World's dumbest file-sharer mulls appeal

HarryT · 10-11-2007, 05:27 AM

Story from The Register

Ironically-named P2P user Jammie Thomas, who was fined $220,000 for copyright infringement in a case brought by the RIAA last week, wants to appeal the Minnesota jury's verdict.

The lady is certainly unlucky. But is she ill-advised by her attorney Brian Toder - or is she just incredibly stupid? You decide:

Jammie Thomas used one hard drive for Kazaa... but sent a different one to the prosecution. Amazingly, they noticed.
Doh!
Thomas's attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn't using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem's MAC address to the Kazaa traffic.
Doh!
Jammie Thomas carefully covered her tracks - by using the same login name for Kazaa that she uses for all her email, online shopping, and MySpace account.
Doh!

The blue-collar jury in Duluth wasn't impressed by the dissembling, and a juror told WiReD that the fine they imposed reflected her dishonest defence.

"Her defense sucked... I don't know what the fuck she was thinking, to tell you the truth," said 38-year-old steel worker Michael Hegg.

"She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding'."

As if Thomas hasn't had enough bad legal advice already - now the preppie lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) want to "help out".

The EFF reckons that making files available isn't "making available" if er... no one downloads them. And they reckon that the copyright act only applies to physical objects. That's genius! 1983 sure is shaping up to be an interesting year...

An appeal fund has been set up for Ms Thomas, but perhaps a nomination for the Darwin Awards might be more appropriate?

The RIAA wants to put the fear of prosecution into internet users - but millions of P2Pers are cheerfully carrying on downloading today, knowing that their chances of being caught for copyright infringement are negligible.

What a pity that a few retarded bloggers want to connive with the RIAA in this ridiculous pantomime.

The two sides really do deserve each other.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 05-19-2008, 01:46 PM

BTW: If no one else has heard, I understand Jammie Thomas may be given a new trial. Apparently, the judge now feels he was in error when he told the jury that "making a file available for download" automatically constituted wrongdoing, without an actual file being downloaded. However, the RIAA has already stated that they downloaded the music files as proof of her putting them there, making the distinction irrelevant...

wallcraft · 05-19-2008, 02:01 PM

The argument against RIAA downloads serving as proof is that it isn't a copyright violation for the owners of the copyright to download the file - it has to be downloaded by someone who isn't authorized. This is transparently an attempt to make life much harder for the RIAA, because almost everyone thinks they are gangsters at heart, but so far it seems to be working.

Shaggy · 05-19-2008, 03:27 PM

Harry, I couldn't find the article you're referring to from the link. Is the rest of the post your words, or just a direct quote from the article? Either way, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of what is going on with the Thomas case. It sounds like it was written by a pro-RIAA cheerleader with very little understanding of the details.

Madam Broshkina · 05-19-2008, 04:32 PM

Here is the link to the article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...loser_appeals/

HarryT · 05-20-2008, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Harry, I couldn't find the article you're referring to from the link. Is the rest of the post your words, or just a direct quote from the article? Either way, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of what is going on with the Thomas case. It sounds like it was written by a pro-RIAA cheerleader with very little understanding of the details.

A direct quote. "The Register" has a rather "ironic" style when discussing issues like this. I think they feel that neither side has the "moral high-ground".

Ervserver · 05-20-2008, 11:32 AM

THE RIAA has been losing some cases lately and even ordered to pay court costs

astra · 05-20-2008, 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ervserver

THE RIAA has been losing some cases lately and even ordered to pay court costs

Wonderful news!

Sparrow · 09-25-2008, 02:00 PM

Thomas has been granted a retrial according to:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331204,00.asp

bill_mchale · 09-25-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Story from The Register

[*]Thomas's attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn't using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem's MAC address to the Kazaa traffic.
Doh!

Just a minor nitpick, but actually, matching the MAC address of her cable modem does not prove that someone else wasn't using it since the cable modem would be positioned between any Wi-Fi or other routers and her computer. That being said, with no Wi-Fi, it does limit the abuse to her house... and all the other evidence seems to point to her guilt.. so it is just a minor nitpick.

--
Bill

Shaggy · 09-25-2008, 02:35 PM

The main reason she was given a new trial was that the RIAA could not prove that anyone actually downloaded any of the songs from her. They told the judge that other jurisdictions had ruled that "making available" (IE just the act of having a song in her shared directory) was enough to count as copyright infringement, and the judge passed that information on to the jury.

However, it turns out that not only is the RIAA incorrect when they made that statement (actual distribution is required for copyright infringement), but that they even knew that it had been already ruled against them in a higher court. In other words, the RIAA was blatantly lying to the judge in order to try to get him to prejudice the jury in their favor.

It's not at all surprising that the judge granted her a new trial when he found out. What is surprising is that action has not been taken against the RIAA's lawyers for lying to the judge.

10-11-2007, 05:27 AM	#1
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	World's dumbest file-sharer mulls appeal Story from The Register Ironically-named P2P user Jammie Thomas, who was fined $220,000 for copyright infringement in a case brought by the RIAA last week, wants to appeal the Minnesota jury's verdict. The lady is certainly unlucky. But is she ill-advised by her attorney Brian Toder - or is she just incredibly stupid? You decide: Jammie Thomas used one hard drive for Kazaa... but sent a different one to the prosecution. Amazingly, they noticed. Doh! Thomas's attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn't using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem's MAC address to the Kazaa traffic. Doh! Jammie Thomas carefully covered her tracks - by using the same login name for Kazaa that she uses for all her email, online shopping, and MySpace account. Doh! The blue-collar jury in Duluth wasn't impressed by the dissembling, and a juror told WiReD that the fine they imposed reflected her dishonest defence. "Her defense sucked... I don't know what the fuck she was thinking, to tell you the truth," said 38-year-old steel worker Michael Hegg. "She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding'." As if Thomas hasn't had enough bad legal advice already - now the preppie lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) want to "help out". The EFF reckons that making files available isn't "making available" if er... no one downloads them. And they reckon that the copyright act only applies to physical objects. That's genius! 1983 sure is shaping up to be an interesting year... An appeal fund has been set up for Ms Thomas, but perhaps a nomination for the Darwin Awards might be more appropriate? The RIAA wants to put the fear of prosecution into internet users - but millions of P2Pers are cheerfully carrying on downloading today, knowing that their chances of being caught for copyright infringement are negligible. What a pity that a few retarded bloggers want to connive with the RIAA in this ridiculous pantomime. The two sides really do deserve each other.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Seriously thoughtful A personal appeal!	jzeng	Lounge	28	05-18-2010 12:01 AM
Barnes & Noble mulls Android SDK for Nook, says web browser "if readers want it"	sforce	News	15	10-22-2009 03:25 AM
Short Fiction Conrad, Joseph: The Secret Sharer, v.1, 18 Dec 2007.	Patricia	BBeB/LRF Books	1	12-18-2007 01:22 PM
Short Fiction Conrad, Joseph: The Secret Sharer, v.1, 18 Dec 2007.	Patricia	IMP Books	0	12-17-2007 08:58 PM
Short Fiction Conrad, Joseph: The Secret Sharer, v.1, 18 Dec 2007.	Patricia	Kindle Books	0	12-17-2007 08:56 PM

05-19-2008, 01:46 PM	#2
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	BTW: If no one else has heard, I understand Jammie Thomas may be given a new trial. Apparently, the judge now feels he was in error when he told the jury that "making a file available for download" automatically constituted wrongdoing, without an actual file being downloaded. However, the RIAA has already stated that they downloaded the music files as proof of her putting them there, making the distinction irrelevant...

05-19-2008, 02:01 PM	#3
wallcraft reader Posts: 6,977 Karma: 5183568 Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Mississippi, USA Device: Kindle 3, Kobo Glo HD	The argument against RIAA downloads serving as proof is that it isn't a copyright violation for the owners of the copyright to download the file - it has to be downloaded by someone who isn't authorized. This is transparently an attempt to make life much harder for the RIAA, because almost everyone thinks they are gangsters at heart, but so far it seems to be working.

05-19-2008, 03:27 PM	#4
Shaggy Wizard Posts: 4,293 Karma: 529619 Join Date: May 2007 Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG	Harry, I couldn't find the article you're referring to from the link. Is the rest of the post your words, or just a direct quote from the article? Either way, it shows an extreme lack of understanding of what is going on with the Thomas case. It sounds like it was written by a pro-RIAA cheerleader with very little understanding of the details.

05-19-2008, 04:32 PM	#5
Madam Broshkina Manic Do Fuse Posts: 2,312 Karma: 3325462 Join Date: Oct 2006 Device: Sony 500, 505, 350, Kindle 3, DXG, nook, Irex DR800SG, iPad	Here is the link to the article. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/10...loser_appeals/

05-20-2008, 11:32 AM	#7
Ervserver Wizard Posts: 2,624 Karma: 1008294 Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Iowa, USA Device: Nook Simple Touch	THE RIAA has been losing some cases lately and even ordered to pay court costs

09-25-2008, 02:00 PM	#9
Sparrow Wizard Posts: 4,395 Karma: 1358132 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: UK Device: Palm TX, CyBook Gen3	Thomas has been granted a retrial according to: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2331204,00.asp

09-25-2008, 02:35 PM	#11
Shaggy Wizard Posts: 4,293 Karma: 529619 Join Date: May 2007 Device: iRex iLiad, DR800SG	The main reason she was given a new trial was that the RIAA could not prove that anyone actually downloaded any of the songs from her. They told the judge that other jurisdictions had ruled that "making available" (IE just the act of having a song in her shared directory) was enough to count as copyright infringement, and the judge passed that information on to the jury. However, it turns out that not only is the RIAA incorrect when they made that statement (actual distribution is required for copyright infringement), but that they even knew that it had been already ruled against them in a higher court. In other words, the RIAA was blatantly lying to the judge in order to try to get him to prejudice the jury in their favor. It's not at all surprising that the judge granted her a new trial when he found out. What is surprising is that action has not been taken against the RIAA's lawyers for lying to the judge.

Advert

Advert