Jammie Thomas-Rasset: Guilty, again

This result is sickening. For the fact that there are judges in the world that are so stupid that they would allow a judgement of this size, so completely out of scope to the supposed harm she caused, to stand without vacating it, and for the fact that there are juries that would even think such a punishment valid. Who are these people? The judge should be lync....er...I mean impeached for such a blatant disregard for upholding the concept of not allowing cruel and unusual punishment. And the jury should be publicly flogged and branded with a giant S on their foreheads to denote that they are irretrievably stupid.

I don't doubt that this woman violated the stupid laws as written. And I have no problem with them finding her guilty. But the punishment FAR exceeds what is reasonable. As if she could EVER pay that fine. Make her pay $1,000 and be done with it.

I would like to see the RIAA be forced to PROVE the ACTUAL damages they suffered as a result of her downloading activities. Then PROVE that she would have purchased ANY of the songs if she could not have downloaded them. PROVE that she would not have simply recorded them off of the radio.

Just ridiculous.

It's the kind of stupid verdicts that should never happen.

As been said, 1k dollars is plenty enough punishment for 24 songs. Hell, even 500$ is way too much already.

This is exactly what the RIAA wants to see. Big fines, we have clout, we're gonna get ya no matter what ya do, even if it's wrong, we're still gonna get ya.
AND! The justice system uses this as their background for job security. 'See, we did our job, we nailed the bad guy to the wall, and we'll bleed them for everything they have!' Methinks a few senators & congrewss men need to look for different jobs next election...
Will they ever get the money out of her? Dubious at best. My warped mind sees someone getting that type of sentence and once they leave the courtroom "BLAM" Pick up their brains with a teaspoon and blotter. Is that what has to happen to get these clowns to get real with these cases?

Once again, the RIAA proves it can buy judges and choose ridiculously misinformed juries... Fines at $200000/1$ -> 200000% actual damages and the policing entity stand to directly profit from her guilt...

You want to make this thought of as a crime? Then let criminal courts deal with it. You want to be seen as greedy as good as criminals that will distroy famillies just to make a bit of money? Then just keep doing the same thing...

This verdict is simply UNEXCUSABLE!!! Guess the RIAA not only pays off government officials and judges but jurors as well...!!! A child molestor or rapist or murder can get out of prison on "good behaviour" and walk the streets but let's crucify someone who "illegally" downloaded about 2 cd's... God this country has got it's f*cking priorities straight...!

I'd like a judge to be the plantiff and see the outcome

The major problem with the case is that Jammie isn't a good defendant. She was just the only one to fight them. A lot of other defendants may have had better chances but they settled.

This means WAR!
PR war!
Those s.o.b.'s have gone insane. If she's guilty of downloading, let her reimburse what the songs are worth: 99 cents apiece, exactly what you'd pay on iTunes. They have not proved that she willfully distributed a single song. Furthermore, they CAN'T prove that. And to top that, why isn't the RIAA on trial here for stealing "ownership" of these songs from their creators? Lawyers run the entertainment industry, lawyers make the laws and lobby Congress to pass them. The artists got left out of that whole conversation because they aren't lawyers. And now those lawyers want $2 million from a poor Indian woman? Why did they go after an Indian? Didn't they get their fill of us with the passage of the Dawes Act that dismantled our tribes in 1907? Of course they think she stole from them, because stealing is all they know. It's all they've ever done, but they hide it with legalese. The RIAA is one of the largest pirate organizations in history, next to some of the Wall Street investment banks that cratered our economy. It's time the people fought back. You can start by not buying or renting ANY product with these companies' names on them, and spreading the word.

The thing is- she is not being sued for DOWNLOADING - she is being sued for DISTRIBUTION of crap she does not own. This is what people cannot get through their thick heads. RTFA Copyright infringement- not downloading a handful of mp3s. This gal made available music from her computer to anyone that wanted it in the world that has an Internet connection and she failed to pay royalties for each copy she gave out. Ooops!

The RIAA is IMHO abusing a law created for pirate CD factories. It was created prior to even the Internet and really speaks to physical entities, manufacturing and selling goods on a black market for a profit.

NOW, we have the capability of distribution of goods that are just data bits- and it's easy and they are perfect- even 1000 generations later. So, the RIAA is glomming onto the old law and its exhorbatant fines, as a way to intimidate digital distribution over a network.

The woman is being sued for making the songs available for distribution in her shared folder. So, this is how they "justify" the high fines. They are saying that she is part of an illegal distribution network. She is.

This is also why they are always eager to settle for about 3 grand, regardless of how many MP3's are residing on your upload folder. Still, stiff enough to scare the bejesus out of dipsticks that get caught sharing mp3's. WAKE UP!!!!!!

I think it is about time people got savvy to the idea that if they use P2P software- they are also allowing uploads of copyrighted material from their machines.

I have little pity for ths woman and she should have settled. I bet she could have negotiated waaaay down if she took that tack- instead of trying to beat an ironclad law. She broke the law, period paragraph. It is unfair it seems, but - this is no defense. Until it is "ok" to share mp3's I think it is about time people woke up and smelled the coffee.

The final bit is how websites pick up these stories and bring attention to the people caught. The more pathetic and lopsided the better. To the RIAA, they could care less if they get money from the woman. The mere fact that the Internet is flooded with sob stories like these- to them it is mission accomplished. At no charge to them - free publicity! Touche they don't give a crap if they are the "bad guys"- all they want to do is protect their online pay for distribution model. Hell, they can't compete with free!

And you're not violating copyrights with that avatar? No, I think you totally miss the point. This woman did not do $2 million in damages, and she may not have done anything at all. Nobody proved she was the one at the computer.

About 10 years ago when my kids were 12, I found them downloading files with a new kind of software that utilized dozens of computers to make the download go faster. They were large, shared video files, and I saw the utility in it. Then I read about that very same software in the news within a week. It was a Napster-like shareware whose name I no longer remember. I investigated it further and was shocked to find that by default, anything you downloaded was put back out for others to download. If they had downloaded copyrighted music files, they would instantly have been guilty of "distributing." Guess who would have caught the rap for it? Not them. Me. I made them throw it out, along with everything they'd downloaded, and delete.

Exhibit #2: recently some neighbor kids came over to use our computers to do their homework. Soon I noticed that one of them was finished and was watching something. I went over to look, and it was a movie. I asked if he had the dvd, and he said no, that he got it from this site where movies are all free. Thinking it was hulu, I had no reason to doubt him, but then I noticed that the movie was moving around on the screen, and had poor video and audio. It was copied in a theater with a handheld camcorder! That tipped me off, so I looked at the website. It was some place in Hong Kong. I gave him and his family a lecture on the repercussions of what he had done. That put me at risk. A few days later his sister did the same thing. I no longer let them use our computers. This can happen to anyone. It may have happened to the woman in this case. Prosecution did not demonstrate evidence that placed her at the keyboard when the files were downloaded.

Even if she did download them, the fine does not fit the crime. Nor is the law ironclad. Nor can all people be "savvy" about p2p software. So, is that woman really part of an illegal distribution network? Not necessarily. If you say it's that ironclad, then should all Americans be held accountable for the war crimes committed during the past 8 years? If you're a part of this country, and if crimes were committed, then... yes, by your reasoning you have to be guilty, too.

Ridicule isn't going to help fix this. This is serious, and the RIAA has seriously abused the law. They need to charge her 99 cents per song and be done with it.

Shooshie- You are a perfect example of what I am talking about. You are unable to think logically. You have substituted emotion where emotion has no bearing. You are confused about fairness and laws on the books. You are also deliberately ignoring parts of the womans story that got her into this mess and concentrating on the final outcome of her SECOND trial. This gal is digging her own grave. And documenting her actions on the Internet. She is a fool.

Point 1: My avatar breaks a law by using Hobbes without permission. However, I am sure you missed that subtle point and focused like a laser beam on the patch...therby insinuating that i am a pirate.

But, other than that, no one like the RIAA could sue me for distribution of MP3s- because my avatar would not help them much in a civil case for sharing music.

Point 2: You don't have to "prove" who was at the computer. the owner of the IP is resposible and guilty. this is why even if you have an unsecured wireless network and some clown downloads Caddyshack from a van outside your house- it's your ass not his.

This is a very common misconception that the RIAA has to prove Joe Blow was the one downloading. Nope, all they need to know is itis Joe blows IP. That's it.

This is why it is good too be knowledgable if you share your computer with kids and neighbors. You are asking for it.

Point 3: The punishment does fit the young lady's crime, because she was too stubborn or had piss poor representation and decided not to settle. Therefore, she was tried AGAIN and she lost AGAIN by a jury of her own peers. A trial by jury. Not a trial by the RIAA.

Now, she is flirting with prison timee, because she went public saying she wont pay the fine. Shee should be thinking of her children- show them that you must obey the law and if you make a mistake, you pay your debt. She is setting a poor example and we can see why she is in the spot she is in and most likely why she is single. She is a fool, very confrontational and stubborn.

You guys can whine all you want about whether or not something is fair, but, the first thing you should do is read the article and you will see she made her own bed.

Final point: I am not ridiculing anyone, you have misused the word in my case, look it up in the dictionary. I am stating facts. This is what happens in a court of law and ignorance of the law is no excuse. Anyone in this day and age that is not aware of these type cases-yet still is foolish enough to pay for an Internet connection, I have no pity for.

I may not follow all the laws, but at least I am not stupid enough to get pulled into court and I DAMN SURE am not going to finance the RIAA and their lawsuits with my hard earned money.

I will not address your war crimes argument as it is not worth discussing it is so inappropriate to the matter at hand and is totally illogical from the get go to be used in any situation.

I guess you are deep into projection when telling me all about myself. No matter. It's always good to see how "the other side" thinks.

I wish Jammie the best. There's not much hope for the RIAA. They're lost to the dark side. Meanwhile, I hope you can get clear on what is light and what is dark. You seem very confused. Maybe just because I so completely disagree with you.

light or dark they aren't breaking the law, and her computer was used to do just that, yes the fine is way over the top and they should have to justify it with proof of sales evidance showing how much they might have made but its all above board and legal sadly enough.

Jammie Thomas Rasset has been making headlines as a person who has been made an example of, who really doesn't deserve it. Jammie Thomas Rasset has been sued by the RIAA for illegal downloading from Kazaa, and they want some instant cash to the tune of $1.9 million, for downloading 24 songs – 2 CDs worth. Intellectual property needs to be preserved, but given the history of the music industry, even a casual examination reveals that they only care about the gravy train, rather than the artist's intellectual property, and many recording contracts give almost all licensing to the record companies, which is who is behind the huge need for cash advance loans of epic proportions for Jammie Thomas Rasset.

Long story short; the songs were there, she knew the songs were there, she let them be offered, end of story...

Fortunately, the US legal system allows for a little more nuance than "end of story." That sounds a little too much like "why are you worried about the loss of rights if you're not doing anything wrong?" And it doesn't even begin to cover the outrageous $2 million punishment for a $19 crime. Corporations aren't our masters, even if their lobbyists DO get to make the laws by which they'll judge and punish us. But if you read the Constitution carefully, you'll find that in fact the RIAA has violated her rights far more than she violated theirs, even if she did it deliberately, which they have never proven.

Certainly the punishment is absurdly excessive. An ordinary person such as Jamie could never earn that much in her entire life, even if she never ate or paid rent, as she pointed out with her "good luck getting it" comment. But absurdly harsh punishments are routinely handed out. Stealing a $19 item can land you in prison for life, under California's "three strikes" law. Well, not you, CDFreaks reader, you wouldn't steal a physical object valued at $19. Black men, thousands of them.