Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Music The Courts

Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal 347

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the freedom-for-none dept.
sarysa writes "The Supreme Court has refused to hear the latest appeal of the 7 year old Jammie Thomas case, regarding a single mother who was fined $222,000 in her most recent appeal for illegally sharing 24 songs. Those of us hoping for an Eighth Amendment battle over this issue will not be seeing it anytime soon. In spite of the harsh penalties, the journalist suggests that: 'Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Jammie Thomas Denied Supreme Court Appeal

Comments Filter:
  • $24 (Score:5, Funny)

    by schlachter (862210) on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:34PM (#43208915)

    How about they ask her for $24.
    Seems pretty reasonable.
    Would still deter people from sharing thousands of songs.

    • Re:$24 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sqrt(2) (786011) on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:47PM (#43209037) Journal

      Or we can, as a society, reject the notion that non-commercial file sharing should be a crime at all and take back our collective cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels and their toadies in Congress.

      • Re:$24 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:55PM (#43209095) Homepage Journal

        ok, how?

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by thunderclap (972782)

          a 9.0 magnitude earthquake should solve the problem quickly.
          OK that was wrong, but seriously the only solution is using the internet against them like we are doing. There is no other way that doesn't shed blood.

          • by fyngyrz (762201)

            Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't seem to be working.

            • Re:$24 (Score:5, Interesting)

              by mrclisdue (1321513) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:57PM (#43209657)

              Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but it doesn't seem to be working.

              Isn't it?

              Whilst the "content-cartels" occasionally ruin the odd-person's life, hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day. Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

              And I do think it's tragic, and despicable, that even one person is ruined by the various aa's and their/our bought-and-paid-for politicians/legislatures.

              Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

              It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail.

              A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

              cheers,

              • by AK Marc (707885)

                Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

                My wife is under 30 and she doesn't "get" streaming. She buys iTunes and Amazon music. I am older and stream free (and legal). She drops back to claims of playlists and such, but she doesn't have that level of memory of the music, if a few extras were slipped in, she wouldn't notice. Though she doesn't like the ones where she has to create her own playlists manually. But a 6-disc changer in the car, with 6 discs in it, and she still prefers the radio (an older free streaming service). But put it on the

              • Re:$24 (Score:5, Insightful)

                by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday March 18, 2013 @08:33PM (#43209921) Homepage Journal

                Isn't it?

                No.

                hundreds of millions, if not a billion, people continue to share files, every second of every day

                Ongoing activity is not evidence of a "win." Look at the drug war for your benchmark. About a million and a half people are in jail over that in the US alone, the war is wrong in every way that matters, yet it continues, people continue to suffer, the jails overflow.... not a win. In the case of file sharing, the laws and the tech are getting more draconian, not less, and the harm is beginning to spread. Again look at the drug war and see the risk you're facing: Just as in the 60s we did drugs with a "so what" mentality, and then many of us (including me) got swept up and jailed, surprise, the system has teeth and they count. You think facing down the corporate interests with a "so what" mentality will win the day, I'm really afraid you're not only wrong, but wrong in a way that's going to get a lot of people hurt.

                Young whippersnappers under 30 don't even *get* what the fuss is about (or why we even *share* (or own) music files when there's spotify, grooveshark, pandora...)

                Yes, but again, they don't know very much about it yet, nor do they understand the potential consequences. There's a great deal of "Internet Superman" behavior -- loudmouthery and etc. -- but when it comes time to face the judge, that stuff tends to evaporate like the worthless bluster it is.

                Ultimately, the few sporadic *gains* by the bad guys pale in comparison to the sheer number of those who don't feel threatened. Or who rightly believe it's an amoral issue unworthy of their attention.

                Again, perfect parallel to drugs in the 60's. While we frolicked in the parks and ran naked through the woods, they were just beginning to wrap their heads around strategies that would become more and more vicious, and they've not stopped to this day. You're at the very beginning of your fight with the copyright holders, and they -- realistically now -- hold all the cards. They own the airwaves. They control the Internet. They know your IP and what you're doing with it. They have congress in their pocket. Congress effectively controls the legal system with very little interference from the judiciary (and even when they do take an interest, they usually side with the corporations and the government.)

                The drug war, in the meantime, has turned prison into a for-profit enterprise; it's no longer a negative to the state to incarcerate you (and take all your stuff, ruin your life, etc.) The more, the merrier: They'll just build more prisons and use you as slave labor. So when they begin to really reap the violators -- and you may be dead certain they will -- the prison system is ready to pack you in there like sardines, no problem.

                It's not unlike weed use. Are the anti-weed folks winning? Sooner or later (measured in decades...) common sense does indeed prevail. A lot of us may not live long enough to experience it, though.

                Now you're beginning to get it. Weed -- only one drug, and one so harmless it's amazing -- is just barely getting traction at the state level, while the feds -- congress and etc. -- continue to maintain the most draconian stance possible. It's been over half a century, and there's been one hell of a lot of suffering just in order to attempt assert the liberty one should have to ingest what one prefers to ingest. It isn't over, and it won't be over for a while, even assuming that in the end, the old, evil men in congress die and people come to power who actually understand liberty and comprehend punishing actual wrongdoing instead of going against every frightening ghost that lives in some weak-minded mother's head and then holding a grudge in the form of creating a permanent lower class of distinctly lower opportunity and economic potential.

                • Re:$24 (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by anagama (611277) <obamaisaneocon@nothingchanged.org> on Monday March 18, 2013 @09:05PM (#43210085) Homepage

                  I'm pretty certain you would love this debate Glenn Greenwald had with GWB's drug czar. If you want to see the drug war eviscerated in the most plain and eloquent terms possible, this is it:

                  http://vimeo.com/32110912 [vimeo.com]

                  The Q&A session is definitely worth watching too as GG in no uncertain terms, but with great skill, points out that his opponent is just flat evil.

                  • Re:$24 (Score:5, Interesting)

                    by fyngyrz (762201) on Monday March 18, 2013 @11:08PM (#43210697) Homepage Journal

                    Just back after watching it through.

                    Several things. The irony of the prohibitionist saying that people using drugs could never admit they were wrong and so needed to be stood up to, during an evening where a great deal of what he was saying was wrong, and people were standing up to him, was quite poignant.

                    The lesson here is that even when the arguments are couched in terms of empirical data, the prohibitionists are in no way inclined to listen. The defender of drug prohibition was an ex-government figure; even outside the context of having to back the administration that put him in that position, he couldn't admit he was wrong. And he was so very, very wrong.

                    Not that it matters, but several opportunities were lost, I thought, WRT claims of violence consequent to legalization; low prices deter thievery, availability deters seeking illicit sources, these are obvious but there was no contest offered, which was too bad.

                    Why I say it doesn't matter is because here, in the context of a Brown university hall, these arguments will have no effect. Half the hall left after the talk and before the Q&A; the level of engagement was minimal. Most of these kids, to be blunt, don't care. They don't care now, when their peers are actively engaged, and they'll care even less when the concern of the day is how to pay back the student loan, the mortgage, and why-o-why did we ever let that pregnancy come to term. The odds of any of them becoming political figures that can make a difference are depressingly low, and frankly, those few are the ones most likely to know better than to try to handle a political hot potato. So really ... doesn't matter. A great speaker indeed, but one who wasted an evening unless he found a good restaurant there.

                    Looking back on the effect he had on his opponent -- none -- consider what would happen if you put this empiricist, full of vigor and data and common sense, up in front of congress. Do you think it would change anything? I don't believe it. The drug war is a cash cow and a power cow and they simply won't let anyone back it down.

                    That's how I see the coming copyright war. All the signs are there. I sit through four or five warnings on some BDs and DVDs that I have purchased. I'm starting to see absurd monetary awards. Those same warnings point out there are criminal, not civil, penalties for various infringements upon the rights holders. HDMI incorporates HDCP, and my expensive receiver no longer offers the simple ability to record, or to down convert from say, HDMI to component or even composite. The barriers are going up everywhere, and the penalties are being crafted right now, as are the legal precedents that are going to be the bloody edge of the axe that strikes the collective neck of the current and forthcoming generations.

                    I wish I didn't see it that way. But I do. I hope I'm wrong. But I'm almost certain I'm not.

        • by jxander (2605655)

          Therein, as the bard would tell us, lies the rub

          If there was an easy way to enforce our rights, we would have done it by now. Best we've been able to muster is OWS.

          If there was a hard, but otherwise legal and achievable way to enforce our rights, we'd be marching down that path. Best we've been able to muster is some noise on various websites

          .

          Have you ever been pissed off at a loved one (boyfriend, girlfriend, spouse, etc) ... and it was over the most trivial stupid inane thing? They left the cap off the

          • I have the strange suspicion that the same thing will be happening on a much larger scale soon. Maybe it'll be file-sharing issues like this, or smart phone lockdown, DMCA, DRM or some other thing that just really should not matter on a big scale, and let the fireworks commence.

            So, you are saying Jammie Thomas should pull a Moahmed Bouazizi? [wikipedia.org]

      • Re:$24 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:55PM (#43209103)

        cultural birthright from the parasitic rent-seeking content cartels

        I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question. If you put the punishment for copyright infrigement at a "reasonable" amount - say, 10 times the price of the CD/whatever it comes on, then it costs more to chase the punishment than it does to get it back. If you put the punishment at a level where it potentially becomes financially feasible for the copyright owner to chase it down, then it is an asinine figure for the actual infringement.

        The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

        • People are willing to pay for a good product even when offered for free. The problem is the industry has produced any. UK pays for TV so can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for? Its all about control. they are losing it and the masses have it.

          • Re:$24 (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Fluffeh (1273756) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:13PM (#43209285)

            can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for

            That's my point, not a month, but either per episode or per season - and yes.

            Off the top of my head: Archer, Dexter, Walking Dead, Falling Skies, Revolution, Game of Thrones, Castle, American Horror Story, Big Bang Theory.

            If I could download a decent quality (doesn't have to be super duper 1080p or anything like that) at the time it comes out and without a plethora of ads in it for $1 per episode, or get access to the whole season for say $15 or $20, I would gladly do so. Makes it easy for me to watch what I want to, and at the same time I can be smug in knowing that my money is supporting the shows that I like. It is a total WIN-WIN scenario.

            Its all about control. they are losing it and the masses have it.

            Absolutely. The problem is that the only way that they can wrest control back from the masses is to *at least* provide the same thing that they do. Make it even better, and the masses will give them control back.

          • by Pseudonym (62607)

            UK pays for TV so can you name 2 shows you would be willing to pay say $5 a month for?

            I can name five that I'd pay $10-12 a month to a single biller for.

            However, those shows are on different services, which only allow overpriced large bundles of crap I don't want. Oh, and some of those services aren't available in my country. Pirates do provide the service that I would happily pay for, but I don't patronise them.

          • Re:$24 (Score:4, Interesting)

            by ancientt (569920) <ancientt@yahoo.com> on Monday March 18, 2013 @08:14PM (#43209789) Homepage Journal

            I quit buying music albums when they were still on cassettes. The return simply wasn't worth the cost for me. I appreciate music in my life but not enough to spend much money, particularly when I was content with radio.

            Then Pandora caught my attention. I enjoyed it enough that I actually paid (and have continued paying) for the upgrade. It's a small cost for getting to hear what I want and being able to get a wide variety. I don't really have to pay for those two things, but I get a slightly higher quality and no ads for the price of the upgrade, plus I'm supporting a company I want to succeed.

            Recently I've begun buying albums and tracks again. I only do it on systems where I get a downloaded copy of the music that I can move to whatever device I desire. I don't have a tremendous collection by any means, but I appreciate being able to hear what I want, when I want to, and not pay for full albums when I only like one or two songs.

            I am aware that I could download the same songs and albums without paying for them but generally speaking my Pandora subscription, the convenience and the quality of the download I'm able to get at the price I pay makes it worth more than the effort of attempting to do it illegally.

            Even if there were no risk whatsoever, my history of purchases shows that I still pay for quality and convenience, particularly where I value the success of the company I'm dealing with.

            I know that one user doesn't make the case, but thunderclap is right: Do it well and at a fair price and people like me are willing to pay even if they could get it for free.

          • by TheCarp (96830)

            Um no, you have it entirely wrong.

            People are willing to pay for a product if its offered at a price that makes them paying for the media that they consume within their budget. The problem is, the industry hasn't done that for everyone yet.

            While I may share your opinion that most of their stuff is shit, the fact remains that the people who do the most non-approved downloading are, in fact, the people who couldn't afford to have so much music or watch so many movies otherwise.

            So whether people will pay for th

            • People are willing to pay for a product if its offered at a price that makes them paying for the media that they consume within their budget. The problem is, the industry hasn't done that for everyone yet.

              $7 per month for Amazon Prime or Netflix is a pretty good deal. Add to it advertising supported sites like hulu, pandora, crackle etc etc, not to mention 700 free "channels" on things like Roku, then there is spotify etc etc. There is plenty of content available at a VERY low price. Just because y

              • But if you are already paying for cable, satellite, etc, you shouldn't be considered a pirate for downloading a copy that you can store wherever, whenever.

                "But there's no commercials in those "pirate" releases!", you might say. Well, am I a pirate for fast-forwarding commercials on my dvr? I don't think so. What about the commercials my box "sees" when I am not even home?! Should I not me recompensed for that? Is the technology still too stupid to not realize when the TV is on? Sounds like their problem
        • Re:$24 (Score:4, Insightful)

          by jedidiah (1196) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:16PM (#43209317) Homepage

          > You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

          Sure I can. That's the real purpose for copyright. The fact that you dishonestly cloud the issue by focusing on an example that's easy to deride does not really alter that fact.

          The whole goal of the system is to enable "piracy". It's not intended to create a new form of "property".

          • by Fluffeh (1273756)

            I think you just made me enter an infinite loop of trying to work out whether you are serious or whether you are being sarcastic.

            Thank you Poe's Law. Thank you very much.

            • Re:$24 (Score:5, Insightful)

              by rubycodez (864176) on Monday March 18, 2013 @08:32PM (#43209913)

              The original purpose of copyright in the USA was to give sole right of reproduction and distribution for a *limited* time, after which the work became the public's (the culture's). that time period was 14 years, with an option to renew for another 14 years if the author was still around and still wished to do so. So 28 years, and then it became the common cultural property. but the system we have today is the opposite of that, to keep things from the people indefinitely. This is done by cabals of power and money grubbing scum who are robbing the people of things valauble to culture.

        • Re:$24 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by mattventura (1408229) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:43PM (#43209517) Homepage
          Here's the problem. There ARE supposed to be punishments are are strong enough to deter people from committing the crime, but those are punishments, not reimbursement. If I steal money from someone, I would generally be expected to pay back what I stole and then serve jail time as a punishment. Does the victim benefit from me being in jail? No (apart from the fact that there's one less thief on the streets). If you let media corporations sue for such huge amounts of money that it becomes beneficial to them for people to commit crimes against them, they have no motivation to actually prevent the crime in the first place. You know something's wrong when the victim of the crime comes out significantly better off than they were before.
        • I can't agree with this. You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright. It is a paradoxically impossible question

          No, it isn't a paradox, it's just misunderstood. The OP was clearly going for emotional appeal at the expense of clarity. Birthright may be a strong word, however, consider that most of a society's culture is defined by its art. Our popular media -- television, radio, movies, books, etc., are not just consumables like tomatoes, cars, or mobile phones. They also are part of the foundation of our definition of self, and our relation to the larger society. One could even argue that participation in our culture

        • In the meantime, since its not the justice / executive department's job to worry about business models, how do you suppose they approach the problem? Just completely ignore the existing legislation on copyright?

        • Re:$24 (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:55PM (#43209641)

          You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

          The right to take culture, modify it, and release it back to the world, enriching our common cultural heritage ... that certainly can be argued to be our birthright, in which case the current copyright regime is manifestly unjust. There's a reasonable compromise in which we say that modifying and releasing previous works is a human right, but getting paid for it isn't: in which case copyright should be enforced for commercial infringement only.

        • You can't tell me that the latest boy band single that comes out is your birthright.

          Yes, all culture is our birthright. It isn't a question of quality because that is subjective.
          Who are you to say that Symphony No. 9 is better for me than the Macarena?

        • by rubycodez (864176)

          it isn't about "the latest boyband". it's saying that any song should not be allowed to be copied for the life of the author plus an additional 70 years. If the author transfers ownership or their identity is unknown the copyright will expire 95 years after publication or 120 years after creation, whichever is shorter.

          it's past time to put these power and money grubbing cartel fucks into the garbage can

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          To get you up to speed. Copyright was granted in the Constitution as a limited time dispensation to promote the arts and sciences. Corrupt and abusive influences have manipulated our legal system where "forever minus a day" has actually been stated as a legitimate interpretation of limited time. Because of this, huge amounts of work that should have entered the public domain are locked away. The problem extends beyond simple rent seeking and involves the inability to determine who actually holds copyright f

        • but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

          I'm really not sure that this is true anymore. If I use iTunes as an example, I can buy a track on iTunes and it will appear on all my idevices automatically. This is far more convenient than downloading a torrent, hoping its complete, and then copying the files around to the right place. Yes of course this process can be automated, and I did once go to the trouble of automating it on my own system. But the fact is that now, buying music online is a simpler process than downloading it illegally.

          This isn't c

        • by AK Marc (707885)
          They exchange donating it to the Public Domain for a temporary limited monopoly. To gain copyright, they must have already given it away to everyone for free.

          Though, with DRM, they now get to play the game of never giving it away to anyone, and still claim full protection of law. But people like me claim that is unconstitutional, and if the law reads as such and allows such actions, then the law is invalid, and they have no copyright at all.

          The only solution that I see is for the media companies to make their products so accessible that it is simply no longer WORTH bothering to download it illegally, but the problem is that the folks who put torrents or downloads online do such a damn good job that is makes competing with them very difficult.

          My favorite critique of this is the Matrix comparison, where (if

        • by Zencyde (850968)
          Seriously? All that what you've explained should tell you is that we take copyright law entirely too seriously. If it NEEDS absurd charges to be worth pursuing, it's probably not worth protecting. Being wasteful with money is not a way to run a country. If something is more expensive to protect than the thing that is being protected, it is not worth protecting. How is that difficult to catch on to? Manage your country like you would your personal finances (assuming you don't live paycheck to paycheck). Was
      • by jedidiah (1196)

        The two propositions aren't mutually exclusive. File sharing could still be a crime. It could just have a punishment to actually fit the offense. The real problem here is how extremely cruel and unusual the "punishment" is.

        If she was getting hit for an amount comparable to shoplifting, this verdict wouldn't seem like such a crime.

        Tort reform for the rich, crime and punishment for the poor.

        • File sharing could still be a crime. It could just have a punishment to actually fit the offense.

          No punishment at all then?

          The real problem here is how extremely cruel and unusual the "punishment" is.

          No, the problem is that the RIAA decided that instead of adapting its business model to the reality of new technology, they would just abuse the legal system. The courts happily went along with this, and for decades our elected representatives have been giving the copyright lobbyists ever more legal handouts. Great technologies were killed early on to protect these businesses and their outdated notion of how entertainment is distributed.

    • by anagama (611277)

      $24? Are you nuts? In the Federal Courts, you can expect only the harshest outcome unless you are fabulously wealthy and connected. I know Jamie wasn't the perfect defendant here (didn't she lie about hard drives or something?), so it is easy to kind of say she deserves it, or to at least feel no sympathy, but it is unsympathetic defendants that make bad or unjust law. It is sort of shocking that the same administration which has absolutely sat on its hands [huffingtonpost.com] (*) about $gazilions of Wall Street fraud, enc [wired.com]

      • Stop blaming Obama for everything.

        He inherited this mess and is doing the best he can, with Congress tying his hands.

        Obama doesn't personally OK everything the Department of Justice does, he doesn't have the time to do that!

        His time is spend trying to fix this country despite a Congress which is trying to block him for almost everything he is trying to accomplish, often due to hateful reasons that have no place in civilized society.

        Obama has done a LOT to make gov't more accessible (White House Android app,

    • They'll probably do what the MPAA did to retiree Fred Lawrence when he was sued over $600,000 for 4 movies his grandkid downloaded that the kid already owned! First knock the fine down to the point where it only bankrupts her (not several times over, only fair ya' know.) Then make her into RIAA's "community service" slave warning others not to do what she did. [betanews.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:43PM (#43209003)

    Still, the RIAA is sensitive about how it looks if they impoverish a woman of modest means. Look for them to ask her for far less than the $222,000.

    Reminds me of the exchange of Good Will Hunting.

    Will: He used to just put a belt, a stick, and a wrench on the kitchen table and say, "Choose."

    Sean: Well, I gotta go with the belt there.

    Will: I used to go with the wrench.

    Sean: Why?

    Will: Cause fuck him, that's why.

  • by ebno-10db (1459097) on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:45PM (#43209019)
    Yet the Supreme Court happily lower the punitive damages in the Exxon Valdez case. From http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-supreme-court-orders-reduction-in-exxon-valdez-award [marketwatch.com]

    Justice David Souter, in the court's majority opinion, said the punitive damages award should be brought into line with $287 million in compensatory damages awarded

    So spilling millions of dollars of crude oil into the ocean in a grossly negligent act, destroying the local environment and wrecking people's livelihoods is not a big, but file sharing? There's a threat to the Republic!

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:50PM (#43209051)

      Jammie Thomas didn't make any campaign contributions.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    $15.00 - It's the equivalent of 2 crummie albums, the music wasn't very good, and she had no one profited in the way the law was designed to penalize, back when music publishing was a print only business.

    This can't really be what equal treatment under the law was desigend to accomplish.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Equal treatment under the law? But yes, absolutely! No matter who you are, what you believe, or where you're from, an equal amount of justice for every dollar you have. How's that not fair?

  • Hrmph (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dyingtolive (1393037) <brad.arnett@[ ]f ... g ['not' in gap]> on Monday March 18, 2013 @06:53PM (#43209077)
    Sensitive about impoverishing a woman, sure. I believe it.

    I bet all they'll ask of her is a modest $200,000 and that she appear on television, making a public statement demeaning herself on behalf of the record companies. Fuckers should burn.
    • The RIAA offered to settle for around $2 to $3 per song shared, and she refused.

      • by stinerman (812158)

        [citation needed]

      • on the assumption she shared each song 4000 times each? so between $192,000 and $288,000? That averages out to $240,000.

      • ...And perjured herself, and tampered with evidence....

        Everyone, this is not the mascot you're looking for.

      • by jxander (2605655)

        Complete hypothetical here, but my guess :

        She was probably offered to settle for $2-3 per song, as long as she pled guilty and covered all court costs, or even just her own court costs, which could easily be $100,000 or more, assuming lawyer was pro bono. Factor in travel costs, time lost from work (probably fired from her job), and the inability to coutersue or force the plaintiff to pay her court costs if they're found guilty ... suddenly settling for $2-3 per song doesn't seem all that appealing

        /spe

        • by guises (2423402)
          According to Ars, the average settlement offered by the RIAA is $3000 plus a written statement by the accused saying that they will not do it again (and probably a confession). That sounds reasonable next to the fines that Thomas-Rasset has been saddled with, but $3000 for $24 worth of music is still outrageous. And even if she was able to swallow that, the written statement that they demand would put you at the RIAA's mercy if they decided to come after you again. It's no wonder that she fought this.
  • by rmdingler (1955220) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:07PM (#43209211)
    When I was 6 years old, my father took me back to the store where I'd stolen a pack of gum with the money to pay the owner. After a rather sheepish apology that involved no eye contact from me at all, the proprietor accepted my dime and my remorse. My punishment was to return to the store after school and sweep for a week, every day after school. In the movies, that's how the story ends, with an errant youth learning a valuable lesson. In riaal life, his 11 year old son kicked the shit out of me every day but one... and that one day was the worst because I waited all day for the beating that never came.
  • What an insult (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamessnell (857336) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:15PM (#43209307) Homepage
    $200K+ for sharing 24 songs? Those profound douche-baggery. I'm so glad that newer methods are emerging to kill off the record label. This is an example of the industry that we call "The legal system", milking the life-force out of lady justice and then ripping her corpse apart and devouring it without a napkin. There's no measure of justice involved at all. Was there REALLY $222K in damage? Hell no, she helped advertise a brand, of sorts. What a disgusting farce. Glad I don't live in the states.
  • by jxander (2605655) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:16PM (#43209315)

    Just a suggestion to help parse better, the phrase "7 year old Jammie Thomas case" should instead be "7 year old Jammie Thomas case"

    Except with the actual link, and not just bold font... I'm lazy

    This way, it's easier to recognize the CASE is seven years old, not Jammie Thomas.

  • Let's not forget that any forgiven debt is a taxable event in the US. It is seen as a gift and counts as "income". But I suppose it's still better than paying the full bill.

    • by Krishnoid (984597) *
      Can someone clarify whether this applies to any debt, or just ones involving a initial loan of money?
  • by shentino (1139071) on Monday March 18, 2013 @07:50PM (#43209577)

    Do not piss off the corporate elite or you will regret it.

An authority is a person who can tell you more about something than you really care to know.

Working...