Jammie Thomas Hit With $1.5 Million Verdict

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
If it weren’t for bad luck, this woman wouldn’t have any luck at all. I understand why she didn’t take the $25k offer but in hindsight, it looks pretty damn good when compared to the $1.5M verdict.

"We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct," the RIAA said in a statement. "Now with three jury decisions behind us along with a clear affirmation of Ms. Thomas-Rasset's willful liability, it is our hope that she finally accepts responsibility for her actions."
Click to expand...
 
The most hilarious comment in this third trial I think was by an RIAA lawyer who declared that he preferred commercial copyright infringement over non-commercial, because the former doesn't 'devalue' the music. It had me splitting my sides :)
 
amazes me that any jury half of which has likely done the same thigng would deem this a acceptable punishment.. its so clearly crual and unusual for the crime that it shows how poor our nations courts and judges are in using common sense.
 
"We are again thankful to the jury for its service in this matter and that they recognized the severity of the defendant's misconduct,"
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I had to laugh. The severity of the defendant's misconduct? Seriously? People are starving and dying and killing each other and raping everybody all over the world, and the RIAA is all hopped up about a few songs shared on the Internet 4 and a half years ago. No doubt they're spending millions and millions of dollars in lawyer's fees. And you know whatever dime they eventually get out of Jammie isn't going to to last long enough in the chain of pockets to reach any of the artists they are so vigilantly defending from such severe misconduct.

I hope somebody inside the RIAA gets caught having left their file sharing on about 5 years ago so that they can sue themselves into oblivion.
 
dajet24 said:
amazes me that any jury half of which has likely done the same thigng would deem this a acceptable punishment.. its so clearly crual and unusual for the crime that it shows how poor our nations courts and judges are in using common sense.
Click to expand...

I think the jury is made up of tech-illiterate people who don't know the difference between a mouse and a monitor and thinks that the monitor is THE computer or that AOL is THE internet.
 
Doesn't matter. She's going to declare bankruptcy in the end and they'll get nothing.
 
fury said:
...................
I hope somebody inside the RIAA gets caught having left their file sharing on about 5 years ago so that they can sue themselves into oblivion.
Click to expand...

That's impossibible. That'll be like dividing by zero. Just can't be done. If it's done, a black hole will form and devour the Earth.
 
the-one1 said:
I think the jury is made up of tech-illiterate people who don't know the difference between a mouse and a monitor and thinks that the monitor is THE computer or that AOL is THE internet.
Click to expand...

del_inet.jpg
 
Well, they may have won, but they also lost big. The ridiculousness of this is going to show just how much of a bully the Recording Industry is, and the fall-out from it is going to hurt a hell of a lot more than the 1.5m can fix. Not that they'll ever see it anyway.
 
the-one1 said:
I think the jury is made up of tech-illiterate people who don't know the difference between a mouse and a monitor and thinks that the monitor is THE computer or that AOL is THE internet.
Click to expand...

Or that the case/tower is the hard drive. :rolleyes:
 
LOL if you look at the last thread we had about this dumb broad you can see where I said she was lucky they didnt win more in their judgement. Well guess what dumbass you should have stopped when you were ahead and taken the NUMEROUS settlement offers... This is now three trials shes had and god knows how much of the taxpayers money shes wasted to still be on the hook and for even more than she was the last time.... What a dumb stupid woman.
 
Also before you all act like its such a major crime that shes on the hook for this consider the fact that she was breaking the law in the first place... If you cant do the time then dont do the crime... Or in this case if you cant afford to pay the million dollar judgements dont put 1700 songs up for download on the torrent sites... Everyone over looks the fact that she had 1700 songs up for MONTHS and was initially told to just take em down... Then they sued and offered numerous settlement offers... Sorry but shes getting everything she deserves and actually needs her damn head slapped for wasting so much money and time in the courts.
 
She should have gone to a record store and stolen a bunch of albums. she then would not have had to worry about these ridiculous type trials and penalties.

really I am concerned about the level of morons that we have in this country to where we can continue to have these type verdicts.
 
vengence said:
Doesn't matter. She's going to declare bankruptcy in the end and they'll get nothing.
Click to expand...
Sadly it *does*. They (RIAA) want the win and most importantly precedent. The RIAA lawyers aren't dummies -- they surely know that bankruptcy is an option for her and that this money will never see the light of day. It's beyond the scope of the $$$ now.
 
They'll never see a dime of it, and the bigger the judgement, the more she looks like a victim rather than an infringer.
 
kodan said:
Also before you all act like its such a major crime that shes on the hook for this consider the fact that she was breaking the law in the first place... If you cant do the time then dont do the crime... Or in this case if you cant afford to pay the million dollar judgements dont put 1700 songs up for download on the torrent sites... Everyone over looks the fact that she had 1700 songs up for MONTHS and was initially told to just take em down... Then they sued and offered numerous settlement offers... Sorry but shes getting everything she deserves and actually needs her damn head slapped for wasting so much money and time in the courts.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, doesn't make it right. If copying music is worth $1.5million then I want to start seeing 8-9 figure verdicts in theft cases (which causes actual provable losses) and billion plus in assault, rape, murder, etc. If something that causes so little harm is worth so much, then somethign that causes large amounts of harm should be worth even more.

Punishments aren't allowed to be arbitrarily high. We actually happen to have a law related to that, you might recall it, called the Eighth Amendment "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." It firmly establishes that "the punishment must fit the crime," isn't just a notion in America, it is the highest law of the land.

In no way, shape, or form is $1.5 million reasonable for copying music. It is excessive in the extreme.
 
I think during the 2nd trial, she got fined 1.92 million dollars. The judge found it so utterly ridiculous that he slashed it to like $54,000. I think that same judge is overseeing this trial?
 
Seems like this topic is well on its way to show why this jury arrived at such an outrageous conclusion.

Pray tell, how could this woman ever afford to pay such ridiculous damages? 1.5 million dollar would take her 43 years if she were to use her entire 35k paycheck for it, not pay taxes, not buy food or pay rent or anything else. You might as well execute her and it'd would be a milder 'punishment'.

Deterrent? At least half of the people on this forum are sharing files right now on some P2P network which is deemed illegal in their country of residence. You think they'll just drop what they're doing and turn into good little citizens all of a sudden? Fat chance.

So this woman won't be able to pay these 'damages', the RIAA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, if not millions after all these years, nobody is considering stopping their illegal filesharing and lots of people who are just as guilty as this woman are instead laughing at her for being 'stupid'.

Exactly who is gaining what here again?
 
Utterly ridiculous. But this is America, we are dumber by the day because we "tolerate" stupidity.
 
King of Heroes said:
I think during the 2nd trial, she got fined 1.92 million dollars. The judge found it so utterly ridiculous that he slashed it to like $54,000. I think that same judge is overseeing this trial?
Click to expand...

Yes, and he was seen literally shaking his head after the verdict got read. I'm quite sure it'll get slashed again, the RIAA will whine some more and we'll head towards a fourth trial :)
 
You all want to scream cruel and excessive punishment but thats the punishment writen in the law. I am sorry that you all think its too much but according to the law I think its actually still light(meaning they could have set the per offence penalty higher). If I remember right they were only awarded a fraction of the full amount they could have been awarded in damages. Also they could have sued for 1500 and something( sorry its not 1700 songs) and had a damage award in the 50 million or more range. The last jury even said they were awarding on the higer end of the scale because this person showed no remorse and destroyed evidence and has continued to act like she has done nothing wrong.

I dont care what you all think about the whole its a copy its not stealing. Right wrong otherwise the law says you cant do what she did or you can be charged a penalty. She was. Now she has to live with it... THREE jury's of her peers have determined that she violated the law and has to pay. Now its time to take her lumps and move on and stop wasting other peoples time and money.
 
I am so freaking sick of the mentality that because its a copy you arent stealing it if you dont pay for it. If I spend my time making a song and I put it on a CD and ask for money and you dont pay me but give my song out to others you are stealing from me. Sure I still got my song but you did take money from me... Dont matter wether you are talking about an artist with a label or not. Its theft plain and simple. I am glad shes getting held accountable and I think they need to hold more people accountable.
 
kodan said:
Also they could have sued for 1500 and something( sorry its not 1700 songs) and had a damage award in the 50 million or more range.
Click to expand...

Yup, and that would've been a blatantly cruel and unusual punishment, just like this verdict is. No one is arguing her guilt (at least I'm not), everyone is arguing that her punishment doesn't fit the crime, and it doesn't. The freaking trial judge agrees based on his decision in the 2nd trial and his behavior at the end of this one. Its clear the RIAA doesn't want or care about justice, they want money. (If they did care about justice, they would've been satisfied with the $54,000 reduction and the guilty verdict. That they believe 'justice' can only be meeted out by being paid millions of dollars for less than a CD's worth of music is sickening)
 
Elledan said:
Seems like this topic is well on its way to show why this jury arrived at such an outrageous conclusion.

Pray tell, how could this woman ever afford to pay such ridiculous damages? 1.5 million dollar would take her 43 years if she were to use her entire 35k paycheck for it, not pay taxes, not buy food or pay rent or anything else. You might as well execute her and it'd would be a milder 'punishment'.
Click to expand...

No kidding. Thankfully we have laws in place to protect people from having their lives ruined by monetary judgements that are so severe they might as well be capital punishment. Some states more than others.

Deterrent? At least half of the people on this forum are sharing files right now on some P2P network which is deemed illegal in their country of residence. You think they'll just drop what they're doing and turn into good little citizens all of a sudden? Fat chance.
Click to expand...

Now that I think about it... I don't know anyone who pays for music. Those who don't feel comfortable downloading it just ask someone else they know to burn them some CDs or load their iPod up.

So this woman won't be able to pay these 'damages', the RIAA has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers, if not millions after all these years, nobody is considering stopping their illegal filesharing and lots of people who are just as guilty as this woman are instead laughing at her for being 'stupid'.
Click to expand...

Yeah there really isn't any deterrant value here because of that. People aren't thinking "Boy I shouldnt download music." they are thinking "Boy I'm glad I'm not a stupid amateur who doesn't know how to stay under the radar."

Exactly who is gaining what here again?
Click to expand...

The lawyers are gaining a ton of money, that's about it.
 
This law that can sentence people to a lifetime of poverty is unjust for copyright violations.

Libraries share millions of copyrighted works every day, to the benefit of society.
 
kodan said:
Its theft plain and simple. I am glad shes getting held accountable and I think they need to hold more people accountable.
Click to expand...

If it's theft then the punishment should fit the crime, no?

Stealing 2 CD's which are worth less than $300 in total is classified as a Class A Misdemeanor.
http://www.myillinoisdefenselawyer.com/illinois-criminal-code-and-laws/

Punishment?
Up to 1 year in Jail; and/or
Fine of up to $2,500

Davis also notes that statutory damages, which range from $750 up to $150,000 per infringement in copyright cases, have both a deterrent and a compensatory purpose. It's no good to argue that a damage award is too high simply because it's higher than actual damages suffered; that's part of the point.

But there are limits, and $80,000 per song exceeded them. "Although Plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must still bear some relation to actual damages," Davis wrote.
Click to expand...
For those same two cd's and using the maximum amount per infringement, she could have been charged $3.6million.
 
Yeah she'll declair bankruptcy and it's over, they won the case on principle.
They should have made it something more even and attainable like a trillion trillion dollars. They would get that much just as fast and still get to say they won. It's the principle.
Fuck me it's like another shitty Grissom novel. It's impossible to payoff that lawsuit for even a good sized nation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top