Thomas-Rasset gearing up for an appeal - bit-tech.net Forums

CardJoe · 7th Jul 2009, 15:48

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...or-an-appeal/1

Jammie Thomas-Rasset is gearing up for an appeal as her lawyers have filed a motion requesting a new trial or for the judge to alter the jury's verdict.

BentAnat · 7th Jul 2009, 16:08

While i do think that piracy should be punished, i also think that 80Large per song/album is grossly excessive.
By all means, make the guy pay... he shouldn't come off scott free, but the fee is a bit high. Lower that to 80K total, and tell him to not do it again.

proxess · 7th Jul 2009, 16:29

They should just make him pay the original album price, or the original itunes price, whichever is higher, and make him realize that it doesn't cost that much to actually own the music.

perplekks45 · 7th Jul 2009, 16:36

That's what I thought.
I mean we all remember AllofMP3.com... 1.6 effin TRILLION. Even more ridculous than this.

bogie170 · 7th Jul 2009, 17:05

Do you pay to listen to music on the radio? Do you pay to watch films on tv? (disregard the bbc licence fee).

So can you get punished for making a recording off tv of a film and watching it in your own time?

$80,000 for some **** song that you could easily listen to on the radio is absolutely disgusting.

Kode · 7th Jul 2009, 17:19

its a she i believe

Drexial · 7th Jul 2009, 17:22

He is not being punished for the songs he had, he could have acquired them legally. Its that he was sharing them. They are punishing him for the lost sales due to him making them available for free. But I highly doubt he shared those songs with 80,000 people each.

For bootleggers that sell copies of movies its easier to mark lost sales because they have a physical item. then fines on top of that. But in a virtual environment, when an item could exist infinitely, its really easy for them to put a bloated price on each item.

Drexial · 7th Jul 2009, 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kode

its a she i believe

good call...

Mcmonopoly · 7th Jul 2009, 17:28

also a single mother I believe, I mean WTF are they trying to do, make an example of her.
The best they could do is sue a woman who had 24 "illegal" songs on her computer? WTF
I know people that never paid for music and they got humongous music collections, that's the people they should go after, but again some people are wiser than others when it comes to dloading stuff from the interwebs...

Necrow · 7th Jul 2009, 17:36

Does anyone know how many times the album(s) was downloaded? Well if they do then maybe she could petition to get the people who downloaded the tunes to say that they deleted the files and never listened to them and all is sorted, no one gets hurt. I think that they are trying to make an example of this woman but this will cause a bigger stir in the pirate / uploader circles. They should fine her alright but make it relative to her income, not to what the huge multi-national record companies "think" they're out of pocket by. As far as I remember the albums she uploaded were crap anyhow so there was probably only a few downloads of them.

pizan · 7th Jul 2009, 17:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by Necrow

Does anyone know how many times the album(s) was downloaded?

Nope, no one knows, not the defense nor the prosecution. How could they?

Fod · 7th Jul 2009, 18:05

and supposing she did somehow manage to pay this. do you honestly think the artists who recorded the songs he downloaded would see a single penny? hmmmm?

perplekks45 · 7th Jul 2009, 18:09

If the MPAA/RIAA really cared about the artists/actors I'd be more than surprised.

airchie · 7th Jul 2009, 18:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogie170

Do you pay to listen to music on the radio? Do you pay to watch films on tv? (disregard the bbc licence fee).

lol!
Kinda like saying "do you pay to drive a car? (disregard the road tax, insurance costs, fuel and cost of the car itself)"

We all pay as they're funded by advertising or the license fee.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogie170

So can you get punished for making a recording off tv of a film and watching it in your own time?

They wanted it to be illegal back when VHS and Betamax were released.
Same argument when home taping off the radio was common.
They launched the olden day equivalent of the knock-off Nigel ads back then saying piracy was killing music.
Funnily enough, it didn't.
And that's also where the pirate bay's logo came from, the old piracy ads.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bogie170

$80,000 for some **** song that you could easily listen to on the radio is absolutely disgusting.

Obviously the quality of the song is subjective and if she went to the trouble of downloading it, she didn't think it was ****. And you can't listen to it any time on the radio, you have to listen to what they're playing at that time and more importantly, the adverts between the music.

IMO, one download does not equal one lost sale.
Since she didn't share them for profit it could be interpreted as free advertising for the artist.
Basically, I agree with everything the defendant's lawyers have said.

B3CK · 7th Jul 2009, 19:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by airchie

Basically, I agree with everything the defendant's lawyers have said.

(thumbs up)

HourBeforeDawn · 8th Jul 2009, 01:49

well others have stated for him to pay what it cost to buy it and well thats not enough how do you learn your lesson then??? I think like the first poster stated, drop it to 80k total not 1.92mil but even at 1.92mil doesnt matter all he will do is file for bankruptcy.

frojoe · 8th Jul 2009, 02:52

The statutory fines are not meant to coincide with money the industry actually lost, it is supposed to be punitive. Just like a $500 fine for littering, does it cost them that much to clean it up, no, its so you won't do it again. That said, 80,000 a song is beyond ridiculous and a single mother will never pay it whether they change it or not. I am more concerned with the other part of her lawyers argument. If it can be proven that the RIAA gathered this information illegally all of the cases will be thrown out. Let's hope so.

Blademrk · 8th Jul 2009, 10:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mcmonopoly

The best they could do is sue a woman who had 24 "illegal" songs on her computer?

I believe there were more than 24 songs on her computer, but they limited the case to just 24 songs.

Payment way over the top, I don't think they expect to get a penny of it.

ChaosDefinesOrder · 8th Jul 2009, 20:36

I can't remember where I read it (probably Slashdot) but firstly, Jammie is a woman, and was a single mother at the time of the infringement (was Thomas then, but has married <Bloke> Rasset since trial started) the court fees so far has seen her file for bancruptcy - she is completely penniless so even if the damages fee holds, no money will ever be exchanged, it is merely a media frenzy example. This could possibly be why such a rediculous fee was levied, as the judge knew it wouldn't actually be paid and so set it as high as he could get away with to serve as a deterrant ("I don't have that much money, do YOU? Don't steal from teh tubes" etc.)

Put simply, the whole trial is a complete farce. The evidence is hotly disputed, there's plenty of evidence that sharing music actually benefits the artists (Shaggy in the UK would never have gotten to his heights without Napster) and that total is an absolute joke. As has been pointed out many many times in various places, the artists will not see a single penny or cent from that total - partly because Jammie legally cannot pay it due to bancruptcy and partly because the RIAA will take a huge chunk for themselves, the lawyers will get a huge chunk and the record labels will absorb the rest for themselves.

What they need to do is a test case study. Get permission from the record label to host a song on a fileshare service and log the number of people that download the song. That number should then be multiplied by the cost on iTunes or similar and that is the fine. That's all.

On a lighter note, part of me thinks it'd be amusing if the judge when passing on the fine accidentally added an extra 3 zeros ("damn, was it million or thousand, always get them mixed up") and when he realised dismissed it as too late to change...

[USRF]Obiwan · 9th Jul 2009, 11:59

Sums up:

1) She downloaded it and shared it (unknowingly) she did not bought it. So no income anyway for Record industry
2) Then it got downloaded by a unknown amount of people (we make a gamble and guess its 80 people) those people did not bought it so this is also no income for Record Industry.

Conclusion: Record Industry did not loose any money because none of the dowloaders actually bought it or wanted to buy it. Else they would have gone out to the recordstore or itunes store.

When I am home, turn on the radio and invite all my friends for a party. I share hours and hours of music to about 40 people coming out of my loudspeakers. (probably sharing music to my neighbors to)

So thats is a multiple loss of income for the Record Industry or is it not? I am waiting for them to sue me now...

7th Jul 2009, 15:48	#1
CardJoe Player Character bit-tech Staff Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 7,974	Thomas-Rasset gearing up for an appeal http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/20...or-an-appeal/1 Jammie Thomas-Rasset is gearing up for an appeal as her lawyers have filed a motion requesting a new trial or for the judge to alter the jury's verdict. __________________ this is joe's non-bit-tech blog

7th Jul 2009, 16:08	#2
BentAnat Software Dev Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Windhoek, Namibia Posts: 1,378	While i do think that piracy should be punished, i also think that 80Large per song/album is grossly excessive. By all means, make the guy pay... he shouldn't come off scott free, but the fee is a bit high. Lower that to 80K total, and tell him to not do it again. __________________ CHIRP? My Upcoming Site

7th Jul 2009, 16:29	#3
proxess Victim of AdvancedModernCapitalism Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: The town of Love, Funchal Posts: 600	They should just make him pay the original album price, or the original itunes price, whichever is higher, and make him realize that it doesn't cost that much to actually own the music. __________________ Netbook: Asus eeePC 901; 12Gb SDD; Custom Ubuntu 9.04 Minimal Compiz Standalone. Laptop: Intel Centrino Duo T5500 1.66ghz; 2048mb RAM; ATI Mobility Radeon x2300; Hitachi 120gb iPod Classic 120GB; Maxtor 160GB External; Ubuntu 9.10 x64 and Windows 7 x64.

7th Jul 2009, 16:36	#4
perplekks45 BSc... finally Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 3,350	That's what I thought. I mean we all remember AllofMP3.com... 1.6 effin TRILLION. Even more ridculous than this. __________________ "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Blame it on Cheaps! [now a social group]

7th Jul 2009, 17:28	#9
Mcmonopoly What now?! Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Montreal. Canada Posts: 60	also a single mother I believe, I mean WTF are they trying to do, make an example of her. The best they could do is sue a woman who had 24 "illegal" songs on her computer? WTF I know people that never paid for music and they got humongous music collections, that's the people they should go after, but again some people are wiser than others when it comes to dloading stuff from the interwebs... __________________ ''Don't be fooled; I may appear wise, but I'm an idiot..!!'' Asus P5k-E\|Q6600 @ 3.3 \|BFG 280GTX OC 1GB\|4GB OCZ 6400\|1xWD 120GB 1xWD 160GB\|1X Seagate 250GB\|Xigmatek 750W modular\|Vista Ultimate x64

7th Jul 2009, 17:05	#5
bogie170 Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Southampton, UK Posts: 150	Do you pay to listen to music on the radio? Do you pay to watch films on tv? (disregard the bbc licence fee). So can you get punished for making a recording off tv of a film and watching it in your own time? $80,000 for some **** song that you could easily listen to on the radio is absolutely disgusting.

7th Jul 2009, 17:19	#6
Kode Multimodder Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Birmingham, UK Posts: 234	its a she i believe

7th Jul 2009, 17:22	#7
Drexial Supermodder Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 297	He is not being punished for the songs he had, he could have acquired them legally. Its that he was sharing them. They are punishing him for the lost sales due to him making them available for free. But I highly doubt he shared those songs with 80,000 people each. For bootleggers that sell copies of movies its easier to mark lost sales because they have a physical item. then fines on top of that. But in a virtual environment, when an item could exist infinitely, its really easy for them to put a bloated price on each item.

7th Jul 2009, 17:36	#10
Necrow Minimodder Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 24	Does anyone know how many times the album(s) was downloaded? Well if they do then maybe she could petition to get the people who downloaded the tunes to say that they deleted the files and never listened to them and all is sorted, no one gets hurt. I think that they are trying to make an example of this woman but this will cause a bigger stir in the pirate / uploader circles. They should fine her alright but make it relative to her income, not to what the huge multi-national record companies "think" they're out of pocket by. As far as I remember the albums she uploaded were crap anyhow so there was probably only a few downloads of them.

7th Jul 2009, 18:05	#12
Fod what is the cheesecake? Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: London Posts: 4,904	and supposing she did somehow manage to pay this. do you honestly think the artists who recorded the songs he downloaded would see a single penny? hmmmm? __________________ "Sesame Street is brought to you by the letters P, W, N, the number 3, and the letter D." I'm a pretentious git with a camera. ISPs want to spy on you. Join the fight against phorm XBL/PSN/Steam ID: FodT

7th Jul 2009, 18:09	#13
perplekks45 BSc... finally Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vienna, Austria Posts: 3,350	If the MPAA/RIAA really cared about the artists/actors I'd be more than surprised. __________________ "The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." Blame it on Cheaps! [now a social group]

8th Jul 2009, 01:49	#16
HourBeforeDawn a.k.a KazeModz Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Cali, USA Posts: 1,794	well others have stated for him to pay what it cost to buy it and well thats not enough how do you learn your lesson then??? I think like the first poster stated, drop it to 80k total not 1.92mil but even at 1.92mil doesnt matter all he will do is file for bankruptcy. __________________ Current Rig: RubyRED • Lian-Li A05B • (2) Swiftech 220 Radiators • (2) D5 Variable Pumps • (2) Res • and a whole lot of modding • Retired Rig: Project F.E.A.R. • TT Lanbox Lite • Swiftech H2O-120 • Q6600 G0 OC@3.6ghz • 2900XT • 4gb SuperTalent Memory •

8th Jul 2009, 02:52	#17
frojoe Multimodder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Cape Cod Posts: 84	The statutory fines are not meant to coincide with money the industry actually lost, it is supposed to be punitive. Just like a $500 fine for littering, does it cost them that much to clean it up, no, its so you won't do it again. That said, 80,000 a song is beyond ridiculous and a single mother will never pay it whether they change it or not. I am more concerned with the other part of her lawyers argument. If it can be proven that the RIAA gathered this information illegally all of the cases will be thrown out. Let's hope so.

8th Jul 2009, 20:36	#19
ChaosDefinesOrder Vapourmodder Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Cambridge, UK Posts: 366	I can't remember where I read it (probably Slashdot) but firstly, Jammie is a woman, and was a single mother at the time of the infringement (was Thomas then, but has married <Bloke> Rasset since trial started) the court fees so far has seen her file for bancruptcy - she is completely penniless so even if the damages fee holds, no money will ever be exchanged, it is merely a media frenzy example. This could possibly be why such a rediculous fee was levied, as the judge knew it wouldn't actually be paid and so set it as high as he could get away with to serve as a deterrant ("I don't have that much money, do YOU? Don't steal from teh tubes" etc.) Put simply, the whole trial is a complete farce. The evidence is hotly disputed, there's plenty of evidence that sharing music actually benefits the artists (Shaggy in the UK would never have gotten to his heights without Napster) and that total is an absolute joke. As has been pointed out many many times in various places, the artists will not see a single penny or cent from that total - partly because Jammie legally cannot pay it due to bancruptcy and partly because the RIAA will take a huge chunk for themselves, the lawyers will get a huge chunk and the record labels will absorb the rest for themselves. What they need to do is a test case study. Get permission from the record label to host a song on a fileshare service and log the number of people that download the song. That number should then be multiplied by the cost on iTunes or similar and that is the fine. That's all. On a lighter note, part of me thinks it'd be amusing if the judge when passing on the fine accidentally added an extra 3 zeros ("damn, was it million or thousand, always get them mixed up") and when he realised dismissed it as too late to change... __________________ Current setup: Hiper Osiris \| Core i7 920 (Cooled by Noctua NH-U12P) \| Foxconn Renaissance \| 2x GTX280 \| Cooler Master UCP \| Corsair Dominator 3GB (soon to be 9GB) \| Creative X-Fi Titanium \| Vista Home Premium x64 \| OS Drive: WD Velociraptor 300GB. Storage: 1x 160GB, 1x 250GB, 1x 300GB, 1x500GB (incremental additions over the years! All Maxtor) \| Monitor: Dell 2709W

9th Jul 2009, 11:59	#20
[USRF]Obiwan Ultramodder Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Netherlands Posts: 1,220	Sums up: 1) She downloaded it and shared it (unknowingly) she did not bought it. So no income anyway for Record industry 2) Then it got downloaded by a unknown amount of people (we make a gamble and guess its 80 people) those people did not bought it so this is also no income for Record Industry. Conclusion: Record Industry did not loose any money because none of the dowloaders actually bought it or wanted to buy it. Else they would have gone out to the recordstore or itunes store. When I am home, turn on the radio and invite all my friends for a party. I share hours and hours of music to about 40 people coming out of my loudspeakers. (probably sharing music to my neighbors to) So thats is a multiple loss of income for the Record Industry or is it not? I am waiting for them to sue me now... __________________ Mascleta: "The most accurate simulation of thunder, humans can simulate..." The answer is 42, so... whats the question again? If you know what 'Peek' and 'Poke' represents, then you are probably as old as me. Last edited by [USRF]Obiwan; 9th Jul 2009 at 12:05.