[RootbeaR]

"Jammie Thomas-Rasset's federal retrial concluded today as a jury found her liable for willful copyright infringement, awarding the record labels nearly $2 million in damages."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...al-verdict.ars

$2 million, $200 million, whats the difference to some one like her?

I have a feeling the labels just lost more than they won.

[lotuseclat79]

Has the RIAA's Fight Against File Sharing Gone Too Far?.

Jammie Thomas, a Minnesota mom, faces a $1.92 million fine for allegedly downloading a handful of copyrighted songs. Is $80,000 a song constitutional?

Unconstitutional IMHO.

-- Tom

[dustyjay]

While the arguement of wrong to do or not wrong to do rages on, I feel that Jammie Thomas is being unfairly punished for what others are also doing. I would like to see proof that she personally cause $80,000 loss per song before I am going to hand down that kind of punishment. This is further proof that we have become first a litigious society.

[lotuseclat79]

Moby Says 'Disband The RIAA' For Winning $1.92 Million From Jammie Thomas.

...his overall point is sound. It's ridiculous that the RIAA thinks this is the proper strategy: ...punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business.

-- Tom

[RootbeaR]

How come when I download a distro, I hook up to many seeders, yet Jammie was the only one sued for infringement when the investigators downloaded files regarding this case? Surely there was other seeders.

Or is downloading music less popular than Linux distros?

Contrary to what most people, including on this site, say.

[lotuseclat79]

If Downloading A Song Is Just Like Stealing A CD, Why Won't The RIAA Allow Reselling MP3s?.

When you hear RIAA defenders insist that an unauthorized download is "just like stealing a CD" or something along those lines, it's worth noting even they don't really mean it. ... it's perfectly legal to sell your used CDs, but now when it comes to selling used MP3s you need a record label's permission? Why? Well, because even the record labels seem to inherently know that a CD is quite different from a download. So when the RIAA claims they're the same, what they really mean is "only the stuff we like is the same."

-- Tom

[RootbeaR]

"As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels. These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...as-verdict.ars

[RootbeaR]

""Our copyright laws are overbroad, being misused and enforced with a zeal out of proportion to common sense," said CEO Ed Black. "When Sony BMG massively and illegally distributed music CDs containing spyware that compromised individual users' computer security and infected government and military networks worldwide, the FTC only ordered them in 2007 to reimburse end-users up to $150 for computer damages. Yet when Ms. Thomas shared 24 songs belonging to Sony BMG and other labels on the Internet, she was penalized $80,000 for each single track."



Now that Jammie Thomas-Rasset owed $1.92 million to the recording industry for sharing 24 songs on KaZaA back in 2005, the case might seem to be closed. In reality, though, Thomas-Rasset still has numerous options for dealing with the verdict. Let's run them down."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...m_medium=email

[RootbeaR]

As we speculated earlier this week, given the silence from the Jammie Thomas camp since the $1.92 million verdict against her, we assumed she was gearing up for an appeal -- and that's now been confirmed.