What is Digg?33 Comments
- aliengoods, on 01/02/2008, -2/+20While your logic is correct, you interpretation of the events is weak at best.
Also, you stole my comment. Pay me $2000 or face me in court! - inactive, on 01/02/2008, -1/+16You really should take the settlement.
- Daggity, on 01/02/2008, -2/+17A "maritime law specialist?" I believe it is clear what happened here: He mixed up torrent /files/ and oceanic torrents.
- ktetch, on 01/02/2008, -0/+15yeah, wrong sort of piracy....
- BlackJackJester, on 01/02/2008, -0/+9she could sleep with 1000 fat guys for $200 each...or 100 REALLY fat guys for $2000 each!
- Jtheletter, on 01/02/2008, -1/+7You have one critical fact wrong, she did not try to cover anything up with a new hard drive. The repair logs from the techs who replaced her hard drive clearly show that the drive failed and was replaced almost a full year BEFORE she received notice from the RIAA. She did not destroy evidence because it occurred well before there was any notification that the drive was evidence.
Also, there are two parts to this appeal. One, the judge instructed the jury to treat "making available" as equivalent to actual infringement. there is no legal basis for this and no reason why it couldn't be interpreted completely opposite (i.e. making available is not infringement, an actual copy would have to be made). So the law is unclear on what exactly constitutes infringement as the RIAA failed to prove that any actual infringement occurred. And second, the damages awarded are being challenged as unconstitutionally excessive. Even if she admits/accepts guilt of infringement the judgment is ridiculous given that the RIAA did not prove in court any actual monetary damages from her actions. - banmaster, on 01/02/2008, -0/+5IOts her own damn fault for thinking she could get off scott free even though the silly bitch used the exact same email and username for her filesharing activities as she did other stuff.
That she is now trying to appeal the conviction (and fines) shows that this stupid woman is just another in a long line of pricks who is wasting the court's time when she should know damn well that she hasn't a leg to stand on!
Anyway, at least the article didn't trot out the old "single mother' ***** that every damn story about Thomas did a few months ago. Her marital status it totally irrelevant! - actorboy, on 01/02/2008, -11/+15Single mom illegally distributes copyrighted material, gets caught, refuses settlement, tries to cover tracks with new hard drive, hires wrong attorney, loses case, and is ordered to pay probably 30 x more than if she would have just taken the settlement. Now she wants a free attorney or public donations to pay for another. She really should have just taken the settlement.
- BlackJackJester, on 01/02/2008, -2/+6While you are correct, the real crime here is the punishment for stealing something with no inherent value is worse than if she had actually gone to best buy and walked out with the CD's in hand.
- ayeroxor, on 01/02/2008, -2/+6Jammie? This started going bad when this person's parents named her after pajamas.
- woohhaa, on 01/02/2008, -2/+6The first thing you do is change your NIC and your hard drive. Then deny it.
- fkr3, on 01/03/2008, -0/+4But the fact that you're asking for something in exchange for your piece of chewed gum means that it does in fact have some value, even if it's only to you. My choice, as is everyone else's, is to pay what you ask or to not take it at all.
- ragingchikn, on 01/02/2008, -2/+6She just needs to give up. Shes setting a very poor precedence for future cases.
- yodaj007, on 01/02/2008, -3/+7Your logic is flawed. Just because I charge you $10 for a piece of chewed gum (with a little grass in it) does *not* mean that the value of that gum is $10.
- banmaster, on 01/02/2008, -1/+4Might be a cunning plan by her and the RIAA to deliberately 'poison the well' for any future defendants that try to stand up to the RIAA.
- blackinthmiddle, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3It wouldn't work. Whoever gives her internet access can always tie down an ip address to a cable box. Then they just have to look up and find who owned that box on that day. She's screwed on this one.
- laplacian, on 01/02/2008, -1/+4Or instead of taking a settlement she should have fought it on legitimate legal grounds. Instead she put up a blatantly false and ridiculous defense which screwed her.
- fkr3, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3I hear she got her defence tips from digg - "ummm yer honor what if i have wifi!!!!!"
- Fryth, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3If I were being tried for something that I thought were right, I wouldn't start out by telling the judge that I never did it...
It's too bad justice wasn't served here, but she initially lied in court and said there was no way to prove she ever downloaded any files. That was a big mistake. (Or am I getting things wrong.. if I am, I apologise) - fkr3, on 01/02/2008, -0/+3She's not being tried for something she thought was right. She's being tried for doing something she didn't think she'd get caught doing wrong.
- bootle, on 01/02/2008, -0/+2If I was her, the very FIRST thing I would do is get new representation...
- woohhaa, on 01/03/2008, -0/+1In that case buy a wifi router, leave it wide opened, and blame a neighbor.
- fkr3, on 01/02/2008, -4/+4She didn't steal something with no inherent value. If she stole something with no value iTunes, Amazon etc would not be charging money for those items.
- Jtheletter, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2No legal precedent has been set by this trial. http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/p069.htm
" Decisions of lower courts are not binding on higher courts, although from time to time a higher court will adopt the reasoning and conclusion of a lower court. Decisions by courts of the same level (usually appellate courts) are considered persuasive authority. That is, they should always be carefully considered by the later court but need not be followed. " - DestroyFascism, on 01/02/2008, -2/+2Just keep an electro magnet around the HDD> If they come in looking you can make it erase in a second...
- ktetch, on 01/03/2008, -1/+1Psst, you messed up a little - no-one has said she distributed it. Thats part of the problem. It was insinuated, but not proven. Thats what the jury instruction aspect of the appeal is.
- liftingbelly, on 01/06/2008, -0/+0please donate to Jammie
http://freejammie.com - ethanpeirce, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1Oh well, she's always got welfare. She seems stupid. Probably deserves it anyways.
- Travelsonic, on 01/02/2008, -2/+1"nderstand they want to deter future theft and..."
you obviously have mno undersytanding for the factual/legal issues.
We are dealing with copyright infringement.
Come on, at least knowing what is going on isn't too hard, is it?
I also feel you would make a horrible judge, using the "download = lost sale" argument, even assuming X downloads, etc.. and then suggesting a find that even still falls far from punishment fitting the crime is outrageous to me. - blackinthmiddle, on 01/02/2008, -1/+0No, you're right. She basically said that the RIAA didn't meet the burden of proof because it was possible that someone else did it. IP and mac address bind to a router; not always a computer and definitely not a human behind the computer. While that's true, I think most won't believe her. She should have just paid the fine.
- blackinthmiddle, on 01/02/2008, -2/+0I was going to respond to you by saying the RIAA had a case, but now I'm not so sure. From my understanding, 24 songs were in question in this case. She downloaded the songs from kazaa, then made them available for download. Let's say that your typical CD has twelve songs on them and each CD costs $15. So every time she allowed these 24 songs to be downloaded, she was costing the RIAA $30 of real value. So the 24 downloads would have to have happened 7400 times for it to equal $222K, which is what the jury awarded.
I understand they want to deter future theft and that was part of the reason for the excessive verdict, but I feel it's ridiculous. Give the girl a $10K fine and move on. In the end, everyone recognizes that the RIAA is nothing more than an industry based on lechery. I think they'll win the battle, but lose the war as more and more artists start distributing their content themselves. Really, the RIAA is superflous and they know that. If every artist decided to sell their music off of the internet, where would that leave them? - KyferEz, on 01/03/2008, -5/+1BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
BOYCOTT RIAA BOYCOTT MPAA
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is