Posted on 06/18/2009 6:29:59 PM PDT by dayglored
A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each — a total of $1.9 million — for 24 songs.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.
Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents...
(Excerpt) Read more at cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com ...
Not the U.S. Constitution (at least not explicitly).
Jury nullification. Judges hate it and try to suppress it, but it is a fact.
It is clearly a fact in criminal cases-- a jury can acquit no matter how strong the evidence (as the O.J. jury did), and there is nothing the judge or prosecutor can do about it. (Although, since 1895, lawyers in federal trials have not been allowed to tell the jury they have this power.)
But this was a civil case, and there has never been a real power of jury nullification in civil cases-- even in the 1700s, there were things such as directed verdicts, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and so forth. That's why the Seventh Amendment says that, in civil cases, "no fact tried by a jury shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law"-- common law already provided ways to overturn civil jury verdicts if the jury didn't follow the law.
I am sorry, you are wrong. Read the constitution again. We have the right to jury nulification. Tell your fairy tales to someone else.
Then you should be able to quote the language that says so. Or is it one of those "emanantions from penumbras"?
How dumb not to take the plea bargain when she knew she was wrong? Bet she is a liberal.
It's not there, or you could quote it.
End of argument, think what you want, I know what is true!!! Last reply from me you will get.Period.
Nice way of admitting you're wrong.
LOL! Well played.
There are a number of exceptions in the Bankruptcy Code to the rule that judgments can be discharged. One is for "willful and malicious" conduct, which may well apply here.
I heard on Fox this morning they were the "one sheet per wipe" Cheryl Crow.
She ought to be fined just for that!
Amen!!!
Oh, no problem, I appreciate you pinging the list for me. I was mainly concerned that I had done something that caused my first to go random. ;-)
Gee, thanks jerkwad! I’m quite sure you fit the definition now.
Just because I live here doesn’t mean I agree with this ruling. The RIAA is power mad and out to prove something here. they’ve succeeded; now we know that they have the fascist court system behind them and will use it with impunity to grossly over exaggerate their damages and come up with egregious fines to levy on people who can’t possibly pay them.
I've never downloaded illegally, and wouldn't do so even if the RIAA weren't a bunch of thugs.
But I'll comment that -if- I did, the regime you outline above is more work and time than paying for the damn song, IMO! ;-)
I subscribe to eMusic.com, which has most of what I want, and it's only about 25 cents per track.
IMO it isn’t about the music but the gross abuse of power. I too am a musician and do have a “vested interest” but I abhor the heavy-handed tactics employed against citizens. Why is the defendant never the massive “Warez” server hosts? Why is is always some poor schmuck who left their kids unattended and they D/L’d some crappy Brittaney Spears or Metallica?
They are are targeting their victims deliberately and callously in an effort to spread fear, not respect. “F” them, their clients, and their products.
My use of computers and the Internet reflect my conduct in life in general - leave as small a footprint as possible against would-be fascists. Walk softly and carry a persona thermonuclear device.
While I probably wouldn’t advise it for everyone, it has worked for me. Your mileage may vary...
Except for a very very chosen few this is how I get mine as well. Occasionally a download or two and I will buy a brand new copy of the new Star Trek and the new Harry Potter when they are available.
BTW I'm in the music biz and this ruling is loads of Bull****!
Its just an outdated business model trying to hang on to its choke hold on the distribution system. As more and more Musicians forgo the "Music Industry" and go direct to the consumer via tunecore and discmakers and such you will see the RIAA's power diminish. They know that the game is up they are just trying to hang on to control as long as possible.
Good, with this money and many more cases like it maybe they’ll be able to re-open all the Virgin MegaStores that recently went out of business due to the rampant theives stealing music on the internet these days. Honest people that prefer brick and mortar stores need to be able to buy their music somewhere, after all.
> Good, with this money and many more cases like it maybe they’ll be able to re-open all the Virgin MegaStores that recently went out of business due to the rampant theives stealing music on the internet these days. Honest people that prefer brick and mortar stores need to be able to buy their music somewhere, after all.
Well, maybe, but I suspect this money will never get collected -- I doubt that woman would see $2M in her entire lifetime. But that's an aside. Let me offer this for your consideration:
The music industry suffered the past decade because after CDs got popular many years ago, they did three things that were stupid, marketing-wise:
People realized they could get the songs they wanted as "singles" again, by downloading tracks from the internet. No more paying $15 for a couple of desired songs.Now think. Suppose the RIAA et al had a brain in their head instead of greed and inertia. They would have seen this as the huge opportunity it was, and immediately started selling high-quality single tracks at $1-$2 each. They would have been the vanguard of this new era, instead of playing catch-up a decade later after huge damage was done.Now, it -happened- that the MP3s -- crappy ones at low bit rates -- were initially made available for free because it was wild-west mentality. But the RIAA closed their eyes to the opportunity the low-fi freebies presented them.
But NOOOO-O-O-OOO, they can't change their business model, that's where their limos and coke comes from...
I feel sorry for the many brick-and-mortar stores that went out of business because the recording industry were a bunch of lame idiots.
I feel no sympathy whatsoever for the RIAA and their lawyers. They can rot in hell for their stupidity and greed.
As to where I buy my music, I buy real, new CDs from places like Amazon, and I subscribe to legal download services like eMusic.com. I have never downloaded illegally, nor shared, nor would I or will I ever do so.
Downloading copyrighted material without paying for it is not exactly "stealing" (but that's a different argument), but it IS wrong and punishable. And sharing what you've downloaded is WAY wrong and severely punishable.
This woman, who was clearly guilty as hell, may be a martyr to some, but not to me. She was caught doing something wrong, and she should pay for that.
What I object to is the outlandish size of the fine. It's just stupid -- it's laughable and makes the case a cause celebre for the everything-should-be-freetards.
Worse, no artist, recording engineer, distributor, or brick-and-mortar store owner will ever see a penny of it. Anything they collect will go to lawyers and RIAA executive coke spoons. Feh, a pox on all of 'em.
I listend to legal music, free of worry, and as a lifelong musician (by avocation) I feel that's the right thing to do for my fellow musicians as well.
You apparently never went to one of those now defunct Virgin MegaStores.
2. They put out crappier and crapper music
Then why is it still being stolen so much?
3. When MP3 technology appeared out in the late 90's...
Yeah well technology to rip DVD's is available now too but that doesn't mean it's not stealing to download a free movie from the internet rather than pay for a legal copy.
But NOOOO-O-O-OOO, they can't change their business model, that's where their limos and coke comes from...
You're off in left field on this, it's their product and they can sell it how they like. If you think you can create a better product and sell it for less you should go into business and compete and become the next millionaire, but stealing their product (or supporting the thieves who have) because you don't like the terms is not a legitimate excuse.
What I object to is the outlandish size of the fine.
No you've already made it clear you don't think they should be able to charge what they want for their product, or distribute it how they want either. But regarding the fine, if they could recoup the losses from everyone who's been stealing the fines wouldn't be so heavy on those that are caught. But since that's not physically possible, the laws are setup to serve as a deterrent to keep others from stealing.
Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.
FReegards.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.