Court orders Jammie Thomas to pay RIAA $1.92 million

[disorderlyvision]

[.

[rp4prez]

I read this last night. If I were her I wouldn't pay a dime, ever.

[Ninja Homer]

The RIAA was awarded $1.92 million, and they're still willing to settle. They will never get back the amount of money they spent on this case from her. It was never about justice, it was about making an example of her. When they send out their notices to kids that say they caught them sharing music, and offer a settlement, they want that settlement paid. If the RIAA just sent notices to random high school kids without even having any evidence against them, I'd guess that the majority of them would pay the settlement amount, no questions asked.

I have to wonder what impact it has on society when a law turns the majority of the youth into criminals. If they are already breaking the law by sharing music, what other laws are they likely to ignore? If they are already criminals doesn't it make it easier for them to make a moral decision to break other laws?

[youngbuck]

I read this last night. If I were her I wouldn't pay a dime, ever.

Hell no, I wouldn't either.

[tangent4ronpaul]

We should all donate to this poor girl...

Can everybody find that old Monopoly set? ;)

Send it directly to RIAA on her behalf. Uh - dude - I might have gotten a fragment of a song from her - so here's my share...

-t

[Kludge]

The irony in the money going to the RIAA is terrible.

That said, it's been a while since I've said "fuck you" to people using AdBlock and/or those not giving money to developers/artists while using their services, so... fuck you people fitting the description.

[tangent4ronpaul]

The irony in the money going to the RIAA is terrible.

That said, it's been a while since I've said "fuck you" to people using AdBlock and/or those not giving money to developers/artists while using their services, so... fuck you people fitting the description.

Do you have any idea how badly the recording industry screws artists? - I'd rather pay them directly.

As to ad block - ever had a pop-up bomb go off on your screen? Close one and get 3 more... gerrrr!

-t

[Pod]

That said, it's been a while since I've said "fuck you" to people using AdBlock and/or those not giving money to developers/artists while using their services, so... fuck you people fitting the description.

Not paying artists for providing their services? You mean like sneaking into a concert? :eek: People do that?! :eek: :eek:

[Kludge]

Not paying artists for providing their services? You mean like sneaking into a concert? :eek: People do that?! :eek: :eek:

Sharing is fine, but if you like the product, you should show at least a minimal respect toward the developers/artists by giving them some money to compensate their time and encourage future production. Quality should be rewarded.

I do not support justice or the concept of rights, but I'd appreciate if you'd appreciate others' time and effort a little more.

[dannno]

Sharing is fine, but if you like the product, you should show at least a minimal respect toward the developers/artists by giving them some money to compensate their time and encourage future production. Quality should be rewarded.

I do not support justice or the concept of rights, but I'd appreciate if you'd appreciate others' time and effort a little more.

Maybe if we didn't spend 6 months of the year working for the government then people would be more inclined to give.

Personally I won't buy a CD if any money is going to record companies. I go to shows all the time, that is how bands really make their money. I support a lot of artists a lot better than anyone purchasing their stupid mainstream crap on ITunes.

The last CD I bought was when Radiohead came out with "In Rainbows" and gave it away for free, with the option of paying. No record company was involved.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Maybe if we didn't spend 6 months of the year working for the government then people would be more inclined to give.

Personally I won't buy a CD if any money is going to record companies. I go to shows all the time, that is how bands really make their money. I support a lot of artists a lot better than anyone purchasing their stupid mainstream crap on ITunes.

The last CD I bought was when Radiohead came out with "In Rainbows" and gave it away for free, with the option of paying. No record company was involved.

VERY COOL!

+1

-t

[Pod]

Sharing is fine, but if you like the product, you should show at least a minimal respect toward the developers/artists by giving them some money to compensate their time and encourage future production. Quality should be rewarded.

I do not support justice or the concept of rights, but I'd appreciate if you'd appreciate others' time and effort a little more.

Sorry, I don`t do charity.

[Reason]

I read this last night. If I were her I wouldn't pay a dime, ever.

same.

[DapperDan]

The last CD I bought was when Radiohead came out with "In Rainbows" and gave it away for free, with the option of paying. No record company was involved.

I remember that. Good times.

This gal should never pay a dime. Hopefully she's not visited by machinegun nazi zombies....

YouTube - RIAA PSA-Do Not Download Music Online. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvsmnUN-kMk)

[james1906]

I find it scary that the RIAA has access to my computer.

[Matt Collins]

Jammie Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of willful copyright infringement on Thursday in a Minneapolis federal court and must pay the recording industry $1.92 million. First mistake in the article, no one is guilty of anything. This is a civil infringement, a lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Defendants are found liable, not guilty. This is a big difference.




In a surprise decision, the jury imposed damages against Thomas-Rasset, who was originally accused to sharing more than 1,700 songs, at a whopping $80,000 for each of the 24 songs she was ultimately found guilty of illegally sharing.. Second mistake, change the word "illegal" to "unlawful". There is a difference.



In 2007, the Recording Industry Association of America claimed in a lawsuit that Thomas-Rasset pilfered 1,700 songs. The RIAA eventually culled that number down to a representative sample of 24. Third mistake....One is not sued for downloading, one is sued for uploading. The fact that they downloaded songs did not make them liable for anything. The fact that they were sharing songs is what made them liable.




For the four largest recording companies, the jury's decision is an affirmation of the legality of the industry's copyright claims. Fourth mistake... The legality isn't in question nor has it ever been. When you share music with someone else in this manner, it is a violation of copyright law. What has been in question is the RIAA's tactics used to pursue these cases.




These gross errors make me wonder if the author is just blatantly ignorant, or a shill for the RIAA. :confused:

[Matt Collins]

Sharing is fine, but if you like the product, you should show at least a minimal respect toward the developers/artists by giving them some money to compensate their time and encourage future production. Quality should be rewarded.I agree, but that isn't what the law says.

[Kludge]

I agree, but that isn't what the law says.

Fuck the law.