Woman to Pay Downloading Award Herself

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The woman that lost the first RIAA music downloading trial today says she will pay the award herself. It’d be nice to see one of these anti-RIAA millionaires step up and pay her fine.

Jammie Thomas makes $36,000 a year but says she's not looking for a handout to pay a $222,000 judgment after a jury decided she illegally shared music online and did it on purpose. "I'm not going to ask for financial help," she told The Associated Press on Friday. But she added, "If it comes, I'm not going to turn it down, either."
Click to expand...
 
If anyone knows of a find that has been accepted that can accept paypal payments, please share the info. I will kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment.
 
snakeeyes said:
If anyone knows of a find that has been accepted that can accept paypal payments, please share the info. I will kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment.
Click to expand...

I will not "kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment." Much as I wish the jury had found in her favor, the fact remains: anyone w/a P2P music share file on their HD is a fool.
 
Sooo... Does this mean that she's not going to appeal? :confused:

If she's not going to appeal, then I'm curious as to why she took it to a jury in the first place.
 
jstnomega said:
I will not "kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment." Much as I wish the jury had found in her favor, the fact remains: anyone w/a P2P music share file on their HD is a fool.
Click to expand...

...or they aren't American. :p
 
Honestly... why give her bits of money here and there in a kind of fund? It won't make a huge difference in how long it takes her to pay it off, and it just gets the RIAA their money faster.

Think about it this way, if she has to pay say $300,000 total (the $220,000 does not include attorney fees irrc, probably a lot more than $300,000 total, but its an easy number). So they take out say $150 a month out of her wages. Thats 2,000 months of wages, or 166 years to pay it off :p

If you gave her $1,500 that would just go right to the RIAA and they would take off 10 months (almost a year) worth of wages, bringing it down to only 165 years

Right?
 
Is this what the RIAA calls justice? Man these judgements just make me sick.The punishment just does not fit the crime. This will affect this person for the rest of her life trying to pay this back. True Criminals don't get hit this hard and this person sure is not a criminal by any stretch of the imagination. She is a hard working person trying to provide a life for her and her children. I don't know what the RIAA thinks they are accomplishing to just go out and ruin someone's life like this without giving it a second thought. If I produced music for sale I still wouldn't feel good about this verdict. This just wasn't the right thing to do. Give her some community service to do or something that does not cause the quality of life to come crashing down for what she did. I'm sorry but this just isn't right.
 
Odds are the RIAA spent more then that 200k too, so the less money they get the better!
 
That's just ridiculous. So is this the first time RIAA's won $ then? :mad::mad:
 
Jodiuh said:
That's just ridiculous. So is this the first time RIAA's won $ then? :mad::mad:
Click to expand...

Most of the time they just threaten people and have them pay before they get to court. This is the first case to go to trial.

They are the playground bullies.
 
I'm pretty sure this civil judgement can be discharged with a chapter 7 bankruptcy. A tort has to be "willful and malicious" to be exempt. I don't think it meets that requirement. RIAA knew they'd lose money suing her, And that had to know, even if they won, they'd never collect all their damages and legal fees.
 
For 24 songs... she's on the LOW end of the spectrum, holy shit. They could get so many worse people...
 
mdameron said:
For 24 songs... she's on the LOW end of the spectrum, holy shit. They could get so many worse people...
Click to expand...
She had 1700 songs in her shared folder. Why they picked only 24 of those is puzzling (one publisher?) .

Having 1700 shared songs is what put the big target on her back, IMO.
 
pxc said:
She had 1700 songs in her shared folder. Why they picked only 24 of those is puzzling (one publisher?) .

Having 1700 shared songs is what put the big target on her back, IMO.
Click to expand...

and don't forget the dumbass was using P2P networks....thats like saying "HEY COME GET ME!"
 
pxc said:
She had 1700 songs in her shared folder. Why they picked only 24 of those is puzzling (one publisher?) .

Having 1700 shared songs is what put the big target on her back, IMO.
Click to expand...

That's pretty fucking stupid of her.

And weird that they picked 24...? They could have cleaned her out and essentially ruined her for life. Not that a 36k salary isn't already ruined...
 
This is one seriously stubborn biatch. I'm glad I have no relation to her. People shouldn't play games they have little chance of winning.
 
I'm still waiting for the "open wireless router using NAT" lawsuit... repeat after me, an IP is not a person...
 
SEALTeamSix said:
I'm still waiting for the "open wireless router using NAT" lawsuit... repeat after me, an IP is not a person...
Click to expand...

Have to agree, when is someone going to go to court because the dumb neighbor kid is using P2P and downloading songs on their Wifi?
 
i thought they tryed to say that her router was open and it wasnt her.
 
I am one of those people, I have a wireless router that I use for my ds/laptop, but my computer is on a hard line. I have so much trouble with the thing freezing that I have to reset it on a weekly basis. I am not going to set up WEP/WPA everytime... I'll just keep it open. I do check the logs on occasion and there is at least 2 other computers that access my network... probably downloading music or some other crap. So I guess if they sue me, I should sue linksys for their crappy router or how about microsoft since they allow p2p software to be installed on a windows pc... I wonder if we could get the RIAA and Microsoft to duke it out...Just cut out the middle man...lol An IP is not a person thats for sure
 
jstnomega said:
I will not "kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment." Much as I wish the jury had found in her favor, the fact remains: anyone w/a P2P music share file on their HD is a fool.
Click to expand...

while I am not advocating breaking the law, i'm sure most of us have a couple of songs that perhaps we shouldn't......... what most of these people, being total newbs, don't realize, is the concept of IP addressing and MAC addresses, as well as the fact that when they are running the client software anything they've downloaded into their shared directory is going to be shared, as well as anything they've ripped from CD and stuck in that folder for whatever reason (ease of finding tunes, etc)........... perhaps they should make it harder to find and download filesharing software, and people who have no clue wouldn't be downloading it.............. you don't find average people downloading things like Process Explorer, because you have to know what you're looking for to find it............ filesharing apps should be the same way, IMHO........... and these RIAA assholes should find some other way to get rich than harrasing single lower-income moms............
 
oops forgot I was in front-page news, could a mod please edit the cuss word out of my last post? And I humbly ask not to be banned........ :D
 
Fooshnik said:
This is one seriously stubborn biatch.
Click to expand...


EEEEEEXACTLY...

that is why you settle.... it sucks but it beats even the CHANCE of paying 220k (that seems a lot less than some of these people are getting sued for)...

then just go back to sharing your music... what are the chances the RIAA will pull YOUR name out of the hat twice? well... maybe if you have a 1700 song share on KaZaA on 24/7... pretty high... but learn from your mistakes



only time you should try to fight it is if you yourself are a lawyer (or a family member or close friend i guess) AND...
i still like the idea of plausible deniability with WIFI and/or Tor servers (or similar anonymous proxy)... i think that is more than plausible... especially if you send for newegg for a new 80 gig hard drive... stick it in your rig, load up your completely legal ubuntu, and send it off to 'em

i mean is it illegal to set up an anonymous proxy server at your house and set it to PGP "shred" the logs every morning at 6am?
 
I don't think she should be bashed for being ignorant. Its pretty clear she was, when she was fighting the thing. Its bad enough she lost the suit, lets not kick her when she's down.
 
Ravenous said:
...I am not going to set up WEP/WPA everytime...
Click to expand...
Is it really that hard to buy a decent router and set it up? Linksys 54GL's can be had for $50 online. Setup WPA w/ a nice pass like:

2e&$ahe$a_rUChar

You only have to enter it once.
 
With an annual income of $36k, how long do you think it will take to pay off a judgment of $222k? The woman is going to need some help...

She made a mistake - okay, quite a few mistakes! You will get no argument from me on that point. She was flat wrong (a jury of her peers agrees).

But the RIAA takes to extremes - bully is not too strong a word - their efforts to restrict the rights of their customers, too. The same customer base that pays for their music on CDs (as well as other media/formats) is represented in some of these cases and in many a dorm room.

Do you convert (copy) any of your music from CD to mp3 for use on a portable player? In testimony, one of Sony BMG's legal team, Jennifer Pariser, equates “making a copy” from your CD to stealing.

(reference: http://www.neoseeker.com/news/story/7202/)

…beginning with the second paragraph…

Once the opening statements were concluded, the record label plantifs called their first witness; Jennifer Pariser, the head of litigation for Sony BMG. Imagine what she said.

She said quite bluntly that when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, Sony can say he stole a song. "Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'.

Jennifer has apparently never heard of 'Fair Use' and the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act'. Both of those American doctrines tell us that people do have the right to back-up and or copy their CD's for personal use.

Food for thought. Sending Jamie 10 bucks isn’t going to kill me and it won’t fill the coffers of the RIAA, but if enough of us send a buck or two it might send a message – that the music industries potential customer base is watching the outcome of these legal cases and that these sorts of judgments are not the answer. They need to find a better answer to address their need for revenue.
 
Moron is as moron does.

First she engages in this activity in the most open stupid manner, so tracking her down and nailing her was a PoCake. Then she's gonne pay off $220K with a $36K salary?

Hey sweetie.... head to the nearest bankruptcy lawyer, and give the RIAA nothing. It's bad enough the BK and judgment will be on your credit report for 10 years, but actually PAYING OFF that complete abortion of a judgment? WTF :eek:

Stop being a simp.

As for the judgment, the jury was on serious drugs. RIAA alleged NO actual damages. Even if the 24 songs had been downloaded by others, it would have maybe been 1,000 times each from this individual.... so $.99 x 1000 would yeild $1K actual damages per song, or $24K total.

Apparently the jury instructions didn't include any mention of JUSTICE and what is reasonable.... a $24K judgment max.

The LAW was designed to deal with professional copyright thieves, making profits off enormous theft. It was never designed to deal with idiots sharing some $.99 songs on the internet. Congress needs to fix this.... or the higher courts will, and embarrass the congress.
 
xX_Jack_Carver_Xx said:
The LAW was designed to deal with professional copyright thieves, making profits off enormous theft. It was never designed to deal with idiots sharing some $.99 songs on the internet. Congress needs to fix this.... or the higher courts will, and embarrass the congress.
Click to expand...


Who do you think funds congress ;) Their war chest doesnt come from no where...
 
snakeeyes said:
Food for thought. Sending Jamie 10 bucks isn’t going to kill me and it won’t fill the coffers of the RIAA, but if enough of us send a buck or two it might send a message – that the music industries potential customer base is watching the outcome of these legal cases and that these sorts of judgments are not the answer. They need to find a better answer to address their need for revenue.
Click to expand...

I disagree for a few reasons:

1) She might use the money to fund running a server, with even more songs on it. Egg on my face?

2) Assuming enough people send a small lump of dough and actually pay this settlement, and assuming this settlement potentially nets more money than the settlement they offered her, they will see these cases as viable ways to address their revenue.

And, since they won this case, I bet the settlement offers in the future for people will go up. Why offer to settle as $5K when you could get $10K, or go to court and get $250K?

I do know any future thieves will be mad at her, when they see the settlement offers are higher because of her!

I would send her money if she used it for education, but why? The court's already schooled her...

(sorry, I have been warning people of this possibility for almost six years, and got laughed at by so many... And now it's happening...)
 
Tolyngee said:
I disagree for a few reasons:

"I bet the settlement offers in the future for people will go up. Why offer to settle as $5K when you could get $10K, or go to court and get $250K?"
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see if the RIAA's settlement strategy changes as a result of this case.

I hope the defendant isn't stupid enough to do continue on her recent path... but then she hasn't been making good decisions lately either.
 
snakeeyes said:
If anyone knows of a find that has been accepted that can accept paypal payments, please share the info. I will kick in some anti-RIAA cash for Jammie to use towards payment.
Click to expand...



As will my wife and I,We talked about her plight,and have decided to try and send her 50 dollars.
 
VMaxx said:
I don't think she should be bashed for being ignorant. Its pretty clear she was, when she was fighting the thing. Its bad enough she lost the suit, lets not kick her when she's down.
Click to expand...


This is the internet you know :rolleyes: Braniac experts like to sit behind thier IP and shoot thier mouths off,and play the arm chair quarterback.
 
Why doesn't she just leave the country and make a fancy youtube video essentially flipping off the RIAA? I bet it would be a hit!

This is why I am glad I haven't bought a CD from a major American publisher in nearly 10 years, and I haven't downloaded music since then either.

PS: Lars Ulrich can lick scrote.:p
 
Dethred said:
Why doesn't she just leave the country and make a fancy youtube video essentially flipping off the RIAA? I bet it would be a hit!

This is why I am glad I haven't bought a CD from a major American publisher in nearly 10 years, and I haven't downloaded music since then either.

PS: Lars Ulrich can lick scrote.:p
Click to expand...



Lars is a greedy little animal.
 
Manny Calavera said:
As will my wife and I,We talked about her plight,and have decided to try and send her 50 dollars.
Click to expand...

Don't send her money, that just gets the RIAA their money and she gets nothing out of it!!

Think about it, unless the whole thing is paid off, she is still screwed. The RIAA won't be able to get all of their money out of this case before she dies, she can't afford to pay them.
 
The thing is the punishment is far beyond the crime.
People speed regularly, endanger people's lives and they can get warnings. Don't say well they didn't know. Anyone who can read can see speed limit signs. Don't say, well they get fined. Yeah what 50-150 bucks maybe? The ticket cost is laughable, its the insurance hike that hurts more. So why does something as common as downloading mp3s much like speeding cost 200k and have no warning? They should have a cap on that crap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top