Richard Marx, though never sympathetic to P2P downloading of copyrighted tunes without authorization, nonetheless, the 1.92 million verdict against Jammie is SO outrageous,
he is ashamed to have his name associated with it (but will he give any money awarded to him back)?


SOURCE
"He continued, So now we have a judgment in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive. Ms. Thomas Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I'm ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.
--snip======
I personally hope that there will be a political and economic backlash against the RIAA,
record companies, and artists, such that the 1.92 million will look like chicken feed compared to the losses in lost sales and other economic retribution by the public.
"So it goes."-Kurt Vonnegut
~Code

Assume he would even see a cent of that money the RIAA sued Jammie for...

If it shames him that much, he can always do the honourable thing and kick his label in the nuts before walking...

We know that RIAA will continue its unscruplous practice of using the law to punish folks like Ms. Thomas-Rasset so it is up to us to send a message by not buying CDs from artists connected to the RIAA.