Woman Hit By File-Sharing Verdict Fights Back

[SUBMAN1]

The war has begun. It took a verdict like this to get people to fight back. Seems that the RIAA may have wanted to avoid this because of this simple reason.

-S

Minnesota mom targeted by the RIAA for illegal downloads proclaims that she "will not be bullied."
By K.C. Jones (kirconley@cmp.com)
InformationWeek (http://www.informationweek.com/;jsessionid=QFE0O1XUAE3UAQSNDLPCKH0CJUNN2JVN)

October 8, 2007 12:33 PM

The Minnesota woman ordered to pay $220,000 after being found guilty of illegally downloading copyrighted music is loudly voicing her own opinion about the case including plans to appeal the decision.

Jammie Thomas' attorney announced Monday that he would appeal the decision, which has been viewed as a victory for the Recording Industry Association of America. The single mother's attorney made the announcement during a CNN interview, just days after a jury found her guilty in the first RIAA case to go to trial.

Thomas wrote about the announcement on her MySpace blog (http://blog.myspace.com/tereastarr).


"He explained how we're going to take the RIAA's theory of making [files] available and appeal it," she wrote. "He also explained how if we win, this would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks!!! Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared and by someone other than their own licensed agent."


Last week, a jury ordered Thomas of Duluth, Minnesota to pay restitution to six separate record companies -- Sony BMG, Arista Records, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings, Capitol Records, and Warner Bros. Records. The amount covers 24 copyrighted songs illegally downloaded on her computer. Thomas' lawyer argued that someone else could have downloaded the songs either in-person or remotely, but the Minnesota jury sided with the recording industry.


The verdict has given critics of the RIAA a rallying point and helped them organize efforts to stop legal actions enacted by Thomas' support group.


Thomas said she earns $36,000 a year. Her supporters have donated money to help her fight back. Over the weekend, she reported raising nearly $1,000.


"I will be a thorn in the sides of the record companies for the rest of my life if that is what it takes," Thomas wrote on another Web site (http://www.freejammie.com/) to help draw support. "I will make this situation the worst thing the recording companies could have ever done to anyone. I will also do everything I can to help others who are in the same situation. I will not be bullied!!!"


http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=202300917

[Kapitan_Phillips]

You go girl. If the record companies want to stop falling sales, then they should stop releasing tat.

[bradclark1]

The problem with this is that it is a jury finding these people guilty. I'm not so sure an appeal will get anywhere. Power to her if it floats.

[SUBMAN1]

You go girl. If the record companies want to stop falling sales, then they should stop releasing tat.

You are absolutely right. File sharing has nothing to do with it. People used to share tapes of records back in the day, but that didn't stop staggering increases in sales which went through the roof. Even back in the late 80's, you could copy and share CD's in full quality, but that didn't stop the surging music industry's ever increasing profits. Enter the 90's. Grunge came along, and not as many people wanted the CD's, but I still think their sales were still increasing.

Come the 2000's - what new has transpired? What new music type have they invented in the last 15 to 20 years? Nothing. I can't think of any new genere at least. Its rehashed music, and half the tracks have either instrumental tracks ripped from older music, or even sound bites from older music in it. Then you have your re-do's that make you cringe because they sound nothing like the original and its all screwed up. Tack on managed music with no singing ability at all - what are they doing? Talking and cramming as many words as possible into a section of music without singing or going with the music itself one bit? Its terrible! I don't want to buy music like that! DJ's and such in the electronic / trance music, coupled with some New age styles is all I like anymore, and you rarely find these in record stores. I usually have to import it.

Basically, they are using file sharers as an excuse or fallout guy for their stock holders.

-S

[Zayphod]

The war has begun. It took a verdict like this to get people to fight back. Seems that the RIAA may have wanted to avoid this because of this simple reason.


Reading how the plantiff set up their case, and that they had her ID, IP address, and everything possible pointed directly back to her, my take on the matter is that they had her nailed to the wall in every possible way.

Her attorney, seeing this, could do nothing but toss up the "HaKor X" excuse, <bluesbrothers> such as a virus did it, a trojan did it, an old friend came in from out of town, I didn't have money for car fare, a terrible plague, locusts, it wasn't my fault!!!</bluesbrothers>

If the only thing you can do is TRY to provide doubt and uncertainty, where none truly exists in a case, a competent attorney will tell you to settle out of court. If I were her, I'd take whatever deal she can get, since she never had a strong defense to begin with....and the jury saw right through it, too.

Thomas' lawyer argued that someone else could have downloaded the songs either in-person or remotely
As was noted in www.news.com (http://www.news.com) last week, there was no evidence that anyone else had access to her PC, no proof of virus or trojans on it, and the suggestion that someone may have piggy-backed on a wireless network WOULD have been a possible excuse, except for the fact that she never stated (or showed) that she had a wireless hook-up.

Don't get me wrong - I was rooting for her to win, but when I saw what kind of slip-shod defense her attorney was trying to throw up, well, she didn't stand a chance.

[SUBMAN1]

I hear you to, but to tell you the truth when 7 year old kids can put together a botnet of 100,000+ compromised machines to use at will, or even into the 7 figure range, it doesn't take rocket science to figure out that there is a large percetage of systems out there of the total number of people like this mother that are compromised, and these kids are using those systems to share files and send spam mainly.

So her argument holds great weight in my book.

[STEED]

You go girl. If the record companies want to stop falling sales, then they should stop releasing tat.

They will not because the world is full of...................

Well you know and I agree with you.