[Jenn]

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial
By JOSHUA FREED * 10 hours ago
DULUTH, Minn. (AP) ‹ The recording industry hopes $222,000 will be
enough to dissuade music lovers from downloading songs from the Internet
without paying for them. That's the amount a federal jury ordered a
Minnesota woman to pay for sharing copyrighted music online.
"This does send a message, I hope, that downloading and distributing our
recordings is not OK," Richard Gabriel, the lead attorney for the music
companies that sued the woman, said Thursday after the three-day civil
trial in this city on the shore of Lake Superior.
In closing arguments he had told the jury, "I only ask that you consider
that the need for deterrence here is great."
Jammie Thomas, 30, a single mother from Brainerd, was ordered to pay the
six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they
focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.
It was the first time one of the industry's lawsuits against individual
downloaders had gone to trial. Many other defendants have settled by
paying the companies a few thousand dollars, but Thomas decided she
would take them on and maintained she had done nothing wrong.
"She was in tears. She's devastated," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder,
told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to
paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her
paycheck garnished for the rest of her life."
Toder said the plaintiff's attorney fees are automatically awarded in
such judgments under copyright law, meaning Thomas could actually owe as
much as a half-million dollars. However, he said he suspects the record
companies "will probably be people we can deal with."
Gabriel said no decision had yet been made about what the record
companies would do, if anything, to pursue collecting the money from
Thomas.
The record companies accused Thomas of downloading the songs without
permission and offering them online through a Kazaa file-sharing
account. Thomas denied wrongdoing and testified that she didn't have a
Kazaa account.
Since 2003, record companies have filed some 26,000 lawsuits over
file-sharing, which has hurt sales because it allows people to get music
for free instead of paying for recordings in stores.
During the trial, the record companies presented evidence they said
showed the copyrighted songs were offered by a Kazaa user under the name
"tereastarr." Their witnesses, including officials from an Internet
provider and a security firm, testified that the Internet address used
by "tereastarr" belonged to Thomas.
Toder said in his closing argument that the companies never proved
"Jammie Thomas, a human being, got on her keyboard and sent out these
things."
"We don't know what happened," Toder told jurors. "All we know is that
Jammie Thomas didn't do this."
Copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement,
or up to $150,000 if the violation was "willful." Jurors ruled that
Thomas' infringement was willful but awarded damages in a middle range;
Gabriel said they did not explain the amount to attorneys afterward.
Jurors left the courthouse without commenting.
Before the verdict, an official with an industry trade group said he was
surprised it had taken so long for one of the industry's lawsuits
against individual downloaders to come to trial.
Illegal downloads have "become business as usual. Nobody really thinks
about it," said Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry
Association of America, which coordinates the lawsuits. "This case has
put it back in the news. Win or lose, people will understand that we are
out there trying to protect our rights."
Thomas' testimony was complicated by the fact that she had replaced her
computer's hard drive after the sharing was alleged to have taken place
‹ and later than she said in a deposition before trial.
The hard drive in question was not presented at trial by either party.
The record companies said Thomas was sent an instant message in February
2005 warning her that she was violating copyright law. Her hard drive
was replaced the following month, not in 2004 as she said in the
deposition.
"I don't think the jury believed my client regarding the events
concerning the replacement of the hard drive," Toder said.
The record companies involved in the lawsuit are Sony BMG, Arista
Records LLC, Interscope Records, UMG Recordings Inc., Capitol Records
Inc. and Warner Bros. Records Inc.
On the Net:
€ RIAA: http://www.riaa.com

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot yapped:

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.

Do you understand the phrase "as specified in the statute"?

God, you're stupid. Why haven't you snuffed yourself already?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 5, 11:33 am, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney
and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

2pid 'thinks' he is qualified to judge on nearly any topic. And he
feels qualified to call somebody else an idiot!

Isn't that ironic? He's the least qualified to judge about anything
requiring a brain. That limits 2pid to judging what cereal is best for
breakfast. There is no bigger idiot on the face of the Earth. Lol!

And have you noticed how willing 2pid is to kill those who disagree
with him? Whatever you do, do not get on the bad side of this 'brave,'
'moral' beacon of hope to us all. LoL!

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 5, 1:30 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 10:26 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .

net wrote:
The Idiot yapped:

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial
This penalty is just plain ridiculous.

Do you understand the phrase "as specified in the statute"?

You never heard of a stupid statute?

You never heard of "intellectual property"?

But in direct answer to your question, there are dumb statutes, like
the ones making mercy killings illegal.

Cuz my continued existence is obviously a source of frustration to
you.
God must have sent me to irritate you and apparently, he isn't
finished
with you.

So we learn that
2pid is
really
not after 'discussion' after all.No, it seems that
he
merely wants to be a nuisance. No
wonder he doesn't 'mind'
looking stupid at
each turn.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 5, 2:33 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 12:29 pm, Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!





wrote:
On Oct 5, 1:30 pm, ScottW wrote:

On Oct 5, 10:26 am, George M. Middius cmndr _ george @ comcast .

net wrote:
The Idiot yapped:

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial
This penalty is just plain ridiculous.

Do you understand the phrase "as specified in the statute"?

You never heard of a stupid statute?

You never heard of "intellectual property"?

But in direct answer to your question, there are dumb statutes, like
the ones making mercy killings illegal.

Cuz my continued existence is obviously a source of frustration to
you.
God must have sent me to irritate you and apparently, he isn't
finished
with you.

So we learn that
2pid is
really
not after 'discussion' after all.No, it seems that
he
merely wants to be a nuisance.

A nuisance to the detractors of discussion.....like you.

Let's discuss, 2pid! By all means!

You are still on the General's reposrt about Iraq, recently crowing
about how maybe more people in the US understood it, or something like
that.

Let's 'discuss' the political situation in Iraq which renders any
military success moot.

It's a critical point, one that anybody (with a 'brain") would see as
the crux of the biscuit. Maybe we should 'discuss' why you've avoided
that single question for over a month.

Whan someone chooses to ignore the single most important point of a
'discussion,' who is actually a "detractor of discussion"? LoL!

Imbecile.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot admits he's in it purely for spite.

Why haven't you snuffed yourself already?

Cuz my continued existence is obviously a source of frustration to
you.

How refreshing to get a frank admission from you.

BTW, my feeling about you is not frustration. It's revulsion. Does that
make your little spite-driven motor whir away?

[Jenn]

In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...01/bcnradio101.
xml

I heard about this. Interesting. We'll see if they do it twice.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 5, 4:13 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

Because they disagree with 2pid's POV. Game, set, match.

and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Because they're wrong, wrong, wrong. If you can't keep up with me I
cannot bother to respond.

As it turns out, though, 2pid really disagrees with the law, and wants
the judge and jury to legislate from the bench. Ironic, huh? LoL!

Our poor 2pid is so filled with inner conflict...

[Jenn]

In article .com,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 5, 2:13 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

All they had was an IP and Kaazu UserID.
No physical evidence that it was her computer and
no evidence she intentionally made the music available.
Details are limited but if she didn't buy the music and put
it on her comp, only downloaded and left it in the share
directory to be passed on...is she really quilty of sharing
copyrighted music?

Yes. She downloaded the music illegally. It's clear when you download,
install, and register at Kazaa that the default directory allows that
music to be shared.

Illegal downloading but not the
intentional sharing which is the default status of
installing Kaaza.

You copy all your CD to a hard drive and some
hacker busts into your system and tells all
his hacker buddies....you're guilty.

No one "busted" into her system.



and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.

The jury had nothing to do with that.

[Jenn]

In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 5, 2:52 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,





ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:13 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g..._RTmq1nAD8S2RF
4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

All they had was an IP and Kaazu UserID.
No physical evidence that it was her computer and
no evidence she intentionally made the music available.
Details are limited but if she didn't buy the music and put
it on her comp, only downloaded and left it in the share
directory to be passed on...is she really quilty of sharing
copyrighted music?

Yes. She downloaded the music illegally.

But that wasn't what she was convicted of IIUC.

Seems true.


It's clear when you download,
install, and register at Kazaa that the default directory allows that
music to be shared.

You sound experienced. Downloading much?

As it's a huge issue among my students, I once went to the site and
downloaded the software to see how it works. I've never downloaded
anything illegally.
Anyway, what I wrote above is true it is clear when you join what
you are doing and how it works.



Illegal downloading but not the
intentional sharing which is the default status of
installing Kaaza.

You copy all your CD to a hard drive and some
hacker busts into your system and tells all
his hacker buddies....you're guilty.

No one "busted" into her system.

Kaaza did.

No. Again, they make it clear that the default directory is a "shared
music" folder. If you simply rip your own CDs to any other folder
besides "shared music", it's not available to those who "shaaarrrreee"
with you.





and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.

The jury had nothing to do with that.

Then its the judge.

There you go. So, if the penalties were those prescribed by law...?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 5, 4:29 pm, ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:13 pm, Jenn wrote:

In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...mq1nAD8S2RF4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

All they had was an IP and Kaazu UserID.
No physical evidence that it was her computer and
no evidence she intentionally made the music available.
Details are limited but if she didn't buy the music and put
it on her comp, only downloaded and left it in the share
directory to be passed on...is she really quilty of sharing
copyrighted music? Illegal downloading but not the
intentional sharing which is the default status of
installing Kaaza.

You copy all your CD to a hard drive and some
hacker busts into your system and tells all
his hacker buddies....you're guilty.

Do you really see that as analogous? Wow.

So if someone broke into a library and stole CDs, the library is
guilty of piracy?

BTW, 2pid, you imply that you paid for your CD, then burned it onto
your hard drive. I don't think these people are buying very many CDs.

and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.
Is it her burden to be the vehicle of RIAA warnings?

Are you suggesting there was bribery?

[Jenn]

In article ,
"ScottW" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message

...
In article . com,
ScottW wrote:

On Oct 5, 2:52 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article .com,





ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 2:13 pm, Jenn wrote:
In article . com,

ScottW wrote:
On Oct 5, 7:32 am, Jenn
wrote:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...8i0_RTmq1nAD8S
2RF
4OM

Record Companies Win Music Sharing Trial

This penalty is just plain ridiculous.
Is there a defense fund for her appeal?
How about a fine for her incompetent attorney

In what way is he incompetent?

All they had was an IP and Kaazu UserID.
No physical evidence that it was her computer and
no evidence she intentionally made the music available.
Details are limited but if she didn't buy the music and put
it on her comp, only downloaded and left it in the share
directory to be passed on...is she really quilty of sharing
copyrighted music?

Yes. She downloaded the music illegally.

But that wasn't what she was convicted of IIUC.

Seems true.


It's clear when you download,
install, and register at Kazaa that the default directory allows that
music to be shared.

You sound experienced. Downloading much?

As it's a huge issue among my students, I once went to the site and
downloaded the software to see how it works. I've never downloaded
anything illegally.
Anyway, what I wrote above is true it is clear when you join what
you are doing and how it works.



Illegal downloading but not the
intentional sharing which is the default status of
installing Kaaza.

You copy all your CD to a hard drive and some
hacker busts into your system and tells all
his hacker buddies....you're guilty.

No one "busted" into her system.

Kaaza did.

No. Again, they make it clear that the default directory is a "shared
music" folder. If you simply rip your own CDs to any other folder
besides "shared music", it's not available to those who "shaaarrrreee"
with you.

It's not clear this women did any ripping.

Well, she got rid of the evidence by replacing her hard drive.


My PC has a shared documents folder that isn't open to world.
Just being "shared" doesn't mean much.
Was she the only user of her PC? Did she do the Kaaza install?

Her computer was password protected.


If I put music on my shared docs folder and other users of my
PC copied it to their private folders on the same pc...am I guilty?

Having music on your computer doesn't imply that they are there to give
to others. Downloading the software, agreeing to the terms of service,
and logging onto a P2P service is granting permission to take the files.







and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.

The jury had nothing to do with that.

Then its the judge.

There you go. So, if the penalties were those prescribed by law...?

Congress was bought by the record companies.

Evidence?

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Oct 7, 11:07 am, "ScottW" wrote:
"Jenn" wrote in message

ScottW wrote:

No. Again, they make it clear that the default directory is a "shared
music" folder. If you simply rip your own CDs to any other folder
besides "shared music", it's not available to those who "shaaarrrreee"
with you.

It's not clear this women did any ripping.

What is clear, 2pid, is that this woman had software downloaded on her
computer, which she did not claim was downloaded by anybody else,
which automatically shared files she downloaded with others.

That's illegal, y'know...

My PC has a shared documents folder that isn't open to world.
Just being "shared" doesn't mean much.
Was she the only user of her PC? Did she do the Kaaza install?

If I put music on my shared docs folder and other users of my
PC copied it to their private folders on the same pc...am I guilty?

I don't know, 2pid. Is that what she claimed? All I saw was, "We don't
know how this happened, but it isn't her fault."

Why do you insist on creating defenses for people's behavior that they
themselves do not use?

Lol!

and a lynching for the idiots on the jury.

In what way do you disagree with them?

Ridiculous penalties designed to warn others.

The jury had nothing to do with that.

Then its the judge.

There you go. So, if the penalties were those prescribed by law...?

Congress was bought by the record companies.

Ah, it's a conspiracy. Why didn't you just say so? Lol!

And therefore, judges and juries should legislate from the bench.

Thank you for your participation in this 'discussion.' Lol!

[Clyde Slick]

On 7 Oct, 18:07, "ScottW" wrote:


Congress was bought by the record companies.

ScottW

rip off alert!

it's not the best Congress money can buy.

[George M. Middius]

Clyde Slick said:

Congress was bought by the record companies.

rip off alert!
it's not the best Congress money can buy.

When was the last time you heard a special interest group complaining that
their custom-designed legislation wasn't satisfactory?