less obtuse way than they have been doing so far.
And ftr, my beef with the RIAA and MPAA isn't even the lawsuits, nor the extreme damages, but also pushes for broad legislation such as the CD-R tax ( http://www.boycott-riaa.com/facts/truth ) and restrictions on hardware that they have no right to control ( http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/01/hollywood_aft ... ) - nelziq, on 07/04/2009, -1/+5Sorry, wrong answer. Go back to law school buddy. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_of_North_America, ...
You should have covered that in civil procedure. - maz2331, on 07/04/2009, -0/+4That sounds kind of gay.
- Muffinhunter, on 07/04/2009, -1/+4and you should know that BMW only applies to punitive damages. the damages in this case were within the statutory guidelines, and were not punitive in nature.
granted, it's still possible that the court will find the statutory damages unconstitutional, but it's not as clear as you'd like to think. - jaytek13, on 07/04/2009, -0/+3That would be all good and well, but a court order means they can get a judgement to withdraw money from your bank account or even dock your paycheck.
With a court ruling comes a bit more to deal with than just harassing phone calls. - maz2331, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5And a stay-at-home mom with no bank account nor paycheck can be attached?
- bdbr, on 07/04/2009, -2/+4I guess it kind of shows how much those lawyers care about this case, to submit such a smug picture after they just lost their client an ADDITIONAL $1.7 million.
- MentalBeaver, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2Rest of world says "No *****".
- jpware1, on 07/04/2009, -0/+2RIAA is just outta control on this stuff.
- KrayzieKyd, on 07/04/2009, -3/+5The appeal was on the grounds of having free speech rights, not fighting the punishment.
The Court overturned it because Hustler had the free speech rights, not because they thought that the civil lawsuit penalties were "unfair". - earthforce1, on 07/04/2009, -2/+4Go Jammie Go!
( Should get this caption and her face printed on a T-Shirt with a RIAA logo on the back and a ghostbusters style slash through it. ) - ozydingo, on 07/04/2009, -4/+6It's not about her being innocent of pirating. It's about the RIAA being ***** insane thinking that it's acceptable to leverage their power into preserving their increasingly obsolete business model by rule of law--and dragging people's lives through the mud while doing it.
- locojones, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2Neither BMW nor State Farm have any application in statutory damage cases, and to do so would render the nature of statutory damages meaningless. Given the rational basis review of the copyright statutes, and the reasonable relation between carefully crafted congressional statutory damages and the deterrence of copyright infringement (as well as the general background of incentivizing and protecting creation), I can't see any court ruling section 504 unconstitutional.
- kilsekddd, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
- armbar, on 07/06/2009, -0/+1It seems to me you're underestimating how many 30 and 40-year olds are on the internet and use P2P to download their favourite songs from high school.
- Mship, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2IS there any information on how much of the songs that she actaully uploaded, Like each song was download 5,000 times or something. Dont you think that would be a better way to base the fine on 27 songs download 5,000 times each at one dollar per song for a total of $135,000.
Would that be a better way to find the fine? - valleyman86, on 07/04/2009, -3/+4Or RTFD which says $1.9...
- armbar, on 07/04/2009, -1/+2Yeah, that Guns N' Roses thing was a real flash in the pan. And who's heard of Aerosmith?
- maz2331, on 07/04/2009, -2/+3X 10^6.
- my10cent, on 07/04/2009, -0/+1Honest I think I would appeal even if it was a buck ninety, this is principle, this is the RIAA and they do not deserve one lousy dime out of anyone's pockets, as a matter of fact they should pay her for the harassment they did.
-
Show 51 - 87 of 87 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is