woman to pay 222,000 for downloading 24 songs

that's ridiculous... most of these people that the RIAA go after are parents who have kids that are doing the downloading. this woman made a mistake. i would understand $500-1000 per song, but 9,250 each? that's lucrative, insane, and excessive.

Well, the jury didn't like her (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/riaa_trial/index.html). (She did several stoopid things, including trying to jimmy some evidence.)

Not to mention that the precedents, slim as they are, currently stand against defendents in these cases (note some of the jury instructions in Capitol vs. Thomas (http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9791764-38.html)).

Even though I'm in Canada I still don't like the RIAA's tactics, but this woman tried lying and cheating the courts which did not help her case at all. I also heard on some podcast she tried blaming someone for sharing files through her home network through wifi, problem was she never had a wifi access point. As well as providing the wrong hard drive when the courts requested she turn over her computer.

http://www.dmwmedia.com/news/2007/10/04/nettwerk-ceo-terry-mcbride-riaas-victory-is-a-step-backwards

He's supporting another person being sued by RIAA. http://p2pnet.net/story/7923

Do the right thing!

John

So because we have a legal system that has the power to destroy an entire family over something that is less serious than jaywalking, she had it coming to her?

Don't get me wrong, let's have penaltes, like $50 a song, not this crap. This is like in the 60s when you could get life in jail for possession of a gram of marijuana in Texas; the penalty is beyond stupid.

Of course, that's the rub: it's not financially feasible to pursue people at a fair penalty, so the RIAA bribes politicians to get civil statutes that allow them to pretend that letting possibly as many as zero people copy a couple of songs should let them hit you with a fine that should be distributed across several hundred people so then "can send a message".

If you think someone "has it coming" because they actually tried to avoid paying an already ridiculous sum of money for an essentially harmless act, I hope the next time you get caught speeding they just take your car and put a lien on your salary for the next 15 years, because that's pretty much equivalent. Somebody *might* get hurt worse as a result of your speeding; somebody *might* actually lose a sale because you let somebody copy your music. Truthfully, the speeding is actually the far more serious, so how about we shoot speeders on the side of the road? It would be far more keeping in line with the notion that you should have to spend more than my house cost me for having a trivial number of files in your share folder.
People are saying that she had it coming because she foolishly chose to let a jury decide her fate instead of settling out of court, which is what any sane person would have done. She chose to let the issue be settled in court and chose a completely foolish defense and chose to tamper with evidence. She's a bloody idiot and deserves whatever she gets.

On a side note, did she have a lawyer? If so, it must have been the absolute worst lawyer ever.

So because we have a legal system that has the power to destroy an entire family over something that is less serious than jaywalking, she had it coming to her?

Don't get me wrong, let's have penaltes, like $50 a song, not this crap. This is like in the 60s when you could get life in jail for possession of a gram of marijuana in Texas; the penalty is beyond stupid.

Of course, that's the rub: it's not financially feasible to pursue people at a fair penalty, so the RIAA bribes politicians to get civil statutes that allow them to pretend that letting possibly as many as zero people copy a couple of songs should let them hit you with a fine that should be distributed across several hundred people so then "can send a message".

If you think someone "has it coming" because they actually tried to avoid paying an already ridiculous sum of money for an essentially harmless act, I hope the next time you get caught speeding they just take your car and put a lien on your salary for the next 15 years, because that's pretty much equivalent. Somebody *might* get hurt worse as a result of your speeding; somebody *might* actually lose a sale because you let somebody copy your music. Truthfully, the speeding is actually the far more serious, so how about we shoot speeders on the side of the road? It would be far more keeping in line with the notion that you should have to spend more than my house cost me for having a trivial number of files in your share folder.
I agree with your statement. They make more fuss over something that doesn't harm anyone than they do over actual crimes. These lawsuits from the RIAA are a joke. Let's send a message guys. Ok, well what can we do? Let's sue the parents of children who download music from p2p sites! ok, sounds great. A huge chunk of these lawsuits are aimed at the parents of computer-savvy kids, usually around the pre-teen to teenage range. Some (but not all) probably don't even know what they're doing is wrong. They heard about this great thing from their friends where you can get all the free music you want. So they use it, and then, bam, they're hit with a lucrative lawsuit. These people risk getting viruses and spyware, and I'd imagine more often than not you get crappy audio files. Those risks should be punishment enough for choosing to use p2p networks. Their time and resources would be better put to use fighting an issue that isn't a complete joke.

OK, so now I guess I'm on your list of people you want to see me being shot for doing something trivial. Does that make you the good guy?There is a difference between *expect* and *deserve*. Should she have expected things to turn out badly? Sure. Did she deserve it? That's the only thing I care about. I didn't actually see you say she deserved to pay nearly $10K a song, just that it was what she should have expected.

MellowTone said she actually deserved whatever she got, that's an attitude that deserves nothing but scorn, pity, or some combination of the two. You've lost all ability to reason if you think someone actually deserves what happened to this woman even if she was guilty.

So, umm, does this qualify for world's most expensive mix CD?No doubt. The Register has also labeled her "the world's dumbest file sharer (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/16/jammie_thomas_demands_retrial/)".

According to the Reg, she's now demanding a retrial, on the grounds that excessive fines may be unconstitutional. The RIAA wasn't requesting punitive damages, only remedial (i.e. paying for their losses).

I hope she gets the retrial. The first trial focused on whether she was innocent or not, but avoided the question of how guilty she really was. She was sharing a lot of old (not particularly popular) music, so it seems reasonable that in reality she didn't serve a lot of uploads.

There is a difference between *expect* and *deserve*.

I see your point. Personally, I'm just not willing to make a moral judgment whether someone who plays with fire deserves to get burned; its just an inevitable consequence. I really dislike this whole whole notion of "sending a message" anyway. That's not the court's job. It should simply be an honest attempt to fit the remediation to the damage.

The RIAA can still say that its "sending a message", because even if she gets the fine reduced to your $50/song (far below the legal minimum), she's already spent over $60,000 in legal fees and the retrial will only increase that.

Edit: arstechnica is reporting that it is an appeal (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071015-appeal-in-riaa-case-to-focus-on-unconstitutionally-excessive-punishment.html), arguing that the damages should be equal to the plaintiff's losses. The RIAA responded, "It is unfortunate that the defendant continues to avoid responsibility for her actions."...a rather bizarre response to Thomas' request that she only be held responsible for her actions.

I was quite amazed that they picked her. Why, out of the possible millions, did they pick her? What made her case so special?

And they say they have a list of more people that they are going to go after. Hundreds of thousands of people on a list. Do people actually still use these sites after these stories?

How is it irrelevant? It's the whole bloody point!No, it's not the point. Your words were that she deserved whatever she got. That implies a justified ethical balance for what was dealt to her for what she did. Now you're backpedalling into the morally bankrupt, "... but it's illegal" clause. The day anybody uses the law as a way of deciding right and wrong is the day that person has become officially braindead.

And, you're an idiot if you want to think that downloading music is less serious than eating a grape at a grocery store. Downloading music is illegal. I'm neither condoning nor condemning it, but it's still illegal.Eating a grape is actually criminally illegal, sharing music is a civil offense. One will get you, at most, asked to stop by the produce guy, the other evidentally costs you a car per song.

All you're doing is rationalizing. "Oh, the big bad recording industry is treating me unfairly so I'm going to break the law." That's your decision. But, morally objecting to something doesn't mean you don't have to face the consequences when you break the law, and that's exactly what you're arguing.No, I'm arguing that consequences should match the offense. It has yet to be unequivocably proven anywhere that downloading music actually harms sales in general and there's a lot of studies that suggest that, with the exception of the absolute edge of the bell curve of sales leaders, it actually helps sales. What you've got is a case of the civil law reflecting the viewpoint of the insane. It's no different than if 15th century puritans got ahold of the legislature and had laws passed that permitted juries to order public burnings of anybody found guilty of practicing witch craft (something with roughly equal evidence in favor of its harmfulness to society). Evidently, just because it's on the law books, you figure it's okay. Maybe not *right* (see your comments about the RIAA above), but it's at least okay with you.

And, that whole thing about hoping I get shot on the side of the road for some "trivial offense" is a complete load of bull####.I don't *actively* wish for it, but if you actually believe half of what you wrote, then ethically, it's pretty much what you deserve. I'm just saying that if you believe in any way that it's justified what happened to her for a virtually harmless act then you really ought to live by your code of ethics, and that means that if a virtually harmless act requires a penalty equivalent to nearly five years of the gross median income of an American, then an act which actually carries genuine mortal risks like speeding ought to pretty much be the instant death penalty. If you can't figure out where your attitude is so assbackwards, seek help.

No, it's not the point. Your words were that she deserved whatever she got. That implies a justified ethical balance for what was dealt to her for what she did. Now you're backpedalling into the morally bankrupt, "... but it's illegal" clause. The day anybody uses the law as a way of deciding right and wrong is the day that person has become officially braindead.

Eating a grape is actually criminally illegal, sharing music is a civil offense. One will get you, at most, asked to stop by the produce guy, the other evidentally costs you a car per song.

No, I'm arguing that consequences should match the offense. It has yet to be unequivocably proven anywhere that downloading music actually harms sales in general and there's a lot of studies that suggest that, with the exception of the absolute edge of the bell curve of sales leaders, it actually helps sales. What you've got is a case of the civil law reflecting the viewpoint of the insane. It's no different than if 15th century puritans got ahold of the legislature and had laws passed that permitted juries to order public burnings of anybody found guilty of practicing witch craft (something with roughly equal evidence in favor of its harmfulness to society). Evidently, just because it's on the law books, you figure it's okay. Maybe not *right* (see your comments about the RIAA above), but it's at least okay with you.

I don't *actively* wish for it, but if you actually believe half of what you wrote, then ethically, it's pretty much what you deserve. I'm just saying that if you believe in any way that it's justified what happened to her for a virtually harmless act then you really ought to live by your code of ethics, and that means that if a virtually harmless act requires a penalty equivalent to nearly five years of the gross median income of an American, then an act which actually carries genuine mortal risks like speeding ought to pretty much be the instant death penalty. If you can't figure out where your attitude is so assbackwards, seek help.
Your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired. I never advocated using the law to decide what is wrong. In fact, I believe exactly the opposite. What I did say is that, should your own morals differ from what is legal, you face the impact of the our justice system should you choose to break the law. That's exactly why I said this woman deserved what she got. I never said that she deserved hefty fines for downloading music. I think the RIAA is barking up the wrong tree by prosecuting file sharers instead of working harder on its business model. I believe I said that in my previous post. My point was that she deserved a hefty fine for being stupid enough to let the case go to trial when there was essentially no way she could win. Arguing the ethics behind prosecuting file sharers is irrelevant in that point.

No doubt. The Register has also labeled her "the world's dumbest file sharer (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10/16/jammie_thomas_demands_retrial/)".

After further reading on this thread, she deserves that title, and quite possibly, so does anyone else that downloads/uploads music via p2p sites. Given there have been so many cases where they've had to settle out of court, doesn't that make people want to stop? I personally don't keep up with the latest as I neither use p2p, or live in the US.