SOURCE
"The jury found that Jammie Thomas-Rasset committed willful violation of the copyrights on 24 songs. The jury awarded the recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song."

This is WORSE than the first trial in which the jury awared the RATS, er...my bad, the RIAA,
222 thousand.
---------------SNIP------------------
EIGHTY FRIGGIN' THOUSAND DOLLARS A SONG?
DO THE ROLLING STONES GET THAT KIND OF MONEY FOR A COMMAND PERFORMANCE
AT A GIG FOR OIL RICH SHEIKS?

If a digitally ripped , lossy version of a crappy tune is worth 80 grand, then
how is iTUNES getting away with a buck or so?

One paper today pointed out that Jammie testified at one point she
could have solved this for 5,000 dollars. The point is, she always
testified she DID NOT DO IT.

It's like someone who "cops to a plea" , even though they didn't do
the crime, for fear if they go through trial, the verdict will be
much more than the plea deal.

I keep wondering where they dig up juries that would side with the
Copyright Cartel. Didn't her lawyer see this possibility during
Voir dire ?

The world has gone crazy, and Jammie got her sleeve caught in the gears of a
runaway train.
~Code

Even at the first trial, there were so many things that smelled funny, it almost seemed like a setup.
I could list a litany of stuff.
But I won't; I'm just sick of the whole damn thing.
[barf]

Ugh. I guess it was too much to hope for that she'd at least get a reasonable fine of something < 5 digits per song. $80,000 / song makes me absolutely sick. I can't believe she was ordered to pay MORE than the first trial.

Double standard here from the RIAA, iTunes and others like them.

http://politicomix.blogspot.com/2009/06/winning-hearts-and-minds.html

BTW, I heard that one of the jurors was confused and thought that Jammie was involved in 9/11

I thought they said they weren't suing people anymore. Has any media outlet pointed that out yet? Or has RIAA retracted its earlier stance?

Question: was her counsel really adequate? Why didn't she get Beckerman?

What the major record companies are releasing is trash from artists with no damn talent at all...especially some from the American Idol!!!!

"If a digitally ripped, lossy version of a song is worth 80 grand, then how is iTUNES getting away with a buck or so?"

Apples vs. oranges? The plaintiff's case has centered around the defendant being guilty of not just downloading each of the two dozen songs for herself, but having those copyrighted songs uploaded to be available to others. What I find almost reprehensible about this issue being used, though, is that there has been a previous ruling elsewhere concerning the act of making available not being tantamount to actual commission of copyright violation.


"The point is, she always testified she DID NOT DO IT."

A major factor to consider is that this was a civil case, not a criminal case. The standard was preponderance of evidence, not one of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
BTW, this fact is yet another reason that one should not request a jury trial in instances of an offense to be tried in a civil court unless you can deflect most of the suspicions or circumstancial evidence that the plaintiffs are likely to contend against you. If you lack a solid defense (AND then particulary if you aren’t having a really good attorney to represent you) . . . strongly consider the option of settling out of court -- especially if that process can be facilitated without admitting guilt. Discretion being the better part of valor.


"It's like someone who "cops to a plea", even though they didn't do the crime, for fear if they go through trial, the verdict will be much more than the plea deal."

Pragmatically speaking, if/since her case wasn't strong enough, the defendant SHOULD have decided, or been advised, to settle. And I don’t say this only in retrospect (now that we know the verdict). Initially, she unwisely opted to pursue a jury trial with less than a strong case and less than skillful counsel, and, not unpredictably, the outcome was that she lost. For the second trial, it seemed a number of circumstances were not in her favor, causing the prospect for the second effort to be a gambit still.


“I keep wondering where they dig up juries that would side with the Copyright Cartel. Didn't her lawyer see this possibility during Voir dire"?

Point well taken, and this speaks to the issue about her having less than skillful counsel, not only the first time that she opted for a jury trial, but, likely in some ways, for the second as well.


"I thought they said they weren't suing people anymore."

Jammie’s was a former case which was initially litigated prior to their statement.
And yet, there is some indication (UMG Recordings vs. Briggs, and several others) that the RIAA proceeded with several exceptions to that promise (the promise you’re speaking about that they made in December 200.


"Why didn't she get Beckerman?"

It would be interesting to see this very question directed to Jammie Thomas-Rasset and/or to Mr. Beckerman, though I doubt such will occur.
It is unfortunate that Jammie’s trial might have certain case law ramifications. I'd be surprised if the RIAA doesn't try to capitalize on the result in at least one of several possible ways, obviously to the chagrin of those who are on the other side of the fence.

"I thought they said they weren't suing people anymore. Has any media outlet pointed that out yet? Or has RIAA retracted its earlier stance?"

Its not that they are not suing, I think the policy now is to send a letter to your isp informing them of the infringement, and your isp in turn notifies you. Upon a second happening, I believe is when they sue. --Don't quote me on this

With respect to this case, I think she was one of the earlier cases (when they were still suing people), where they tried to settle with her, had a first trial in '06 and just had the second trial now.

I am not so pissed off at the RIAA as I am at that moron judge that allowed for a $1.9 Million Dollar Verdict on someone for having just 24 songs available for sharing on her HD.

I guess I am going to stick with the classic 80s rock collection I have from my teens and indie music. Then the record companies and media want to know why CD sales are dropping and music stores are shutting down.

There is one thing though that most articles related to this are missing, and that is that the RIAA claims to have found over 1, 700 songs in her HDD back in '05, but for simplicity's sake they only tried to prove that she made 24 available.

Now obviously I hate the RIAA else I would not be here, but I think that point is not being addressed by the local media.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading

(And sorry for the double post guys)

Good point.

All the more reason for me to have concluded that she was not in a good place in regard to potential for defense, and all the more reason for her to have opted to settle sans a jury trial the first time around.

80000 a song!!! who is this going to compensate? I am sure the artist wont see one red cent!

Of course, they'll "forget" that the artist is supposed to get a cut of the money at all. . . or, if they're called on it, they'll claim they somehow just didn't know the artist's address to mail the check to.
And even after all, that, there would be an inexplicable delay for no telling how long (perhaps into perpetuity).

The Beatles haven't yet received all the royalty they should have been due. I've read the story on that one.
Ditto for the Bay City Rollers, a vocal group from the '80s, and various others.

The presiding judge could have thrown out Media Sentry's "evidence" as tainted, because they practiced being detectives without authorization of a private investigation license. And there are other issues, too. Actually, the judge, in various other ways (by what he didn't allow that he could have and by what he allowed that he didn't have to), could be considered to have been partly responsible for circumstances to be stacked against the defendant... making it all the more likely that the verdict would go against her.

The whole thing reeks.

Bye, bye Miss American Pie. Drove my Chevy to to levie but the levie was dry. & good ol boys were drnikin' wisky & rye, singing this will be the day that I die......

THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED.

Perhaps so -- the day that free RIAA music died, anyway.
And add that to the Pirate Bay going down, too . . . point made! (Bye-bye free music, at least the mainstream stuff that was easily obtained by free download).

Oh, well. George and Shmoo and others have maintained that we should all be boycotting big label music anyhow, and concentrate on indie music!