DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first file-sharing case to go before a jury.

Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.

They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith and others.

After the verdict was read, Thomas and her attorney left the courthouse without comment. The jurors also declined to talk to reporters.

The verdict, coming after two days of testimony and about five hours of deliberations, was a mixed victory for the RIAA, which has brought more than 20,000 lawsuits in the last four years as part of its zero-tolerance policy against pirating. The outcome is likely to embolden the RIAA, which began targeting individuals in lawsuits after concluding the legal system could not keep pace with the ever growing number of file-sharing sites and services.

Still, it's unlikely the RIAA's courtroom victory will translate into a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits -- the majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are pending -- the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.

According to BigChampagne, an online measuring service, the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals.

At the time, BigChampagne says, there were about 3.8 million file sharers trading over the internet at a given moment. Now, the group has measured a record 9 million users trading at the same time. Roughly 70 percent of trading involves digital music, according to BigChampagne.

The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.

In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder.

Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.

Thomas maintained that she was not the Kazaa user "Tereastarr," whose files were detected by RIAA's investigators. Her attorney speculated to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, zombie, drone and other attacks.

The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 -- the evening in question -- did not become evidence in the case.

According to testimony, Thomas replaced her hard drive weeks after RIAA investigators accessed her share file and discovered 1,702 files. The industry sued on just 24 of those files.

More to come ...

(Courtroom sketch: Wired News/ Cate Whittemore

Hmmm. Not what I was hoping for. But after following the case, the burden of proof was not on her side. I think the RIAA cherrypicked this one.

Totally sucks

The war's over. Wormer dropped the big one.

Well I guess that now, people are actually going to have to go out and BUY all of those Journey albums that they've been hungerin' for, for all these years...

I guess that means that sharing music is a crime after all. ok then, now they can treat it like the war on drugs and the war on terrorism and the war on gangs and the war on sixth graders with butter knives in their lunch boxes and expect about the same amount of success.

fools.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. This is as much about corruption in the legal industry as it is anything else. I wonder if the "judge" or any of the slack-mouth jurors could download a lossless file to save their lives. Well, there will hopefully be a revolution in this country against the disgusting legal profession terrorizing instead of protecting sitizens. Until then, grab your ankles.

the burden of proof was not on her side

She didn't have to prove anything, the burden of proof was on the RIAA, who did not have to prove that a) she had a file-sharing program, b) she committed any specific act, or c) that anyone actually downloaded anything from her or that she downloaded anything from anyone else.

So the RIAA didn't have to prove anything, either.

The amazing part is that they found 12 people (decision had to be unanimous) so uninformed that they couldn't see through the bullshit.

Thanks to this verdict, I have lost all faith in our legal system and country. I am so disheartened by this, I may never listen to music again. I quit buying tainted RIAA product when Napster was sued, but now...after this...I think listening to music would just make me sick to my stomach. I'll be driving to work in silence from now on. I give up. They win. I'm done.

Thank you, RIAA, for ruining music for me and the rest of the people of the world.

Prediction - overturned on appeal.

I hope you're right, leflaw. I read another account of this today, and it seems that the jurors weren't exactly ecstatic or attentive, especially when the evidence got kind of technical-- and in the other story, the new hard drive actually was bought BEFORE the RIAA served the notice. I believe a basic lack of understanding on the part of the jurors played a very large role in this decision.

Lack of understanding AND lack of logic.

I'm sorry, but some of you are ignoring the facts. I'm not saying the judgment is just. The judgment is crazy. However, the verdict seems reasonable, given the evidence.

Fact 1: There was a correlation between the artists currently on her hard drive and the artists songs being shared by KaZaa username "tereastarr"

Fact 2: This woman used the username "tereastarr" to post on the Recording Industry vs. The People website, and also on match.com and pogo.com.

Unless you want to believe that the RIAA fabricated this KaZaa user, the only reasonable inference is that this woman was indeed using KaZaa under that name.

This lady is an idiot, or a masochist, or something. Her lawyer was apparently a fool. I believe this lady probably perjured herself in claiming never to have used KaZaa. It is hard to come to any other logical conclusion.

So let's face it, folks. This woman should never have gone to trial. She should have taken her lumps with the settlement thugs.

The RIAA had sufficient evidence to connect this woman to the download folder in question. Not beyond reasonable doubt, but this is a civil case. The RIAA was very smart not to drop this case. They knew that the evidence connected the username to this defendant. It is not the jurors who lack judgment.

Now, as I said, the judgment is ridiculous. It is totally out of proportion to the offense. Second, the whole case is predicated on "making available" being equivalent with actually distributing the files. There was no evidence files were actually distributed. But the instructions to the jury were that making available was equivalent to distribution. I disagree with this, but whaddya gonna do? We can't control what the judges rule.

It is time we stop with the wishful thinking. This woman was the wrong person to lead the charge against the RIAA. This is not the RIAA's fault. She wanted to go to trial. They were glad to oblige this stupid person.

Couldn't we just find an innocent person to go to trial and take the bastards to the cleaners? I think that has to be a prerequisite -- not pick someone for whom the circumstantial evidence strongly points to her guilt.

Gaaaaah!

Very frustrating for now, but let's hope this isn't over, and hopefullly she'll go for the appeal.

Yeah, that's beyond dispute.
I should have prefaced my remarks with a caveat of how
I was taking on an issue with just one aspect of the whole episode: the spokeswoman who claimed mucho money lost by the labels was due to music piracy on the internet. I launched into a logic litany because this provided an opportunity to hit hard at what I perceive as a profound lack of critical thinking skills on the part of most Americans.
Actually, I didn't hold out much hope for the defendent. Too bad there couldn't have been a better case than this one to go to court. This sort of thing can establish legal precedence for the cartel. You recall the "making available" ruling two summers ago and the withering effect it had.

Regarding: "Yeah, that's beyond dispute."
I was responding to autodidact.

Regarding the hope of a reversal through appeal:
not likely; too much stuff on the side of the RIAA.
On what compelling basis would it ostensibly be overturned?

I take note of the fact that this article that we're commenting under is headed ". . .against downloader".
However, this is a case against making files available for downloading by others (in other words, having copyright files in a shared folder that is in an active upload status).
The RIAA targets uploaders, not downloaders. Thus, the title of this article is in error.

Hey LIBERALS- Time to wakeup on the legal system in this country. It's time to rope these lawyers and politicians in.

Massively "REGULATE" the legal system (as some like to regulate every other industry..), and send back POWER TO THE STATES.. so we can no longer live under federal tyranny!

I am right-wing, conservative, libertarian.. and the People MUST stand together NOW.

I do not care if lawyers provide money and power to liberal causes.. it is ALL of us who pay, in cases such as this!!
Paying, a dying dinosaur of an industry that refuses to adapt to the times!

YOU might be next! WAKEUP.

BOO! I think all of these douche bag bastards should be subject to bukkake.

Ray Beckerman's Comment on the Jury Verdict in Virgin v. Thomas:

A verdict of $222,000.00, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?

In a case where there was zero evidence of the defendant having transferred any of those files?.

It is one of the most irrational things I have ever seen in my life in the law.

If the Judge doesn't set aside the verdict sua sponte, I expect there to be motion practice to set aside the verdict, based on its obvious unconstitutionality and numerous other reasons, and if that fails I expect there to be a successful appeal.

It is an outrage, and I hope it is a wakeup call to the world that we all need to start supporting the defendants in these cases, and the attorneys who are sacrificing so much to represent them. And the support cannot be with words, it must be with check books. And it cannot be next year, it must be now.

All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly.

The RIAA ghouls smelled blood in Duluth, and I guess they were right.

But it isn't over.

-R.B.

Bob Lefsez says:

What did we learn here?

That the courtroom oath no longer means SHIT! Did you read the
evidence? The woman used the same name for her MySpace account, to get dates
on Match.com... Talk about GUILTY!

But we know people trade files P2P. What the fuck are we gonna DO
ABOUT IT?

According to the RIAA, we should all just cease and desist. After we
stop smoking dope and having unprotected sex. Yes, just say no.

Give me a break.

You're a fifteen year old. You've heard about this old band from the
seventies, from before you were born, when your PARENTS were in high
school. You could wait to hear "Stairway To Heaven" on the radio, maybe
even "Kashmir" and "Whole Lotta Love", but you want MORE Zeppelin. You
want to start with "IV", work your way back to "II", and then go to
"Physical Graffiti" and "Houses Of The Holy", never mind the debut. Yup,
why don't you plunk down A HUNDRED BUCKS!

But how are you going to afford Cold Stone? The movies? Video games?

You must give those up. Music is competing for the entertainment
dollar and you've got to make a choice. Either have a well-rounded life or
listen to music, it's your decision, this is the way it's got to be,
because the rights holders SAY SO!

Now if I rang up Robert or Jimmy and asked them... Do you want a few
rich teenagers paying a hundred bucks plus for your catalog or MILLIONS
paying a lot less, what do you think they'd say?

Well, they'd say this Ahmet Ertegun tribute is really a soft launch for
their tour. They're going to go out on the road and rape and
pillage...why do you think they're PRACTICING SO HARD! And they don't want to
play arenas, but STADIUMS, like in the old days, and they want to FILL
THESE BUILDINGS! And the old farts will pay a lot to sit up close, but
they won't pay a fortune to sit in the bleachers. But these kids,
they'll be thrilled just to BE INSIDE!

Do you get it yet? That it's not about the rights holders, but MUSIC!
That the RIAA companies have music locked up, they want to charge a
fortune for it, and therefore most people can't afford it. And that
there's an easier way out, monetizing the present behavior...having
everybody be a music customer, resulting in at least as much revenue, and a
healthy scene, great live gate, tons of merch sales.

Who's gonna follow Neil Young? Who's gonna follow the Paul McCartney,
the Stones and the Eagles? Where are the next ARENA bands, never mind
stadium acts. The only way we can build these bands is by getting the
music in people's hands. And last I checked, ten dollars from a
million people is no different from one dollar from ten million people. It's
just that now, A FUCK OF A LOT MORE PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT YOU, A FUCK OF A
LOT MORE ARE FANS!

Couldn't happen in the old days. The costs were too high and you
couldn't reach people easily. But the Net has broken down these barriers.
Let me ask you, in what ways have the RIAA companies embraced the Net?

iTunes is worse than CDs. The sound quality sucks and the price is the
same. Where's the innovation? Where's the BUILDING of the business.
The assholes are so busy trying to MAINTAIN what they've got that
they can't see the virgin landscape open for the taking, the vast
resources that can be used to promote music to what it once was, the hippest
artistic medium on the planet, as opposed to the inbred cousin no one
wants anything to do with.

This is a business built on bullying and intimidation. And it's no
surprise the RIAA's legal strategy reflects this. And those days are
through. Transparency rules. It's not about paying radio off and cheating
acts on royalties, it's about making the music available to hear on
the Web and transparent accounting. The industry's worst nightmare.

So they convicted a guilty woman and penalized her an amount she'll
never be able to pay.

Their hands were tied. How else could they get everybody else to
settle for a few thousand. Huh? Is this strategy WORKING? Cara Duckworth
of the RIAA said "We lose money on our litigation program." Okay, if
you lose money there, and you're losing CD sales, WHERE ARE YOU WINNING?
What's the strategy to turn things around? NOWHERE IN EVIDENCE!

People want a lot of music for a low price. The labels don't offer
this. Except as evaporating subscriptions with low tech devices that make
iPods look like hand-held human transporters. It's like trying to get
people to give up their BMWs by offering them Kias. Sure, Kias might
get better gas mileage, BUT DO YOU WANT TO DRIVE ONE?

The labels are making music free. The lawsuits not only lose money,
they're not reducing file-trading. All they're doing is scaring off
people who don't buy music ANYWAY!

If this is a victory, then I don't understand the game.

This is a flawed strategy exercised to make non tech-savvy label heads
feel good as they drink expensive wine and worry about their eight
digit payouts. This is like TV networks not being on the satellite. Huh?
Eventually the networks merged with the cable stations. Everybody
made more money. The labels have to embrace the Internet, or else go
extinct. Which, they're doing a good job of. As far as getting acts to
cough up their touring and merch revenue, they're lucky to get good acts
to sign with them AT ALL! You tell me what to record, you can't get
me on the radio, you don't pay me and you won't let me leave. This is
an enticing business proposition?

As for the public... The RIAA lost people's hearts and minds a long
time ago. It happened when people discovered the original Napster and
then got iPods. They all said WOW, THIS IS GREAT! How come the labels
can't understand this? A buck a track? That's like $4,000 for a PC.
But now they're five hundred bucks at Wal-Mart and everybody has one.
Which business model do you want to employ? A few at a high price or
many for very little? Do you want EVERYBODY listening to music or only
the privileged, dedicated few. Think about it. And then figure out how
to monetize the stealing, how to give the people what they want.
ISN'T THAT THE ESSENCE OF BUSINESS?

"Fact 1: There was a correlation between the artists currently on her hard drive and the artists songs being shared by KaZaa username 'tereastarr'"

Correlation and association are circumstantial and do not in and of themselves substantiate guilt.
That being said, though, her case WAS weak in various aspects (as pointed out by Dreddsnik), to the extent that she and her lawyer weren't very bright to proceed with going to court.


"... the only reasonable inference is that this woman was indeed using KaZaa under that name."

Reasonable inference does not equate to beyond a reasonable doubt; but of course, this was not a criminal case (and thus preponderance of evidence is the operative principle). . . pointing all the more to the validity of an assertion that this case was too weak for the defendant to pursue a court encounter. Bad decision on her part and on the part of her counsel, just as Dreddsnik has mentioned.


"This lady is an idiot, or a masochist, or something. Her lawyer was apparently a fool."

So it would appear. You know what, the whole thing has a bad odor. How fortunate for the RIAA (and to our chagrin) to get a sort of sacrificial lamb to defeat in having its first completed court case! Damn the bad luck.


"So let's face it, folks. This woman should never have gone to trial. She should have taken her lumps with the settlement thugs."

I concur.


". . . the whole case is predicated on 'making available' being equivalent with actually distributing the files."

But this is yet ANOTHER reason for the defendant's case being weak. A court of some stature had already given the RIAA the keys to that kingdom summer before last when it basically decided culpability against companies who sponsor file sharing activities.
Over and over, dear readers everywhere, we can't avoid a basic conclusion of how weak and ill-advised it was for this lady and her less-than-astute lawyer to have risked themselves in a court of law like they did! BAD show.


"It is time we stop with the wishful thinking. This woman was the wrong person to lead the charge against the RIAA. This is not the RIAA's fault. She wanted to go to trial. They were glad to oblige this stupid person."

Couldn't have phrased it better myself.


POST-MORTEM REQUIEM
Well, then, that's it: an ignominious end to all the recent years of thoughtful discussion and preliminary anticipation on the part of countless talented people, concerning the prospect of a landmark successful defense to counter the RIAA in an initial court case taken to conclusion. It all came down to this, can you believe?
(I'm still actually a little too numb and shell-shocked to feel all the grevious after-affects that will resonate from this debacle.)


Crap. Did I just hear the fat lady's voice singing her doleful lament?

[sigh]

In all the things I've been writing about this case, there's one "new" piece of information that just came to my attention (and it makes Jammie Thomas and her attorney all the more foolish for going to court):
Apparently the woman used her same username for her MySpace account, to get dates on Match.com

All I can say to that is a softly muttered "wow".

Well, friends and neighbors, THAT settles it: case closed
The RIAA gets their court win and can keep suing away with less risk than before, now that they've got this long-awaited initial victory in their pocket. The impact is it will tend to discourage others from choosing to fight in court.

Might as well say sayonara.

Yes, pessimist, the RIAA gets their court win. What have they won? They keep on suing, which they just admitted was a money loser. It also angers some average people -- their potential customers. It really angers the small number of people who are music lovers and regular music buyers.

People may reduce file sharing on P2P for a time, but they may just burn a friend's CD, go to the library, or perhaps they will simply listen to less new music. The results of this trial will not increase subscriptions to music services like the new Napster. It will not increase CD sales. I predict that it turns people off buying music, if it has any effect at all. Face it folks, most people do not think very deeply about their music buying behavior. They hear it, they want it, they either download it legally or illegally or they want it so bad they buy it outright. Few people watch artists closely and check out the new release page every week on amazon.com like some of us.

As I said, everyone is a loser here. Even if this woman had $222K to give them, it will not make up for the music cartel's expenses in searching, suing, and lawyering.

Oh crap.

Wait a while for wireless networking and routers to really expand into every other home... There are enough idiots using them already that can't secure them. Piggyback a signal with some easy to acquire software and download away... When the shit hits the fan, technology will give you a way out.

I would also suggest using DNS servers other than your own ISPs, plus proxy servers... But that's just paranoid ol' me...

I think that we should all send an e-mail to the RIAA webmaster and tell the RIAA to go fuck themselves and drop dead and junk like that.

Keep on downloading; it's none of their fucking business what you do on your own home private computer (stress on the word "private")

The predication on my tippy tie predicates the noun of the verbology of information systems. Naw! I just think the RIAA are scared to incorporate reality with fiction. Fuck the RIAA, and fuck fiction now that I think about it. People are just scared to admit under a grand jury that they fileshare, so they lie about it!

"It will not make up for the music cartel's expenses in searching, suing, and lawyering."

I was reading somewhere that losing a jury case like this in civil court also includes the plaintiffs being awarded associated attorney fees as well. I wonder if that's true.
If so, it would just add to the lack of wisdom that defendant Jammie and her rather inept lawyer seemingly demonstrated in requesting a jury venue with such a feeble case.

I'm really hacked off; after waiting for years to see the first jury case be decided, why did it have be such a lame situation on the part of the defendant. This is some sort of landmark piece of crap in the RIAA's victory basket, to go along with the infamous DMCA and the ruling that held file-sharing networks theoretically accountable for activity involving copyright violations by their members.

" That the courtroom oath no longer means SHIT! Did you read the
evidence? The woman used the same name for her MySpace account, to get dates
on Match.com... Talk about GUILTY! "

Really ? This is automatic Guilt ?

A frequently used name, that MANY OTHERS see and know ?

I wonder what might happen if someone
were to take a user name they like,
from one they have seen in a forum
or such, and use it for themselves on
something like , let's say .. Kazaa ?

For example, the name 'Lefsetz" sticks
in my head for some reason. It could
be a really NEET name to use as a
username for something like .. Kazaa
or such, couldn't it.

Get where I am going with this ?
She uses that name everywhere, it's
pretty well known in her net circles etc ..

A pseudonym means shit.
It points to a real person like an IP
does.
Anyone could have seen it, and knowing
the climate for Kazaa users, it would
actually be SMART for someone to
coopt anothers known user name.

Guilty as sin ?
eat a bowl of dicks lefsetz.

On the other hand ....
All this time the RIAA has fought kincing and screaming
to stay OUT of a jury trial.
THIS one happens somewhat easily.
I don't think this is coincidence.
I do think the Judge has some as yet
unknown ties to the industry.
I believe this is a big fat set up.

"I believe this is a big fat set-up."

Could be. As I implied in one of the other threads, this thing seems to exude a bad enough odor to accomodate such a scenario.

So, now the RIAA has landmark victories from Congress (DMCA), landmark victories from judges (decisions against file-sharing networks), and now a jury trial involving specific infringement.

Who can blame people for being cynical or (er, ahem) pessimistic?

[dour expression]

Lefsetz wrote: "What did we learn?"
(Then he proceeds on a number of different fronts, but he surely is off-base with at least one of his comments/assessments.)

One of the things we have learned, Bob, is that you are not even half the man Ray Beckerman is.

P.S. Judging from some of what Mr. Lefsetz wrote this time (as well as on some other occasions), why on earth would we want to routinely grant this guy significant credence much less affirmation?

You might as well not go outside when its raining ever because your chances of being struck by lightning are probably higher

Here's what I would like to see, if possible.

We as an INTERNET community really
need to prove just how off base this is.

On Sunday, the 13th of October ....
All kazaa users should,

Use a pseudonym that is a variant of ..
tereastar
Rgabriel
Csherman
DGlickman.

Imagine,
EVERY user that day using a variation
of one of those names.

Take SCREENSHOTS of a huge landscape
of KAzaa users, ALL using similar names.

Provide these screenshots to the
defense attorneys to show the judge
at the appeal.
This would demonstrate, once and for
all the ABSURDITY of using a pseudonym
as incontrovertible evidence.

I don't know if the P2P community could
be mobilized in this way, or if they are
too jaded to care, but I am throwing
this out there anyway.

All Kazaa Users ..
Sunday, October 13th 2007
tereastar day.
sign on as a variant of
tereastar
rgabriel
dglickman
csherman.

Everyone.

Show the judge and that DUMBASS
jury just how WRONG they are.

Spread the word.

Add the name .. Lefsetz to the list.

Yes, I AM stupid.

Sunday Oct 14th, 2007

( to pissed to think straight )

1) The case will be overturned because of the judge's instructions to the jury.

2) You guys are being a little too hard on Lefsetz, whose primary audience is industry bigwigs. He's talking to them, not us.

The lawsuits not only lose money, they're not reducing file-trading. All they're doing is scaring off people who don't buy music ANYWAY!

If this is a victory, then I don't understand the game.

I believe that judges no matter how impartial they're supposed to be, their personal belief will always influence the way they interpret the law. You can have the same case in other States and each judge will be different. Looks like this judge just wanted to get this over. Lazy Bastard.

Hello from Spain. (Europe)
Spain: P2p legal. private copy legal 100%.

Desde España os mando un saludo; me parece vergonzoso; creo que desde mi humilde opinión se debería habilitar un paypal para ayudar económicamente a Jamie, y despues hacer un autentico boycott-Riaa y NO COMPRAR NI UN SÓLO DISCO de esas compañias que han arruinado a esta valiente madre soltera que niega las acusaciones.
¿Estas son las tácticas del mafioso presidente de la RIAA, mister Cary Sherman? ¿Extorsionar económicamente hasta arruinar con cantidades escandalosas de dinero? Por lo visto slae más barato entrar en una tienda de música y robar el cd... sale más barato.
Podéis contar con el apoyo incondicional de internautas españoles (spanish) que luchan en la red contra estos abusos.
y pido disculpas por no saber expresarme in english.
mermadon.

comic anti copyright:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8081021@N02/483083754/

Looks like the ol' dinosaur has a few million years of life left in it to me. I don't expect that there will be an appeal. If there is one, I expect the ruling will be upheld as most judges are technologically inept old men.

Factoids:

1. The Asbestos industry won the first 10 or so asbestos trials.

2. The tobacco injury lost the first tobacco case in 1988, and then drove the plaintiff out of busines by appealing. !0 years later they settled BIGTIME with all of states attorneys general.

This ain't even the first inning folks.
The adverse publicity is BETTER for the cause than had she won! People are slowly waking up to this idiocy.

"Beyond the money, the music industry added to a growing body of legal precedents already gained in recent years. This victory imparts substance to the industry's claim that making copyright-protected songs available online, even without evidence the songs went anywhere, infringes on the copyrights for the songs."

"According to Jane C. Ginsburg, an intellectual law professor at Columbia University Law School, international intellectual property treaties assume that simply making a work of art available can violate the copyright."

it's a fucking joke, a pox on you all for taking it seriously
NOT THAT YOU NEED IT LOL

leflaw is correct. This "win" by the RIAA is only gonna piss folks off. The RIAA knows it too. Anyone notice how mainstream media has barely mentioned the story?

Only the online community that follows this crap knows anything about it folks.

But the word is STILL gonna get out.

If anyone needed any OTHER reason to boycott the bastards, this would be it.

That jury must have been smoking crack.

anyone know of any musicians who are speaking out vocally for or against the RIAA? i'm new to this site

going on the "same name" theory i can imagine visitors to the .com site with my artist name would think i'm pushing ads onto them... of course, there's really no cure for some people's stupidity in thinking that way when you consider there are billions of identical names out there on the net. (for the record, a bot bought my .com name and i cant get it back so if anyone knows a few naughty computer geeks....)

Factoid #3 -- It took radio 17 years to make ASCAP back off by simply playing music they didn't own.

We're only at the 8-year mark and by all appearances, it'll take another 9 years before P2P figures this out.

anyone know of any musicians who are speaking out vocally for or against the RIAA?

Start with Radiohead, Paul McCartney, Smashing Pumpkins, Janis Ian and every other artist that no longer works for them. McCartney chose Starbucks over EMI. Smashing Pumpkins will be out on the Starbucks label soon. Radiohead chose the "Name your own price" road for their latest. The Eagles are going through WalMart.

The major acts are declining to renew their contracts with the RIAA labels because without them, the artists can make more money even if they sell fewer records.

They don't have to say anything. They just leave and take their audience with them.

"it'll take another 9 years before P2P figures this out."

P2p is decentralized and programed by the users. P2p will never "figure it out" until the public itself "figures it out"

It is OUR job to help them.

Using the RIAA's twisted logic...every karaoke machine, event DJ, and Jukebox is breaking their version of the copyright law.

I'm debating if I should post my video showing one night jumping onto 6 unsecured wireless networks with my Limewire running sharing 458 ripped songs hosted behind other peoples IP address. The Duluth jury, a.k.a country bumpkins, needs to know that they too can be a victim of the RIAA's extortion tactics by unknowingly sharing music.

I was neutral at one time in the war on P2P but since the RIAA has started suing children, the poor, and the elderly the gloves are off. Each PC I rebuild has multiple P2P programs. I offer free tech support for these programs and encourage hundreds of my clients to spread the word, never buy a Metallica CD and I encourage them to share movies and music to those who truly enjoy it…..the online community. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that you can download hours upon hours of music from many 5 star hotel networks.

Even Motel 6 has wireless.

But I don't understand how providing free marketing hurts the record label.

P2p will never "figure it out" until the public itself "figures it out"

That will never happen. It's up to the artists.