News DoJ sides with RIAA in Thomas appeal

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2007/12/06/doj_sides_with_riaa_in_thomas_appeal/1

The Department of Justice has sided with the RIAA in Jammie Thomas' appeal against her copyright infringement ruling.

 

Hands up who's surprised??

 

I wonder how she's going to pay it.

 

Selling boot-leg DVDs on the street

Scary precident though...

 

how long owuld the jail sentance be for not being able to pay?

 

I think she may have to give these people a call:

On a more serious note, i still think 4k per song is a little ott, however, as it said in the report, it is to act like a deterrent, however still, they could have been less greedy, but hey.

Sam

 

plus i thought it was against the law to make an example of some one by giving them a large sentance

 

She made some big mistakes in the case. She deserved what she got for her stupidity. You don't have your HD wiped after finding out your going to court for file sharing. She has now made it harder for when the next person tries to fight it.

 

£4500 for 24 songs, I may aswell make myself bankrupt and go into hiding!

 

its so she can never afford another computer again.

 

Meh, it's bad luck for her, but will this have any effect on anyone else in the world anywhere?

Of course not.

 

don't forget it's 4500 quid per song, not collectively...

 

Thats...just evil...so many people file share so much more, they could have at least some ******* who blatantly deserved it for like sharing a couple thousand files or something, but a single mother being done for 24 songs, thats just going to give them lots of negative press.

 

It wasn't just 24 songs she shared though- the prosecution accused her of sharing 1700, but the record companies only charged her for 24 of them. Add to this the fact that she seems to have lied her way through the court case instead of opting for the out-of-court-settlement and you'd be inclined to think that she was maybe hoping to become more a martyr of the file-sharing community than a rational single mother who knows what financial responsibility is.

<A88>

 

But you can't be fined for sharing 1700 songs if you're only charged with sharing 24. This is effectively an illegal fine under US law but since the whole country is paid for by big business its been upheld. But yeah i agree she's tried to fight the system which is slightly silly in her situation, but hey maybe she doesn't like bullies.

 

She wasn't fined for 1700- only 24, and at 1/3rd of the maximum fine at that. I'm not saying it's reasonable- it actually seems like an extortionate amount of money to me, but she didn't do herself any favours by fighting a losing battle anyway. She didn't really have a leg to stand on in the first place, so getting a lawyer to act as crutches has just made the wound a lot worse.

<A88>

 

she wasnt fined for all 1700, she was fined about $9,000 per song = $220,000 for all 24 songs. she was looking at over a million dollar fine maximum just for those 24 songs.

 

the fine was excessive IMHO, but yea, this woman shot herself in the foot so to speak it really stinks, as I'd love the RIAA to die a firey death

 

Thats absurd, copyright laws were made to protect copyright holders from other people making money off of what they created. If she was out on the street corner selling a bunch of burned CD's to people and making a bunch of money the fine might be fair.

 

But she didn't have it wiped, she had it replaced.