What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
232 Comments
- ScytheNoire, on 10/11/2007, -4/+82so the defense did a poor job in the jury selection. they should never have allowed the jurors they got, since they didn't get a group of jurors who had any clue about the technology. it's sad that the defense did such a poor job. hopefully they'll get some good lawyers next time who know how to manipulate the jury as well as the prosecution. once again, the legal system fails.
- UtahPirate, on 10/11/2007, -4/+76We, the uninformed, vow to blindly follow misinformation wherever it may be, without so much as stopping to question its validity... yeah, SCREW that...
Awesome article, though. :-) - squirrelza, on 10/11/2007, -1/+72So I'm one of those people that are trying to do just a little in fighting the RIAA. I emailed 10 bands this week who I regularly listen to and let them know I will no longer support them because their label is an RIAA member. Most of them agreed they hated RIAA (or didn't know who they were), but I should rather be speaking to the labels. I got in connection with owners of two big indie labels and told them my reasons for not supporting the bands. It turns out the two labels are not even RIAA members although being listed. This afternoon one of the owners let me know he contacted the RIAA and sent them a fax to get their name removed. Lets see where that goes. And hey, they gave me free merch :D
- whatthefu, on 10/12/2007, -7/+71Ruining a person's life is a *****, selfish way to send a business message. I'd rather a company stop existing than a person's life be ruined to "save" it.
- Chambz, on 10/12/2007, -7/+40We seriously need to do something. The RIAA is creating their own evidence to use against downloaders. They are also stacking the teams in their favor with propaganda. If something is to be done, it has to happen soon.
- statik99, on 11/03/2009, -2/+33You know what when I hear this "He said his wife is an administrator at a local hospital and an 'internet guru.' ", I think, oh great, another douchebag that thinks just because someone in his house says they're an "internet guru" automatically means he is too. And if one person claims to be an "internet guru" that only means they're able to check their email and call tech support if they can't send.
I like how he says "yes, we would have reached the same result"... goes to show how ignorant he is and how much $$ talks. I wonder if he'd say the same if his wife received a letter from the RIAA... afterall, she's an internet guru.
In all seriousness though, how are people supposed to get a fair trial. If it's a "jury of your peers" why not have a bittorrent user or at least some that do more on the internet than check email. Oh, it would hurt the RIAA, yup. It saddens me to see the justice system abused over and over and then when a trial finally happens, you get close minded people like this guy who already has his mind made up. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27the defense may not have had much choice. I read in an an earlier article about one potential juror who was excluded simply because she said she had used a P2P service before.
- gildude, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24Right - that is a normal tactic. You generally excuse with cause anyone who has any clue about the subject because they may have "preconceived notions". The jury is then "supposed" to take as fact the statements of the expert witnesses... I was in one jury selection for a heart attack medical malpractice case where they kicked out anyone who had a relative who suffered a heart attack. Basically if anyone knew anything about the heart - they were out.
- dime, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28People need to separate their emotions from their logic.
Let's get real, here - she was obviously sharing copyrighted material and that is against the law. This isn't the case of some 80 year old woman without a computer being sued. The username sharing the files were used by her on other internet accounts. It was her. Face reality. I don't know how much "internet experience" you need to understand this link.
That's not to say that the penalty wasn't harsh and arbitrary. But let's pick some better martyrs to rally behind, mmmk? - coolboy0286, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23Make the Jury half of people who are currently using bit torrent, and the other half of people who used to use bit torrent. Lets see what happens. When you have morons out there who don't know what companies like the RIAA has done and probably don't know what Azureus is, you are bound to have a one sided trial.
- azprofessional, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21Remember when you torrent, the record companies release more Clay Aiken music, which in turn kills puppies.
DON'T TORRENT - vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Isn't that a bit like in a malpractice suit making half of the jury doctors and the other half former doctors?
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/11/2007, -1/+16This is my biggest problem with jury selection. Entire trials hinge on jury selection because lawyers are allowed to come up with any reason to excuse someone. If you have any education in rational thinking, be it math, science, or engineering, be expected to be shown the door. If, however, you can come off entirely ignorant and uneducated, you're gold.
If juries are always composed of people with no knowledge of the subjects they are asked to hear a case on, then by definition you are never getting a jury of your peers as my peers KNOW things about the world. - michaelb1, on 10/11/2007, -6/+20Hate to point this out but its "apparently" not apparantly.
Just saying... - longbow486, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Us, the unknowing, lead by the unwilling, are now capable of doing everything with nothing.
that should be the RIAA's motto - andwewilldana, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14we can bitch about the jury all we want, but its not even a question as to whether or not she stole music - there was more than enough evidence to support that fact, and if there were "bit torrent users" on the jury, that wouldn't have changed anything, unless they chose to ignore evidence.
the question is how can anybody justify that each of those songs is worth $9k+ - clothmonkey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+13Clearly, the RIAA disagrees with you on that point, and that speaks volumes about them.
- briankohles, on 10/11/2007, -0/+11Which is exactly why they invented the phrase "Any 12 people who are not smart enough to get out of jury duty are not my peers."
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Incorrect.
There were members of the jury in this trial that had never been on the internet. Please read that again for emphasis, they had *NEVER* been on the internet.
That is akin to having a murder trial where members of the jury have no concept of death. It's nearly incomprehensible, but the only analog would be to put people on the jury who were so mentally under-developed that they didn't understand the concepts of life and death.
That CANNOT be the way to justice. - m3t00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+9The clueless part is this jury thinking it is sending a message to other file sharers. Kazaa would share files by default. I doubt she even knew she was doing it. Neither do most of the people who use p2p. All they want is free downloads. I think people should be liable for the fair market value of their copy. $1 + small fine for being ignorant. The file sharing software is mostly to blame. Making this person pay such an outrageous sum just vilifies the Plaintiffs and the legal system that made it possible.
- JeremyTTU, on 10/11/2007, -3/+12Not downloaders.... SHARERS!
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8When I get tried I want a jury of my Peer-2-peers.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8Google pls.
- vulapine, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9Quick note, you have council for the Defense and council for the Plaintiff in a civil trial. Prosecutors are in criminal trials.
- lpmiller, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9uh, you really cannot blame the jury for this, especially after the thing with the harddrive. The fault lies with her lawyer, who just wasn't that good.
- fumey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10So your arguing that musicians do it all for the art? I'm sorry that's complete bunk....Musicians do it like anyone with a full time job does it, because they have to as its the path they've chosen. Every single member of my family is involved in the music industry, I'm the black sheep who's in IT and I've a broad family. I've grown up with musicians and in the Irish music scene, been going to gigs and hanging around backstage of gigs since I was tiny. I can very much tell you that while yes there is a great deal of personal satisfaction in creation of an art form you can't say something as stupid as 'everyone knows a real musician does it for the art, not the money.' I do what I do because I love it, but also because I NEED money in order to live.
Elitist attitudes do not help anyone, especially not 90% of the artists who aren't in the limelight, and who scrape a living. I'm gonna be devils advocate here but downloading copyrighted music IS illegal, the record company's or artists (depending) own the right to distribute it in whatever manner they choose. If they don't choose to allow it to be free then you as the punter have to respect that. - Jtheletter, on 10/11/2007, -2/+10I would say it should at least be a requirement in 2007 that one has USED the internet. The juror interviewed admitted he has not even used it, that's not a peer. That would be (to break out the dreaded car analogy) like putting jurors who have never driven or ridden in a car on a jury for a traffic accident trial. There would be certain concepts, limitations and expectations about driving that they would be totally unaware of and would have direct bearing on their ability to understand the case.
- terrachronos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10If you've never been on the Internet before then you should be barred from participating in a trial of this magnitude. How hard is it to pick jurors?
Lawyer: Potential Juror #12, Have you ever been on the Internet before?
Potential Juror #12: Nope
Lawyer: Thank you...you're dismissed......NEXT! - PA42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9What you seem to want is the cards stacked up against the RIAA ... which is a fair point, but that would be a far more corrupt legal system then the current one.
The juries job is to determine the facts. In this case you don't need an "internet guru" to determine whether or not she was a likely file sharer. If someone using bit torrent sites decided against the RIAA in this case it would be because of there bias against the RIAA.
Should the jury for an accused murderer be made up of other murderers? should the jury for a car thief be made up of other thieves? Even in the non-criminal side: should the jury for a deadbeat dad be other deadbeat dads? the answer is NO. Anyone who is in a analogous situation and would be worried about being sued would be bias.A jury of peers is a jury made up of the community as a whole. - Fartag, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Having access to someone's account on a machine (say by remote exploit through whatever means) allows you to run P2P / torrents / DOS attacks / IRC bots / etc.on their machine using their account and will give you the _same_ results as in this case. Using a compromised machine to trade files is not a new thing. The files generally just go bouncing through a zombie network or the machine acts like a file server until it's taken down (among other things). And now that incredibly ridiculous fines are handed over by fools on a jury it's now a perfect revenge mechanism against someone you hate as long as they take care to cover their tracks on the way out, and turn the firewall back on for a nice touch.
As I read elsewhere, _everyone_ on that jury deserves a kid that downloads a few dozen songs using their account so when they try to defend against it, other vindictive "clued in" jurors bankrupt them over a handful of songs too. Justice was not done here, the world deserves more rational people than this. - Jerim, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Jury's don't have to know the topic at hand. Many jurors everyday confront facts they were not previously aware. Anything from guns, to boats to accounting practices. It is the defenses responsibility to make sure they do understand. An ignorant jury is not grounds for a mistrial. And again, she obtained music that she didn't purchase. We all do it, but it is still a crime. Just like egging a car or TP'ing a yard. It may be harmless fun to some, but it is still against the law.
- locojones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Why are you digging these people up? It's not an awesome article. In fact, it's probably the worst single article I've seen on Digg, typifying the slow erosion of the quality this site once had, written by somebody who obviously has no connection with reality. Let me point out everythign that's wrong with what was written (which is practically every word, by the way):
"no actual damages were awarded, because none were sought. "
Wrong. Under 17 USC 501, a plaintiff in a copyright infringement case can seek either (1) actual damages, or (2) if actual damages are too speculative, can seek the alternative statutory damages set forth in 17 USC 504. In thise case, the RIAA chose to seek the statutory damages allowable under the Copyright Code. No rules in civil procedure require them to plead a specific amount in this case.
"hints given by him that it was never going to be a fair trial"
I love when people claim it was never a fair trial because they lost. The defense had ample opportunity to present their facts and inferences of those facts. It's not unfair because the jury failed to find them credible.
"he, for instance, responded to claims of spoofing, and of possibly being a zombie system as “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding.’”"
I've been on the internet for over a decade now, and I laughed, just as the juror did, when I heard the claim that she had a zombified PC. Botnets are only good for spamming, phishing, and DDoS attacks. Botnets don't send out trojans that install Kazaa, search out and register people's internet names they've used for years, and share their crappy music online. If it doesn't make sense, then it's not true.
" It’s also clear from what he has said that the jury disregarded some of the facts presented to them by witnesses, such as the hard drive in question was replaced because it was faulty, not in relation to the trial."
Oh my god, you mean the jury did it's job of weighing the facts and believing some over the other? Stop the freakin presses!!! If that makes you mad, well, here's another little secret you might not like -- juries also disregard certain witnesses too.
"This jury clearly came into the trial with its mind made up."
No it didn't. And it's not any more true just because you keep saying it.
"The Jury also ignored a lot of precedent in other similar cases, or was not made aware of it. "
It is not within the purview of the jury to hear precedent and make decisiong on what law applies. That is the job of the judge to present the law that the jury will use in weighing its decision.
"His logical leap, however, that file-sharing is copyright infringement is one not shared by courts elsewhere (affirmed in trials such as Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) amongst others.)"
Hang on, I have to stop laughing before I can reply to this one. First, the Sony betamax decision says nothing about file sharing. It deals with time shifting and whether the distribution of technology with substantial non-infringing uses could leave a company liable for copyright infringement. And the A&M decision says the exact opposite of what you report it to say -- that Napster and it's users are liable for copyright infringement by sharing songs.
"If Ms. Thomas, with all the evidence they had against her caused them no actual financial damage, then it will be hard for them to claim anyone else has cost them either"
Wrong again. The RIAA isn't required to plead any specific damages, and they didn't. The opted to recover statutory damages instead under 17 USC 504, which allows for damages of 750 - 30,000 dollars per act of infringement. In this case, the jury found that it was appropriate to only award 9,000 per act of infringement. She got off very light considering. And she's very lucky she wasn't found to be wilfully infringing, because those damages could go up to 150,000 per act of infringement. - PA42, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8you're likely to see that it doesn't meet the legal definition of "theft." For the legal definition of theft you need to intend to permanently deprive the other party ... this doesn't occur in copyright infringement. The problem is that stealing != theft. When the RIAA uses the term stealing, they do not suggest any legal definition because there is no legal definition of stealing. Personally, I view copyright infringement as stealing. I use the dictionary.com definition: "to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right"
- darkjedi26, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8Nice! Imageine if everyone on Digg did this. The labels would get an avalanche of emails from fans and might seriously consider dropping their affiliation.
- Jtheletter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7"Downloading of copyrighted content without paying for it is theft"
Nope! Try again! Go READ THE LAW. According to the very law she was prosecuted under it is Copyright Infringement and is a civil tort, not a crime.
Theft deprives the holder of the good, as well as any income derived from selling it.
Copyright Infringement may cause financial harm from a lost sale, but does not deprive the owner of the item itself.
Taking a physical CD from a store without paying is THEFT.
Copying the contents of the CD and distributing them for profit or not is Copyright Infringement.
Your post is proof positive that the very disinformation campaign you cited in your quote is working. - LetsGoHokies, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"A jury of your peers" right? So how is someone who has never used the internet a peer of someone who is on trial for pirating music? Or does peer just mean same age? Same sex? Same race? Same intelligence level? Anyone know what it really means?
- Makisupa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7I'm not sure why the poster thinks this will overturn the verdict. According to federal evidence rule 606(b), impeachment of a verdict is forbidden if based on testimony of the effect of the juror's mind or motive (a semi-recent SCOTUS case even showed a verdict can't be impeached because of a drunk or high juror). Impeachment of verdict only allowed when extrinsic factors are involved such as bribes. This tradition stems all the way back to merry old England, under the Lord Mansfield rule. There are good reasons for this including the trust and respect given to juries, chilling effects of deliberation, and the potential destabilization of questioning the entire jury process.
- chris9902, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6As much as I would like to agree that's not how courts work. It's the defences job to educate them if they don't understand what the RIAA are saying.
- JeremyTTU, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8Interesting enough...
The definition of peer from m-w.com:
one that is of equal standing with another : EQUAL; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status
So shouldn't the people that made up the jury be actual people that are INFORMED on the issue? I know if I was up for trial for something like this and the lawyers for either side started using terms like, MAC Address, Spoofing, Sharing and all that crap... Those jury m****** better be able to 100% completely understand what these lawyers and these "expert testimonial" people are talking about.
Honestly, the lady was F'd in the A because of the username she chose. - darkjedi26, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8I could care less about their investors.
- clickmyface, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7You've got to be kidding me. The jury, on there own, decided that $24 worth of stolen electronic music files were worth $220,000. Thats the equivalent of giving up your income for nearly a decade. The next DECADE. Not their fault? Someone should show a $25 iTunes music store card to the steel worker and ask him how he thinks its worth a decades income. Then punch him in the face and kick him in the nuts. This was not justice.
- Sil369, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Hmm, that ain't right. I wouldn't want my name on my organization's list w/o my knowing of.
- Vicujozobenaxod, on 10/11/2007, -7/+13This actually makes sense. Would you want a jury full of thieves in a grand theft trial? Rapists in a rape trial? Gang members in an armed robbery trial? NO!
It's one thing to have intelligent jurors, but not everyone can be familiar with technology that's synonymous with illegal downloading. Consider how many people surf websites with no anti-virus/firewall, open e-mails from people they don't know, or couldn't tell a processor from a sound card. You are a bunch of geeks looking at this like....a bunch of geeks. This isn't a universal product like a taser, where everyone can understand what it is and what it does.
What you pirates want are people like you or former members, you just want to sway it in your favor. It's actually best to find people who are ignorant on the subject, so they can have an unbiased opinion and interpret it legally instead of emotionally. - DSchwartz88, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Ok, so im not in PR, nor will i ever be but consider this (not a defense for the RIAA, just a thought)
Why the hell is the RIAA suing a 30yo mother of 2?!?! I understand wanting to use someone as an "example" but come on, a 30yo mom of 2? Does the RIAA really want to look like a monster? Im sure there were millions of other users they could have gotten, even a 25yo single guy would have been better to sue. I mean come on, this is like arresting a homeless guy for being homeless, its just stupid.
Just my thoughts - squirrelza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Yeah. They did it to Fat Wreck Chords and they were really not happy with it at all. In the end they ended up spending a ***** load on legal fees to get their name off!
- PA42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5If the appeals court overturns the verdict, the trial will go back to a new jury, but would likely have a similar result. At that point, even if she "won" she would have a lot of legal bills.
- fumey, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Sorry I phrased it incorrectly, "Downloads of copyrighted material (which is not legally free) is in fact illegal", we all happy :)
- PA42, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I actually thought about this myself. Maybe there point is "No one is safe from the RIAA, even single mothers"
- m3t00, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Completely unfair since she was most likely unaware of what the software she installed was actually doing. "Free" anything almost never is. She knew she was getting lots of free music and that alone makes her guilty of something. But 10 years income for 10 hours of music? She may as well go sign up for welfare now. I fear what these maniacs could do to anyone who has used p2p in the last 10 years, myself included. They must have lists of thousands upon thousands of IP addresses with lists of "stolen" music for each IP.
- matu4251, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5"I'm sorry but I already murdered someone... can't be on the jury"
-
Show 51 - 100 of 232 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is