Government Sides With RIAA in Thomas Case

BOOO!!!

There is typo. Should be Department of Injustice. There, I fixed it.

wow, they must have been paid huge money from the RIAA. such bull

wow...big surprise there.
imagine...the US government supporting billion dollar corporations in anything that they want to do.

people...stop being stupid with your pirating. if you are on a P2P you will be tracked. there are other safer ways of getting your downloads.

Um actually P2P is one of the safest ways but I'll ignore your lack of knowledge.

Where there's this much smoke there has to be fire. EVERYWHERE this case goes it gets worse. By some people's logic, so far the judges, two juries, and the whole US DOJ is corrupt in this case. Seriously people, do you think we should just ignore the laws completely, do you think it's all a "grand conspiracy", do you think that anyone who believes people should be punished for breaking the laws are evil overlords? How far are you willing to go to defend piracy?

file sharing will live for ever.....

And in all your ignorance, do you also think that 1.92 Million Dollars is a fair price for 24 songs?

I think the judgement is a complete pile of crap and insanely overkill. As a worse case scenario, the woman should have been fined $5 grand and been put on probation and required to do community service of some sort. Trying to make an example out of her will just make her a marter for others. It will backfire one way or the other for the RIAA and also the DOJ. Sometimes folks require learning crap the hard way even though others strongly advise they not go that route, lol. There are those out there that know better, but some are either blind or just plain too stupid to listen to them! :-)

This isn't terribly surprising. The law in question was designed to protect corporations from other corporations and the penalties were designed to make a difference at an industrial scale. The DoJ is ironically not in the business of producing justice or being ethical; it is the business of applying law correctly. The penalties, outrageous as they may be when applied to an individual, are technically correct as written.

Right... so i guess using your logic and not most people logic a 1.92 million dollars verdict for sharing 24 songs is alright?. This is a minor felony we are talking about here, she did'nt kill anyone, she wasn't selling illegal drugs to litle kids, she didn't run over a pedestrian while driving drunk. She just downloaded 24 songs!!!.
This is obviously the work of a big company doing what ever they want using a corrupted legal system.

Sounds like a cruel and unusual punishment to me. I think the Supreme Court could take up the case in that regard.

All I can say is F!@k RIAA.

Being that the criminal in this case violated a law that is clearly printed on EVERY SINGLE (albiet small on some), and embeded in the startup of EVERY DVD, I feel 1.92 million is perfect. I think she should have settled for the original price (around 4000 bucks if i remember right) or gave up with the 220,000. Instead she went with the "piracy rules" reasoning and lost...
I hope she loses everything! Down with pirates!

Ok, seriously. Did nobody notice that the DoJ is stocked with former RIAA and MPAA lawyers? I have no idea why you guys are cmplaining. You elected Obama, he elected douchebags fro the DoJ, now you're all screwed. I'm SOOO glad I live in Canada. You guys need to jump ship ASAP, because America is gonna suck for all file sharers, REAL fast.

It's as much a conspiracy as the "vast right wing conspiracy" Hillary used to speak of, though even more apparent.

Politicians are known to be for sale, so government corruption's accepted. The DOJ hasn't shown any signs of being above that, the only corporations they move against are those that've already begun toppling from within after the media's already run the story.

Instead of some Eliot Ness uncovering and prosecuting corporate shenanigans, the DOJ seems fine appearing to be complicit wherever the pockets are deep. There're allegations of investigators being run out for digging into things in financial markets before the collapse. There was obviously no problem there.

This is kind of messed up. You should not have to pay more money just because you ask for a retrial. As a US citizen it is your god given right to ask for a retrial and if you are granted one and lose, the fine should stay the same.

By the way, stealing is one of the worst crimes in existence in the USA and if the government had the money they would probably be giving life in prison to every single person who has lost a lawsuit with the RIAA.

it's not just that she downloaded 24 songs... it's that she allowed it to be copied hundreds if not thousands of times after that. be that as it may, i don't believe the final verdict was justice even if the convicted, in this case, was a retarded jackass... as others have said, she did not murder anyone or sell 'drugs' to the kiddies... so make it a few grand and probation and community service telling the kids not to be a pirate and move on... they're trying to make an example where it can't be made since it's not like this woman is capable of paying even a 16th of this amount... oh well... that's american justice for ya!

Sure, I'll quit my job and sell my house and settle in Canada just so I can share or dl some stupid file.

What's so difficult with the concept of buying stuff you use? You find it too expensive? The then don't buy it or work harder and get more money.

You're joking right?

For the frigging retards that don't know shit, she was convicted with "only" 24 songs, but she had over 3 thousand ones and was sharing.

Screw her and her stupidity, she deserves, tried to be smart...should have paid the 4k fine at the beginning, it was around a dollar per song...but she decided to lie, and lie..and lie.

And there are the retarded supporters who couldn't know any better..supporting the poor mamma that got the 1.92 mil fine for just 24 songs. Oh poor her...

She had many chances, she was pretty much illegal (oh wait, was she testing before buying those 3000 songs? Or maybe she owned those 300 cds and that's why she refused to pay...oh wait, what's the retarded excuse for that?

gotta_hate_brainless_pirates: at least try to sound some wot coherent in your rant... you don't give yourself and your side any credibility coming off like a protester at an abortion rally... stop making it seem like the people had any say in the laws that convicted this person because as you can see, the majority do not share the views of the lawmakers or yourself.

Why is it so difficult for people to discuss copyright infringement with some respect? It always resorts to name calling and humiliation tactics.

Well, here's my attempt. I understand many feel that copyright infringement is going unnoticed or that people have no regard for the law. Let me assure you that that is not the case.

The reason some people tend to act out so boldly against copyrights is because they disagree with the way the law is applied. Its similar to how people feel about gay marriage or abortion. They don't fight for it because they're just a bunch of rebellious people that want to create a stink, its because they don't agree with how the system is set-up to date, in other words, they want to push for change.

Whether you are for against the current copyright laws, for the sake of community, could you please express yourself without prejudice to those who may disagree, I guarantee it will make for far more engaging conversations.

The ruling is honestly outrageous. A good ruling would be a fine of something like $10,000. It's Aayable and B: covers the cost completely. Just think Lets say instead of 24, it was 25 songs (for math's sake) so, $10,000 makes that $400 a song, that would SURELY cover 1:your download and 2:the people you seeded/uploaded to. You can't possible assume that she uploaded to over 399 people. She should be fined, and required to have certain stipulations of what she can have on her computer ie, no torrent/P2P access. Sort of a probation as stated above.

Hanin33, the majority of who, the pirates?

Most reasonable people would agree she had it coming, just look at the history.
She had thousands of musics, was sharing...and LIED about how they got there etc, took RIAA and everyone for granted as if they were easy-to-fool retards.

Then they offer a 4k settle, which is cheap considering how much she downloaded and surely uploaded and their time on:

#1 Finding her
#2 Paying people to negotiate with her

She still denied what she did, so what should happen?
Do you think the judge would still order her to pay only 4k after she wastes everyone's time AND with deceptive acts?

She lost.
But it wasn't enough...so she lost again.

Now she wasted everyone's time, somebody gotta pay for that and sure as hell it isn't 4k only (altough not 2 millions either).

I don't think that going AGAINST the law is a nice way of enforcing the opinion or asking for changes in legislation.

That's called voting, not pirating until things change.

Nobody here has the right to "give them a lesson" or do it's own justice, you gotta rely on the old system, and if you're not happy, simply don't buy, BUT DON'T DOWNLOAD EITHER.

While I agree that there are more productive approaches to changing the current entertainment industry pricing model, I would advise people not to think that a simple boycott is enough to instill change. The excuse of "piracy" is far too convenient for it not to be used by a corporation having a hard time financially.

I have heard of countless individuals who have made made it a point to not purchase any records of artists who are associated with the RIAA and yet have you ever heard the RIAA make any statement addressing those individuals or their statement? Its easier to blame piracy than to acknowledge low demand, poor execution, or uneconomical pricing for any given product. In the end, piracy will continually be used as an excuse by the industry (specifically copyright holders) wherever it requires an explanation for poor performance.

Am I condoning downloading? No, I just want to advise those who aren't happy with the current industry model to become more engaged in their fight/protest.

I, for one, find it insulting that companies are asking individuals to pay more for digitally distributed content than that which is physically distributed. The whole reason P2P downloading (or even just general downloading) became popular was because it was economical. People could share thousands of songs without paying for much else than their internet connection. Now you have the option to rent movies from your cable company yet its more expensive than going to the B&M equivalent, you can buy games online for PS3/X360 for the same price as the physical copy, download albums for a higher price than their physical equivalent. Where are the cost savings?

For those in Canada, current copyright law is being looked at. I implore any interested to become involved on this issue. Please see;

http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html" title=" http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html">

and

Please excuse the prior post, proper links below.

http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html


http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/index.html

The problem with this is that a company is performing police work by way of suing individuals. Pirating files is stealing and I believe we have laws in place already for theft. If the RIAA believes it has evidence of someone downloading files illegally they need to contact the police and a CRIMINAL TRIAL needs to take place. 24 songs would be a misdemeanor in most states so fine the person $500 and give them 30 hours of community service. We need to let the police go after criminals, not the Recording Industry Association of America. We haven't privatized police work.

pirates_still_stink: if you go by the numbers the RIAA and MPAA quote, then sure, the pirates are the majority of the consumers of 'copyright' material. why did you change the focus of your argument to her actions after she was caught and convicted? do you even know that more than 50% of all defendants claim innocent for all crimes? not saying it's the right thing to do but is hardly out of the norm, so your argument that that justified the over the top final ruling is invalid. even death row inmates are given the chance to appeal further than this... and yet they aren't 'killed' any faster or brutally because they appealed several times...

so what else have you got, troll?

I cannot believe that such judge, who are there to represent the law for common folks, are doing the exact contrary. I am sorry, but if I was the judge, I would have asked Jammie to pay 1$ per song downloaded and 100$ for the infraction... 1.92 Billlion $... now we know that the system is worthless.

Obama should check this joke that we call justice and tell the RIAA to change their tactics or to face the penalty to refund every defendants ever sued by them.