RIAA Defendant Appeals $220K Fine
The trials and tribulations just don't stop for RIAA lawsuit defendant Jammie Thomas -- or at least the trials, anyway. Ms. Thomas has officially filed her appeal to the findings of the lawsuit brought against her for illegal file sharing, citing "unconstitutionally excessive" damages. Jammie is asking that the RIAA fine her any actual damages it suffered rather than the seemingly arbitrary amount of $220,000, which she was earlier ordered to pay.This appeal is certainly a step back from her initial pledge to fight the notion that simply sharing a song on a P2P network like Kazaa is actually illegal. Now, it seems her plan is simply to reduce the fine that she was assessed by the court. Given the feelings of one juror in the case, who called her a liar and that her "defense sucked," perhaps this is the smartest move.
Thomas' idea of fair? $151.20.
From Slashdot
Related Links:
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
FightingBackURNext @ Oct 16th 2007 5:03PM
I went off and surfed the internet and now, I'm back--still pissed about such ridiculous fines. A note to the RIAA. When you seek such ridiculous fines, the ONLY thing it encourages is people to start selling mixed CDs with YOUR music on it, to turn a profit, to be ABLE to AFFORD the fines. Get what I'm saying? You are encouraging a black market scenario with your actions.....anyone have Timberlake's new one? I have money...
Christopher Kidwell @ Oct 17th 2007 4:57AM
Frankly, that is the fine that is fair. That is the selling amount of all the songs that she was convicted of 'stealing' or 'offering for download' on iTunes.
In fact, that is MORE than all those songs on iTunes, since each one is $.99.
People are simply getting tired of sharing songs being called 'copyright infringement'. For bleep's sake, we have been sharing recordings off the radio for years, we have been sharing CD's between homes for years, etc. etc. etc.
It's time to realize that the RIAA is trying to prop up a dying business model by suing their customers, and that does not work in the slightest.
Susan @ Oct 20th 2007 6:10AM
While I believe that the RIAA have brought a lot of this on themselves by consistently over- pricing cds for far too long, I also think there are too many people in this country who have absolutely no respect for intellectual property. Perhaps they will now start to understand that music is NOT free, unless the copyright owners
decide that it should be. Musicians, like anybody else, need to earn a living and that should be respected.
chris goodrich @ Jan 22nd 2008 8:04PM
The RIAA is like King Canute who sat on the beach firmly believing he could turn back the tide. They were offered the opportunity to sit down with the P2P networks four years ago. They refused. Since then they have lost sales and market share and received mere pittances in legal judgements compared to the monies they have paid their legal teams. Great going guys. The tide is still coming in!
sali @ Jan 23rd 2008 12:34AM
I´m a musician. I am on her side though. and Us musicians were never on the side of the labels anyway. They are just very dirty businessmen. If they cared anything about art and artists, would the industry really be full of tosh like Britney Spears. They have always ripped us off. Give that mney back you thieves.
OldSchooling @ Jan 24th 2008 8:28AM
No matter how you slice it the fine was EXCESSIVE
Marcia Lynn Neil @ Mar 15th 2008 12:13AM
Some group is demonstrating a prejudice, such as 'Let's entrap Jammie Thomas'. Decades ago, a cafe in San Francisco, CA, presented a stage show using instrument-type props that had stuff from 'around the house' such as twine and cotton string. The performers strummed and twanged but no music came forth. One of the people in the audience was named James Thomas, a nice guy trying to relax after work. The show was memorable but not recordable, and a family joke has probably been used to pin the defendent.