SOURCE
RIAA Case Juror Speaks: 2 Jurors Wanted $3.6M Fine
"In an interview with THREAT LEVEL on Tuesday, Michael Hegg, one of the jurors from the case, reported that two jurors had tried to sway the other jurors to adopt the maximum fine per violation, $150,000 per piece of copyrighted material.

As Thomas was found guilty of 24 such violations, this would have resulted in a $3.6 million fine.

Another juror, according to Hegg, was insistent on making the fine as low as possible. The minimum amount per violation, by law is $750. This would have led to a far lesser fine of $18,000, still a significant sum, but over $200,000 less than the $222,000 jury decision.

Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota who had just returned home from a 14 hour shift when the interview took place, was unsympathetic at Thomas's plight.

He elaborated, "She's a liar. She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars. Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.' [The verdict was] a compromise, yes, we wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

Hegg felt that the fact that Thomas turned a different hard drive over to investigators than the original was particularly damning. He repeated his feelings that she was being deceptive. "She lied. There was no defense. Her defense sucked," he elaborated.

Hegg is a married father of two and says his wife is an "Internet guru," but admits to not knowing much about technology issues.

Hegg said his opinion and that of the jury was swayed by a number of pieces of evidence presented by the RIAA. One exhibit, viewed multiple times showed that there were 2 million users on Kazaa, the network Thomas was accused of using, on the night RIAA investigators found Thomas's alleged folder. Also, Thomas's use of the name "Terreastarr" on other online accounts, the same as the name on the Kazaa account, helped convince them. Then there was the fact that the RIAA's technical experts matched the IP and MAC address to her computer. Expert testimony had revealed that Thomas had not used a wireless router, casting further doubt on her claims that she was hacked.

Hegg seemed almost enraged at Thomas as he concluded the interview by saying, "I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here. I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."
-----------------SNIP===========>>>>>>>>>
I am truly saddened by the way this case went. I saw an interview with Jammie and her lawyer
on CNN, and apparently, his notion is that an appeal should be based on whether "making available" is the same as infringement. Jurors who rely on the kind of testimony offered by the RIAA witnesses, no doubt love dictators.

I believe God loves the Common Man, because he made so many of us.
~Code
For the rest of the article, please visit

SOURCE

One thing I have to agree with this guy about is that her case was weak.

Hegg felt that the fact that Thomas turned a different hard drive over to investigators than the original was particularly damning.

Because there's nothing that screams "Guilty!" louder than replacing a faulty hard drive before the RIAA sues you.

I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth.

She was thinking the average jury would have at least a modest amount of intelligence. She probably also was of the opinion that the judge wouldn't make up new laws in the jury instructions.

Those are really good points, George, cleverly phrased, too (as usual).

I wonder: Did her attorney emphasize those things?
If he didn't harp on them strongly, then I'd be inclined to think it was at least as much a factor as her case being rather weak, as I had said.
If so, then a lack of a strong case combined with a lack of a 'forceful' attorney typically can be expected to lead to defeat.

After reading Eric Bangeman's reports on the trial http://arstechnica.com/authors.ars/I+Palindrome+I
it's clear her lawyer was an idiot, and had even less of a clue than the jurors. His entire case rested on the contentious "making available" argument, and their insistance that she didn't do it.
She had P2P downloaded tracks on her drive (easily provable), her machine was password protect and only she knew the password. She didn't a router of any kind, never mind a wireless one, so the mac address could only have come from her computer (that's just stupid on so many levels). She was not a computer noob, and used the same user name all over the net. So even without the "making available" argument, there was a mountain of evidence that showed that she was lyong about downloading, no evidence that she wasn't. So no matter what, the first thing the jury sees is that she is a liar, after that, they aren't going believe any argument especially a technical one.

The RIAA got her gift wrapped.

" She had P2P downloaded tracks on her drive (easily provable), "

NOT easily provable.
They very handily demonstrated how
easily those tracks could have come
from CD's that SHE POSESSED.

" her machine was password protect and only she knew the password. "

A sure sign of a guilty poerson ( rolls eyes ).

" She was not a computer noob, and used the same user name all over the net. "

All over the net.
Millions of eyes potential seeing and
knowing that name.

If you have Kazaa, try signing on as
tereastarr. I'll bet you can. Anyone
can. I'll see if some freinds of mine
can sign on kazaa as brenthannah from now on.

" there was a mountain of evidence that showed that she was lyong about downloading, "

There was none.
no evidence at all.

" no evidence that she wasn't. "

Since when did people have to prove their innocence in the US ?

Hey, I'm not saying I agree, I'm just saying why the jury decided what that they did. And that her lawyer did a crappy job of presenting her case. Have a look at Eric Bangeman's reports of the proceedings. She looks bad, and her lawyer was useless.

Since when did people have to prove their innocence in the US ?

In a civil case the rules are a little different.

" In a civil case the rules are a little different. "

Yes, they are ...
But ...

The level of evidence the RIAA had
to present ( none ) makes it feasible
to simply go door to door, presenting
papers for a law suit.

I doubt anyone can prove their innocence when
the other side doens't have to present ANYTHING concrete.

Could you ?
or would you just settle, even if you
had done nothing wrong ?

That's the gist of what they are after.
People will have to settle, regardless
of whether or not they have done ANYTHING.

"I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here. I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."

I think I'd use a different word to describe a jury from Duluth. Like STUPID. Or prehaps MORONIC. How about IDIOTIC?? Actually, A-HOLES work the best, as proved by these words coming out of Heggs mouth. You are that stupid up there Hegg. How does a steel worker get to decide the fate of a woman in this hi-tech case?? Your a disgrace to jurors everywhere, and to stipid people in general.

Dreddsnik - Again I agree with with you. But the RIAA cherry picked this case because they were pretty sure they could win. The evidence is all circumstantial. It was a bad case for our side (we are on the same side aren't we?).
If she had a) a router (can't determine the mac address of an individual computer) b) a wireless router (can't determine if the computer is even in the residence) c) not password protected the computer and/or admitted that no-one else had access d) used a generic name for Kazaa (friggin DUH).

Any one of these would have made it difficult for the RIAA. It's like she WANTED to lose.

Okay guys, let's skip past the details of the case and get to the jury room. The jury is convinced that she is guilty. They decided that in the first 5 minutes, leaving them to ponder how much to fine a single mother for "stealing" $25 worth of music.

$222,000 -- That's almost 10,000 times the retail price and more than 12,500 times the wholesale value.

The jury said they "wanted to send a message". Sadly, the message appears to be that, in addition to not being very bright, you can pick 12 people at random in Duluth and get 100% heartless bastards.

Agreed George. Check this out
http://www.news.com/For-RIAA%2C-a-black-eye-comes-with-the-job/2100-1027-6212374.html

After reading this I'm wondering if maybe they did want to lose after all. Perhaps hoping for a groundswell of public support for this poor lady nailed with a totally stupid settlement. Could be - no?

From the article at brenthannah's link:

"While it remains highly unpopular, the RIAA has a fiduciary duty to track down file sharers, whoever they might be, said Eric Garland, CEO of BigChampagne, a company that monitors traffic to entertainment sites. He said that he's talked to many people in the industry that believe the RIAA could potentially face lawsuits from artists if they failed to protect their rights. "

This is complete and total BS! Everyone knows that if the artists were going to sue over anything, it would be to recover the royalties the major labels have screwed them out of all these years. If the artists really wanted to sue their fans for copyright infringement, they could do it themselves...or could they? Do artists even own enough of their copyrights to file suit?

Major artists are jumping ship (Madonna the latest) soon the riaa won't have any artists left to protect...what lament will they be grieving over then?

brenthannah, I seriously doubt that Jammie and her attorney wanted to loose. However, Jammie does seem to be rightfully pissed-off enough now to "work with" our side from a PR perspective.

Last I heard, she is going to appeal. I'm not too confident of her chances given the known details of her case, but it is her right to make that choice.

It would seem, based on the face of it, that the RIAA "jury-rigged" the case to ensure a verdict favorable to them, the end result being only those totally brainwashed by their one-sided propaganda ended up serving, and anyone who disagreed with their destructive tacticology by even one iota was automatically disqualified.

As for the "artists" who purportedly support this confiscatory, Robin Hood-in-reverse strategy: They are little (or nothing) more than useful idiots, dutifully doing the RIAA's bidding. And like all major organizations of this ilk, the RIAA is very big on groupthink, with any dissenting views squelched by any means necessary, i.e. leaking incriminating information on said dissident(s) to the press (a.k.a. the "government/media complex") and other slimy, dirty-tricks tactics (think Courtney Love viz the early 2000's Napster controversy).

What's more, to those who claim "it's easier to settle": I suppose it'd be equally easier to, say, convert to Islam if you had a knife put to your throat and told in no uncertain terms: Convert or die.