backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 139 comment(s) - last by tcsenter.. on Oct 19 at 6:51 AM
It turns out that Jammie Thomas could have been worse off

The tech news industry has been buzzing with news of the $222,000 verdict in the precedent setting civil case Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first instance of an RIAA complaint going to a trial by jury.

Now a juror from the case has opened up and discussed their feelings about the case and what went on inside the courtroom.

While some may feel the $9,250 per song fine levied against Thomas was extreme and unreasonable, she could have been far worse off, if a couple of the jurors had their way.

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."

Hegg's statements echo the Bush administration's statement earlier this week, that the punishment fit the crime and serves as a good warning to potential violators. 

The RIAA has a strong ally in the current U.S. administration, which has made major efforts to police copyright infringement and raise the fines for violators, including championing and signing into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005.  This law mandated that possession of even a single copy of a film unreleased on dvd could subject the owner to a stay in prison.  The law included no provisions for currently unreleased or untranslated foreign films, but so far the motion picture industry has been slightly less zealous in prosecuting infringers than the RIAA.  Recent reports put the RIAA settlements at nearly 36,000 individual settlements, by certain estimates.

Still there are many around the country who feel that she got off too lightly or was fined too heavily or unjustly.  Even the jury seems to have mirrored this same split.  One wanted to just fine her the minimum amount, others wanted to fine her the maximum amount $3.6 million dollars. 

The end result is still the same though: Thomas is going to have to pay, unless her appeal somehow succeeds.  Meanwhile the RIAA can rest content with their victory as they ponder their next plan of attack in their colorful battle against copyright infringement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
original crime
By codeThug on 10/10/2007 3:41:20 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hegg's statements echo the Bush administration's statement earlier this week, that the punishment fit the crime and serves as a good warning to potential violators.


Yet the punishment does not fit the original "crime". It seems as if the large fine was meant to punish her for lying to the court, which in my view should be separate from the fine for the file sharing issue.

3.3 million is just ridiculous. Maybe Hegg would be happy if they simply chopped off both of her arms. This simply goes to show the wide margin and unpredictability of Jury based awards. If this venue were in L.A. or Chicago she would have walked.




RE: original crime
By RamarC on 10/10/2007 4:24:31 PM , Rating: 3
the whole concept of music theft is flawed. if someone steals your $20K mazda, you can only recover the value of the car plus some punitive damages. maybe $30K if you're lucky.

but with music theft, the penalty seems to be based on the "potential" loss of sales. i guarantee you that there is absolutely no credible evidence that the riaa could produce to show those tracks would have $220K (let alone $3M) in sales over a 3 month timespan on any music service.

listen up people. the only way this whack crap will be fixed is by us bitchin' at our congressional reps. they're the one's who caved into these riaa a-holes and started this crap.


RE: original crime
By MrPickins on 10/10/2007 4:35:05 PM , Rating: 5
I agree to an extent.

If I was on the jury, I probably would have found her guilty, but gone with the minimum fine, which I feel is much closer to the actual damages caused.


RE: original crime
By PrezWeezy on 10/12/2007 8:18:26 PM , Rating: 1
I disagree that she should pay a dime. By law, and I'm talking now and not about what that RIAA Nazi woman wants, you have the right make a backup of any music you own. Not to mention that there are many other perfectly legal reasons for downloading instead of buying. Therefore she really did no harm at all. Unless they can prove that every single time someone downloaded from her they did it ilegaly, there should be no fine. And they can't prove that, so they therefore, cannot prove that what she did caused any loss of profit whatsoever.


RE: original crime
By onelittleindian on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: original crime
By Christopher1 on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: original crime
By Ard on 10/10/2007 5:11:05 PM , Rating: 5
It wasn't so much that she stole music. That really wasn't the crux of the RIAA's argument. Their argument was that she made a number of songs available for downloading. This, according to the RIAA, violates the exclusive right to distribution and is just as damning as "stealing" music in the first place. It doesn't matter if she downloaded the music or ripped it from her own personal collection. All that matters is that she shared it and, unfortunately, they had no problems showing that.


RE: original crime
By walk2k on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: original crime
By Martin Blank on 10/10/2007 9:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
Libraries have specific exemptions in copyright law. They are explicitly allowed to loan out books, movies, and CDs without further compensation to the copyright holder.


RE: original crime
By LogicallyGenius on 10/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: original crime
By Martin Blank on 10/11/2007 9:51:35 AM , Rating: 2
The exemptions have been in the law for decades, probably back into the 19th century.


RE: original crime
By onelittleindian on 10/10/2007 5:19:13 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"there was no evidence that this woman stole anything and numerous alternative explanations as to how it appeared that someone was sharing from her internet provider address: IP spoofing"
Lol, right. Someone hijacked her computer, spoofed her IP, created a Kazaa account in her name, then used it to download all her favorite songs. They then used a mindcontrol ray to force her to wipe her hard drive and lie to the jury.

BTW, hows that bridge you bought last week working out for you?


RE: original crime
By OrSin on 10/11/2007 8:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
Why did this case every go to court. It is so obvious she was guilty. Dont make a precident setting case one you cant win. It almost like the RIAA wanted this fool to take it court. Her losing does more for thier cause then all thier advertisements. I hate the RIAA and I would have found her guilty. I fell personal that coping a tape and giving it to a friend is not nearly as bad and sharing it onver the internet. SInce you are give so many people a copy. But still I would not have fined her that much. But something was definately in order.


RE: original crime
By gramboh on 10/11/2007 1:45:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm confused, how can you spoof your IP, and then handshake with the other destination IP in a peer 2 peer environment? How would the file transfer work?

As far as the case, yes she is guilty, but the damages awarded are insane and have no basis in reality. I thought the standard to prove damages was higher. Where does this 'range' come from? This level of damages should be reserved for civil cases where someone is selling/profiting from copyright material.

The only way I would award any damages is if RIAA could prove how many people successfully downloaded the song (e.g. if she had logs on her PC). Otherwise I would vote for the minimum possible. This steel worker is a moron.


RE: original crime
By crimson117 on 10/11/2007 3:57:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why did this case every go to court. It is so obvious she was guilty.

I agree. She was a fool to go to court over this, in this case.
quote:
"Thomas's use of the name "Terreastarr" on other online accounts, the same as the name on the Kazaa account, helped convince them."

And that was the most damning part in my opinion. It's not exactly a common name.


RE: original crime
By True Strike on 10/12/2007 3:31:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it would be too hard for a decent hacker already tapped into your connection and spoofing your addresses to monitor network traffic on your connection and find out what username you commonly use on other websites/accounts. The username itself seems circumstantial at best.
The MAC and IP address evidence seems like it would be the most damning to me.
If she was telling the truth, turning over the original drive with all information would have been the best for her; at least if she was using the, "I didn't do it, a hacker did" defense. Maybe there would have been evidence to support that claim.
She should have settled...


RE: original crime
By clovell on 10/10/2007 5:15:12 PM , Rating: 3
The thing that's broken is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. That's the problem.


RE: original crime
By RamarC on 10/10/2007 5:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There really isn't any problem. If you don't want to be fined, don't steal any music. Simple.

"stealing music" isn't the issue. "potentially stealing music" and a broad definition of "theft" is the issue. now some folks in the riaa are saying that if you dupe your own cd, then you've "stolen" the music on it. likewise, if coffee shop employees bring in and play their own music that customers can hear, it's being considered "stolen." heck, they've even gone after sirius/xm for selling devices that let the customer record the satellite music streams that they pay for access to.

i agree with the riaa in that any public file sharing is illegal. but they've gone so far now that any type of sharing (or 'unauthorized' recording) is considered theft. if i email a known acquaintance a single song, i'm subject to $150K in fines?

what gets me about the whole thing is that folks have been doing this (copying/recording) forever. dubbing cassette decks were standard on practically every stereo in the 80s. it was commonplace for me and my friends to buy a bunch of albums, record them, and then share the tapes amongst ourselves. i suppose we were the music ganstas of the 80s.


RE: original crime
By walk2k on 10/10/2007 7:42:24 PM , Rating: 1
No because making copies for personal use is perfectly legal.

Now playing music in public is subject to royalties. usually these places simply purchase an ASCAP license - and they send you a bill based on how much music you play and how many customers you have that hear it. Basically the same as a radio station.


RE: original crime
By Spuke on 10/10/2007 8:08:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now playing music in public is subject to royalties. usually these places simply purchase an ASCAP license
LOL! So if I have a party at my house and play music, I need a friggin ASSCAP license?


RE: original crime
By Martin Blank on 10/10/2007 9:12:29 PM , Rating: 2
A party at your house is a private venue. If you owned a bar and played music there, then yes, you'd have to get an ASCAP license. According to Wikipedia, ASCAP turned over $646 million to copyright holders on $750 million in licensing fees in 2005, which is a pretty decent rate.


RE: original crime
By annalovesbooks on 10/11/2007 1:47:44 AM , Rating: 2
No because making copies for personal use is perfectly legal.

Had to jump in on this one. Actually, according to Federal Copyright law, that's not true. The whole "fair use" nonsense isn't applicable here, either. I don't know how people have twisted it over the years, but "fair use" means something FAR different than copying your own stuff for your own use. (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html) Even the old "archival copies" of software is no longer strictly legal (barring EULA permissions). (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html...

1 - What is copyright infringement?
As a general matter, copyright infringement occurs when a copyrighted work is reproduced , distributed, performed, publicly displayed, or made into a derivative work without the permission of the copyright owner. http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions....

ANY copy without permission, period, is infringement. And "gee, I didn't know that" isn't a defense:

if a proper notice of copyright appears on the published copy or copies to which a defendant in a copyright infringement suit had access, then no weight shall be given to such a defendant’s interposition of a defense based on innocent infringement -
http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

Just for an actual legal reference point.


RE: original crime
By Martin Blank on 10/11/2007 10:02:28 AM , Rating: 2
Something tells me you're not a lawyer. The Betamax case established that copying a work in its entirety from TV for purposes of viewing it later in private was generally legal, and covered under fair use.

Not all fair use doctrines are laid out in the law, and judges have been modifying the definition of fair use since US copyright law was first written.


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/11/2007 10:28:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Something tells me you're not a lawyer. The Betamax case established that copying a work in its entirety from TV for purposes of viewing it later in private was generally legal, and covered under fair use.
Something tells me you're not, either.

The Betamax case was wholly limited to copyright as it applies to broadcast transmission of performances to the public, which is singled-out in copyright law for individual treatment separate and distinct from sound recordings. The crux of the Betamax ruling was that, without some way to time-shift your favorite television program, you would be deprived of the enjoyment of it because you can't control the time and date of its reproduction.

With music, no similar arguments can be made, since music already comes in a format/medium that can be enjoyed/reproduced on-demand by the consumer. Furthermore, CDs are highly portable so that if you are hiking in the Rockies, you can't argue that you would somehow 'miss' the performance of your favorite CD (since you have 100% control over the time and date of that performance).

Courts very rarely make law or settle any legal question that falls outside the immediate question, case, and facts that are before it. i.e. In Betamax, the court ruled about time-shifting broadcast television. Nothing more and nothing less.


RE: original crime
By Chocobollz on 10/16/2007 1:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
Something tells me you're BOTH not a lawyer. :P


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/11/2007 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Had to jump in on this one. Actually, according to Federal Copyright law, that's not true. The whole "fair use" nonsense isn't applicable here, either. I don't know how people have twisted it over the years, but "fair use" means something FAR different than copying your own stuff for your own use.
Thank you! Seeing this worn-out canard about "fair use" always makes me want to scream. The "fair use" provision of US copyright law as it applies to music is so short I can reprint it here:
quote:
07. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
That's it! For purposes that serve a public interest or benefit such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. Note the utter and total lack of any language resembling "so I can get my groove on in the car or while working out in the gym." That would be a wholly personal interest or benefit not permitted under any recognized fair use exemption.


RE: original crime
By jdjbuffalo on 10/12/2007 1:10:51 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah, despite your ability to cite a legal framework for your statements they are wrong. If you had actually researched the issue in full then you would have realized that it does fall under "fair use" as defined by the Home Recording Act of 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio_Home_Recording_... ) and reaffirmed in the case of RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia.
quote:
In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.


Next time you should do a little more research before posting false information.


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/13/2007 10:40:48 AM , Rating: 1
I was betting that if I left-out any comment on the Audio Home Recording Act, someone would step in it and I would get to reel them in. I was right...hook, line, and sinker!

First, picking up the track I ended the last post with, the Court's ruling in RIAA v. Diamond has no bearing on consumers at all. Diamond was being sued as a manufacturer or importer under the provisions of AHRA that deal specifically with manufacturing and importing. Thus, the ruling is elucidative to and legally binding on only manufacturers or importers of similar devices.

In Diamond, the Court mentioned the consumer provisions of AHRA only in dicta. Further, it clearly misread those provisions of AHRA. The Audio Home Recording Act grants immunity from liability for infringement that is committed when copying digital music for personal use in ONLY two scenarios:

- From digital to analog (e.g. from CD to analog cassette player)
- First-generation copying to any SCMS-enabled AHRA-compliant device such as DAT or MiniDisc

Copying to a personal computer, being a non AHRA-compliant device, is NOT afforded immunity by the AHRA and, thus, does NOT change the liability for copyright infringment under existing copyright law. It is important to note that AHRA does NOT modify fair use at all. Fair use is an actual restriction on the exclusive rights of a copyright owner. AHRA merely grants IMMUNITY for copyright infringement and does NOT limit the copyright owner's exclusive rights. Big difference.

IOW, persons who have copied/reproduced copyrighted works that legally fall under fair use have NOT committed infringement in the eyes of the law. § 107 of Title 17 states:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work...is not an infringement of copyright."

By contrast, persons who have copied/reproduced copyrighted works falling under the AHRA exemptions have in fact committed infringement, but are granted IMMUNITY for that infringement. § 1008 of Title 17 (AHRA) states:

"No action may be brought...alleging infringement of copyright based on...the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

AHRA merely prohibits copyright owners from seeking legal action against the exempted infringement, it does not classify the conduct as non-infringement as fair use does.

Criminal law has a similar concept - excusable or justifiable homicide. Excusable or justifiable homicide does not make the act of killing another persons "legal", it grants the actor immunity from criminal sanction or liability. Also see, immunity from prosecution of foreign consulate officials or diplomats by treaty.

Next time you should actually understand the law rather than attempting to refute someone who does.


RE: original crime
By jdjbuffalo on 10/15/2007 10:44:20 AM , Rating: 3
The interesting point to me and everyone else is that the end result is really the same thing. Whether its immunity from liability or an addition to fair use defense, its just splitting legal hairs, because the only thing that can be brought against a consumer is an accusation that they infringed and the court will say, "ok, they did, but you don't get any money". So there would be no point in bringing a lawsuit. This is probably the reason why we have yet to see a lawsuit from a label alleging that they have found an infringing user that they want to sue.

I don't have the quote available to me at the moment but up until the last year, recording industry representatives have stated publicly that CD copying is legal on several occasions. Further evidence to back this up is the recordable music CDs which are sold specifically to backup original music CDs. Under the AHRA, they are properly defined as a “digital audio recording medium” and many CD players sold today could fall under "digital audio recording device". So per the language of the act CD copying could be argued to be covered.
quote:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.


Check mate. Thanks for playing.


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/19/2007 6:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is probably the reason why we have yet to see a lawsuit from a label alleging that they have found an infringing user that they want to sue.
They haven't sued anyone for purely 'personal use' infringement because they'd rather be in the business of selling music, not suing people. RIAA is aware people have copied music for their own personal use as long as there have been recordable media and devices available to the public. Not a single person has ever been sued for ripping CDs to computer, copying those files to a portable device, or burning a compilation CD, though all of those activities infringe upon the exclusive rights of the copyright owner to control how, when, and why their music is copied for any reason (except as exempted by law).

quote:
I don't have the quote available to me at the moment but up until the last year, recording industry representatives have stated publicly that CD copying is legal on several occasions.
It is effectively 'legal' to copy digital music to any analog medium/device. If the medium/device is digital, it MUST be an AHRA-compliant device such as DAT or MiniDisc. Copying CDs to any other device/medium is NOT covered under the immunity provisions of AHRA nor any other provision of US law, including fair use, and thus remains actionable infringement.

quote:
Further evidence to back this up...
Further? Further beyond what, some statement of unknown veracity by unnamed industry executives that cannot be verified?

quote:
is the recordable music CDs which are sold specifically to backup original music CDs. Under the AHRA, they are properly defined as a “digital audio recording medium” and many CD players sold today could fall under "digital audio recording device". So per the language of the act CD copying could be argued to be covered.
Recordable Music CDs are AHRA-compliant when used with an approved recording device. An AHRA royalty is charged for every Recordable Music CD and recorder as specified in AHRA, just like DAT and MiniDisc, which is why they are more expensive than recordable data CDs and CD burners.

Have you even read the law and federal register?


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/11/2007 2:29:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
what gets me about the whole thing is that folks have been doing this (copying/recording) forever. dubbing cassette decks were standard on practically every stereo in the 80s. it was commonplace for me and my friends to buy a bunch of albums, record them, and then share the tapes amongst ourselves. i suppose we were the music ganstas of the 80s.
There are some logistical differences between analog and digital copying.

Back in the day (to use a worn-out colloquial expression), there were real practical and technical barriers to the number of copies that could be made from one 'original' purchased album, due to rapid degrading of audio quality between copies, and the time it took to make a dupe. Even high-speed dubbing cassette decks only recorded at 2x speed, which meant at least 20 minutes to copy a 40 minute album, 18 minutes to copy a 36 minute album, so on and so forth (not including gaps between tracks, lead-ins and outs, cueing, etc).

Four friends trading albums would typically involve all four friends actually bringing an album to the table. If one was chronically duping albums purchased by others but rarely contributed one of his own, that person wouldn't be invited to trade, anymore.

Consider four friends, each buying one album for trade with the other three. That is nine copies being made in all, at 20 minutes each, would take a full three hours. Of course, no one could stand to listen to four albums three times each in the same day, so we would often listen to each album during the first copy, then find something else to do while making the other two copies of that album, which would turn into an all-day affair.

Often, not every person actually wanted every album brought for trade, or time constraints made us chose only two albums we wanted most, so it would end-up being less than nine copies.

In a circle of four friends, it typically worked out to four albums purchased to every four ~ six albums pirated (4:4~6). But wait, there's more!

After playing a copy two dozen times and/or leaving them in our cars subjected to heat/cold swings, already suffering from inferior quality as an analog copy, they started to further degrade to the point of being intolerable. So, we had to make a decision to either buy the album or just stop listening to it, further reducing the number of albums pirated rather than purchased.

Note that we did not decide to purchase an album out of any altruistic concern for the artist putting food on the table, as the brain doesn't start to gain the capacity to see beyond its own selfish interests until well after adolescence. Rather, we purchased the album because we couldn't stand to listen to that crappy degraded analog copy one minute longer! i.e. we did it for our benefit, not the artist's

So now we are at four albums purchased for every two ~ three albums pirated.

With digital copying/distribution of digitally mastered content, this becomes an altogether different dynamic, including the main factors influencing our decision to purchase the album - rapid degradation and shorter lifespan of the copy.

I fully admit that the only reasons I ever purchased music as an adolescent or young adult was because I had to in order avoid the significant hassle of analog copying and to obtain the highest quality listening experience available.

I didn't give two sh-ts about whether the artist was being deprived of income, because it was easy to rationalize that 'nobody is going to be in the poor house just because I didn't buy their album', sorta like the government won't miss my taxes because my contribution is infinitesimal relative to all the other people paying taxes (relativism).

The second common justification we employed might seem oddly familiar; 'the artist doesn't get any of my money, anyway, it all goes to the evil record companies' (apparently, the artist is buying million dollar homes with Monopoly money).

There is not a single contemporary RIAA-bashing pro-piracy argument or grievance that has not been all the rage for over 30+ years now. The RIAA-bashing crowd at least could try to come up with something original that their grand-parents weren't complaining about verbatim when they were 16 (and every generation since).

As an adult, I purchase music because I developed the capacity to see beyond my own selfish interests, but that didn't happen until around the age of 23 (which was a lot sooner than most of my peers...some are still selfish asswipes at 37).


RE: original crime
By Gholam on 10/11/2007 4:07:10 AM , Rating: 1
You do realize that according to Jennifer Pariser, head of litigation for Sony BMG, buying a CD and copying the tracks to your personal music player - iPod or whatever - is stealing, making you liable for up to $150,000 per track?


RE: original crime
By Ard on 10/10/2007 5:08:24 PM , Rating: 3
While I certainly agree with the sentiment that the amount of damages awarded clearly don't fit the nature of the crime, they're not supposed to. Statutory damages are a means of providing damages when you're unclear as to the exact amount of harm suffered. However, more than that, they're meant to act as a deterrent for other would-be infringers.

Think about it for a second. With this victory under their belts, the RIAA just might decide to forego must of their settlement offers and simply take P2P users to trial instead. Now, if those cases turn out the same way as this one, how many people do you think will suddenly feel downloading music isn't such a good idea anymore? No one wants to be slapped with a $200,000 bill, let alone $3.6 million.


RE: original crime
By Callys on 10/11/2007 12:20:27 AM , Rating: 2
Punitive damages are awareded in addition to actual damages as a deterent against the offender and similar offenders, not statutory. Punitive damages are used to make an example out of someone. Statutory damages are awarded when the defendant breaks specific written legislature, particularly legislature governing relations between two individuals of different standing.


RE: original crime
By wallijonn on 10/11/2007 7:14:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if those cases turn out the same way as this one, how many people do you think will suddenly feel downloading music isn't such a good idea anymore? No one wants to be slapped with a $200,000 bill, let alone $3.6 million.


And just as many may completely forgo buying music altogether. Not that they do now, just that they may decide not to download, not to share, not to buy, not even bother listening. Why bother? If the RIAA is soon to come after folks just for listening to their music in their car, then turn out the lights because freedom is dead. And with it the whole music industry will collapse over night.


RE: original crime
By tcsenter on 10/13/2007 6:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing has really changed in copyright law as it pertains to music in the past 30 years. It has ALWAYS been potentially actionable infringement to make copies of music for personal use, but RIAA has never sued anyone for it, though it has been well aware of the practice as long as anyone.

If you copy music from CD to your computer, iPod, or burn a compilation CD for personal use (your personal use, not 1000 other's), you have absolutely nothing to worry about so long as you don't ALSO download copyrighted music through unauthorized/illicit channels and don't facilitate piracy by knowingly making infringing copies of music available for copying by others.

Not one person has been sued for ripping CDs to their computer, transferring those files to an iPod, or making a compilation (mix) CD for personal use. That is not what any of these lawsuits is about.

If you're not intelligent enough to figure out the difference, then you should probably not tie your own shoes, use scissors, feed yourself, or engage in any other activity that requires some modicum of competence that most 10 year-olds possess.


RE: original crime
By JonnyBlaze on 10/12/2007 12:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
I dont care how many people get sued. I'll still add to my 100gig plus of downloaded music collection. Screw the RIAA.


RE: original crime
By alvester on 10/10/2007 5:58:47 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking as a sideman/recording musician and how a tangible part of our income is dependent upon record SALES I feel the jury did a great job. For more info on the math of how record sales influence musician's pay AFTER the record date check it out here: - http://www.sound-recording.org/about.html?auth_sid...

In a nutshell the more stuff is shared online for free and if not eventually actually bought by the listener the less we as recording musicians make in disbursements via "The Sound Recording Special Payments Fund (the "SRSPF")"

Trust me as a sole proprietor, recording sideman musician (which most instrumentalist are) the few extra $$$ that come around once a year from the SRSP Fund as a result of record sales can be very helpful in making ends meet.

I hope that this verdict will discourage folks from stealing and/or sharing music indiscriminately online as it really really does affect people's incomes and especially that of recording musicians.


RE: original crime
By notfeelingit on 10/11/2007 9:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hope that this verdict will discourage folks from stealing and/or sharing music indiscriminately online as it really really does affect people's incomes and especially that of recording musicians.


I'm willing to bet that Jammie Thomas didn't have a single one of your songs on her computer.


RE: original crime
By redbone75 on 10/11/2007 5:18:46 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
isten up people. the only way this whack crap will be fixed is by us bitchin' at our congressional reps. they're the one's who caved into these riaa a-holes and started this crap.

I agree that the populace needs to make its voice heard, but our congressional reps didn't cave in at all. They quite willingly sided with the RIAA and MPAA because of the "political contributions" those organizations make. How exactly do you think our laws are made;)


RE: original crime
By bupkus on 10/10/2007 5:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I only wish I was on that jury. I would have loved to ask those few who wanted the maximum fine if the max were higher would they go higher on the fine? I really would like to know what's behind their anger, cause peeps who want the most punishment are often really pissed off. I would like to push to see if corporal punishment would satisfy them.

I understand that lying in a court of law can really tick people off. I myself hate liars, but that is a personal issue and I don't think that should be part of the sentencing. Use that fact only to determine the truthfulness and believability of their statements. If they are lying, then they should be much more likely to be proven guilty.

But to add to the fine for lying? Outrageous! People lie all the time: lawyers, politicians... everyone lies on some level. If it can be proven she perjured herself, then nail her for that!

Let me make one more point. I don't believe in the concept of "making and example of someone." A person should be sentenced based only on their own history of criminal activity. If this was her first offense then so be it. Even if she were actively engaging in these activities over a lengthy period of time this is not an obvious crime like assaults or muggings.

The issues of her criminality need to be established and unlike obvious criminal activities such as theft and assault, white collar crime needs to be determined, especially if it covers issues where usage rights are concerned.

These are CONSUMER CRIMES, new to our experience and changing as technology changes.
I say unless she were selling and obviously profiting on a commercial level give the minimal fine.


RE: original crime
By borismkv on 10/10/2007 6:20:04 PM , Rating: 3
I'm with you on what the fine should be. Copyright infringement statutes were originally instituted to punish those who tried to profit on material that wasn't theirs. That's why the maximum fine is so bloody high. It's designed to force people who sell stolen material out of business. This woman made no money whatsoever out of this deal. Imposing a higher sentence on her because she lied in court (something I'm not going to argue again, simply cause it does seem that way.) is, I think, morally wrong. If she lied in court, she should be tried for purgery.

What I think is interesting is that the RIAA never had to prove that the files shown in that screen-shot were actually what they said they were. That's something the defense really should have pointed out. There are at least a hundred different tricks her defense attorney's could have pulled on this case, and a number of ways they could have discredited the RIAA's evidence (If this is the same kind of evidence they used to attempt to fine a dead woman with no computer, how accurate can it be?). But they didn't. I'd really like to see a thorough examination of the RIAA's investigation techniques.

This woman's biggest mistake was not using the vast number of lawyers that are working to fight against the onslaught of RIAA suits that have been filed. The conspiracy theorist in me wants to think that this woman was hired by the RIAA to lose this case just to add some credibility to her claims, but the sad truth is more that she's just the absolute worst person to have fought this thing, since there is little doubt in my mind that she's guilty.


RE: original crime
By UBB on 10/11/2007 10:13:47 AM , Rating: 2
She was clearly guilty, but she should have only had to pay a max of $5,000.

quote:
If this venue were in L.A. or Chicago she would have walked.


Yeah, too bad places like that also let Specter, OJ, Blake, and the like walk as well....


What the F*ck was she thinking?
By Vanilla Thunder on 10/10/2007 3:24:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"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."


She was thinking the a jury from Duluth would be naive. Turns out they're internet gurus and stuff.....

Vanilla




RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By HotdogIT on 10/10/2007 3:29:24 PM , Rating: 2
This shit isn't that complicated. Any competent lawyer/legal team would be able to sum up how the technology works quickly and easily enough in a case like this, at least enough to the point across.


By therealnickdanger on 10/10/2007 3:33:11 PM , Rating: 5
Hey now, be nice to my state. :P

"Internet guru" up in these parts usually means someone that can find stuff on Google better than his significant other. This person may also have an eBay account. I can do Excel field calculations, therefore my boss calls me a "computer guru".


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By shamgar03 on 10/10/2007 3:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
I like how the guy bought the RIAA stuff hook line and sinker so much so that he thinks that he understands. He has no idea. No expert can prove that she was not using a router. If someone configured ports correctly they could hide the fact that they are on a router. They could mask the MAC address and even open up the stupid windows ports. The statement that "if she had been behind a router we would have gotten her local ip address" is so full of holes that I won't go into into...suffice to say, there is no way you can be 100% sure. MAC addresses are no good either, simple to change.

Obviously the woman was no expert so she wouldn't have done any of this, so it probably was her machine. Even then, kazaa has a nasty habit of somehow sharing things you don't want shared. Its very easy to accidentally share your entire hardrive. I am guessing in this case she used it to download a very few songs, and the left it installed (and of course starting at boot). Then she proceeded to rip all her music to the download aka shared directory. There is no doubt that the music that she was charged for were all ripped, why else would the time stamps between records be different from the time stamps between songs. She is most likely a victim of stupidity more than anything, which I think most internet users are guilty of.

Back to the point: the very fact that this guy thinks he understood what was happening shows he has no idea. I don't understand why the defense didn't call network security experts. A better defense would have been that her computer was hacked, which it may have been. I wonder if the forensics people checked for that (or if they even wanted to know).


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By BigLan on 10/10/2007 4:07:45 PM , Rating: 3
He didn't so much buy the riaa stuff as much that the defense offered pretty much nothing. Jurors can only go on the case presented to them, and the defense did a very poor job.

Sure, she could have had a router, but she never claimed that she had one, so why is it relevant? She also said that her pc was password protected and that there were no other pcs in the house, so the jury believed her.

Sharing her entire drive 'by accident' isn't much of a defense either, and again she never claimed that she did. All she said was 'I didn't install kazaa.'

Her having ripped the songs isn't the point either - the fine was for songs she uploaded, and it didn't matter where she got them from. Anyway, another theory for the timestamps could be that the files were extracted from a downloaded zip file. We'll likely never know, unless she tries to sell her story to make a bit of money.

A different angle the defense could have used was that kazaa was installed alongside bonzaibuddy, or someother crapware that was doing the rounds in 02/03. I might have believed that, but given the evidence presented and the 'more likely than not' burden of proof, I'm not suprised by the jury's decision.

Anyway, this is just a juror trying to sell his story to make a few bucks and enjoy his 15 minutes of fame. Let him have that, at least - he probably didn't want to do jury service anyway.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By shamgar03 on 10/10/2007 5:00:21 PM , Rating: 2
I suppose its just disappointing to see how pathetic the defense was, particularly because I wonder if her or the defense even know that it is a common problem: http://www.hpl.hp.com/news/2002/apr-jun/kazaa.html and http://hig100.hig.no/imt/file.php?id=648 (the second one is a 176K powerpoint, so add ppt to the end). My point is that if the woman truly believes she is innocent and yet all the evidence shows she is not innocent there is a distinct case where that would happen.

I wish I could find the paper I read a couple years ago in IEEE about kazaa and similar programs. It was a usability study that showed just how easy it was to share too much. Though she could still be found guilty she may not be lying, she may really not have known she was sharing in which case the jury was angry at her when they didn't fully understand her mistake. Additionally, if it was accidental sharing then the max and min fines are significantly lower.

The reason I brought up the timing is that it was brought up in the case, presumably to show that she knew it was shared.


By Spivonious on 10/11/2007 3:33:01 PM , Rating: 2
She didn't say that she wasn't sharing though; she said that she never installed Kazaa. There was nothing to back up her story since her hard drive "crashed" after receiving the summons from the RIAA.

So either it was bundled with something else and she never noticed the little Kazaa icon in the tray, or she lied and tried to destroy evidence. Yes I think the fine is a bit high, but she's definitely at fault here.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By darkpaw on 10/10/2007 4:29:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Back to the point: the very fact that this guy thinks he understood what was happening shows he has no idea. I don't understand why the defense didn't call network security experts. A better defense would have been that her computer was hacked, which it may have been. I wonder if the forensics people checked for that (or if they even wanted to know).


Part of the problem is this lady got rid of her own harddrive. If she was innocent she could have had some forensics experts examine the drive. Instead, she ditched it. That really doesn't look all that good to a jury.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By euclidean on 10/10/2007 5:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
I never saw this part, but when/where did this old drive get replaced? I mean, if she replaced her drive, then re-installed everything, it would all have totally different Time Stamps and it wouldn't have had the evidence that it was hacked or whatever the defense was trying to say. Second, if she did this after the RIAA first contacted her about these issues, then that doesn't look too good on her part, but if she replaced the drive before they even tried to contact her then they have no valid reasoning to even suspect that she was trying to hide something.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By TomCorelis (blog) on 10/10/2007 6:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
Supposedly she was having hard drive issues that her boyfriend verified prior to her receiving warning that she was caught. So, she took it to best buy and dumped the old one.

Supposedly.


By Martin Blank on 10/10/2007 9:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
Best Buy verified that she brought in her system and that the hard drive was replaced prior to her being notified of the case. That's one of the few points where she was right.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By borowki on 10/10/2007 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
The guy also does not understand ninjitsu. A trained ninja could easily have sneaked into her house, use her computer to steal music, then disappear without leaving a trace.


By shamgar03 on 10/10/2007 4:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
touche


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By walk2k on 10/10/2007 6:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
She can provide equal value can she not?

So then why doesn't she just burn 24 songs on a CD and give it to them?

I mean if 24 songs are really worth $220k like they say they are, then they would have to accept it.

Otherwise they have no case to say 24 songs are worth $220k. Remember this is a civil trial, you can only sue for ACTUAL damages. These are not criminal fines or penalties.


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By creathir on 10/10/2007 6:36:23 PM , Rating: 2
That is actually a pretty interesting idea. Their argument would be the 220K was for POTENTIAL damages, so that may be where the rub is.

- Creathir


RE: What the F*ck was she thinking?
By borowki on 10/10/07, Rating: 0
By Proteusza on 10/10/2007 7:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
In all honesty, I think she probably is guilty.

That being said, 3.6M for 24 songs is ludicrous, and it shows how corrupt America has become. The corporations are so zealous in guarding their property, that the citizens face a penalty they could never afford for a minor affront.

Yes, minor. Its not theft, despite what you may have heard. if it were, this would have been a criminal trial, and she would have got a jail sentence. And, it would have been a cheaper settlement. Shoplift 24 CD's, my guess they will pay you just to learn how you did it.

Of course, to a corporation, no "theft" is too small. Its worth every penny to them, to instill fear into the populace. They believe fear will bring them even more money. If they didnt, why would they spend so much on legal teams?


This was just the wrong one to back
By gsellis on 10/10/2007 3:26:00 PM , Rating: 2
A bad lawyer (called no defense witnesses or expert testimony; guess he felt that just his smug look was enough to win a trial) and a person that was obviously guilty (as noted by the juror mentioned) was the wrong case to try to corral the RIAA. The appeal will go badly too.

//Where is that grandma without a computer when you really need her.




RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By shamgar03 on 10/10/2007 3:48:27 PM , Rating: 5
Seriously her attorney sucked. BAD.


RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By Mitch101 on 10/10/2007 4:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
To me it sounds like her attorney was just as stupid as she was.

I wonder if she even took the duplicate hard drive out of the box. She probably left it in the box and bag with the receipt so she could return it when done.


RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By Christopher1 on 10/10/2007 5:01:10 PM , Rating: 2
How many times are we going to have to point this out to people: SHE TOOK THE COMPUTER BACK TO BEST BUY AND THEY REPLACED THE HARD DRIVE, SAYING IT WAS ABOUT TO FAIL!

Speaking as a person who had a hell of a time getting them to do warranty replacement on my PSOne..... Best Buy is not going to do that unless they honestly think the drive is about to die or is dead.


RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By onelittleindian on 10/10/2007 5:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
SHE TOOK THE COMPUTER BACK TO BEST BUY AND THEY REPLACED THE HARD DRIVE, SAYING IT WAS ABOUT TO FAIL!
No. Right after she got served, she went to Best Buy with a story about it making strange noises and causing crashes, so they replaced it.


RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By Martin Blank on 10/10/2007 9:18:35 PM , Rating: 3
According to testimony in the trial, the infringement was noted by Media Sentry on 21 Feb 2005, she took the drive in for replacement on 07 Mar 2005, and she was notified by her ISP of the RIAA's interest on 22 Apr 2005. She had no way of knowing that the RIAA was going to target her at the point when she had the drive replaced.


By SavagePotato on 10/10/2007 10:04:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, noone warranties a drive cause the customer tells them their hard drive makes funny noises.

When a customer tells me their hard drive makes funny noises it usualy means theres a bad fan, since 90% of the general populace thinks the entire tower is the hard drive.

If a hard drive is suspected of failing, you run a simple hard drive diagnostic from the manufacturer on it and find out if theres something wrong. Otherwise you get stiffed with a failed rma when the supplier denies it cause there is nothing wrong.

That is unless your a boob that doesn't know how to test a hard disk and actualy listens to any of the pointless theory and babble customers tend to spout.


RE: This was just the wrong one to back
By Ard on 10/10/2007 5:02:21 PM , Rating: 2
My sentiments exactly. This is not the case I wanted the RIAA to go up against. It's simply horrible on so many levels, not least of which is the fact that she used the same damn screen name for the last 13 years. I can only hope that the appeal goes well and the judge agrees that making a song available in a shared folder is not tantamount to distribution.


Question
By FITCamaro on 10/10/2007 3:43:38 PM , Rating: 4
They traced her by her IP and MAC address. The cable modems MAC address or her network cards MAC address?

If it was the modems MAC address, it is possible to hijack someone's cable modem.

Yes her giving the authorities a different hard drive kind of expresses her guilt but maybe her hard drive really did die and it was a matter of bad timing. With this case though, there was reasonable doubt and she shouldn't have been convicted.

If OJ can get off despite there being plenty of evidence, and female (and male) celebrities always being caught with drugs or DUI and not being in jail, why should this woman have been found guilty and be required to pay a sum far beyond any normal persons means?




RE: Question
By mjcutri on 10/10/2007 3:58:49 PM , Rating: 5
Criminal law and civil law are two radically different entities. OJ was found not guilty in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court and had to pay his former in-laws.
The burden of proof in civil court is no where near close to that of criminal court.


RE: Question
By Ard on 10/10/2007 5:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Which I largely hate in the case of OJ. Whether he was guilty or not, he was acquitted in a criminal court, meaning he overcame a much tougher burden. You would think that would preclude him from being found liable in a civil court since the case turned on the same facts. Of course, the way around that is the fact that he was against two different parties: the state in his criminal case and Goldman in his civil suit.


RE: Question
By Melric on 10/10/2007 7:44:20 PM , Rating: 3
Er, you have that wrong, he did not overcome a much tougher burden. The prosecutor had a much higher burden and was not able to make it. All OJ had to demonstrate was that he was not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That is a very easy burden for him to make.


RE: Question
By Ard on 10/10/2007 7:57:42 PM , Rating: 1
We can quibble with semantics all day long. While it's true that the full burden of persuasion rests with the prosecution, don't think for a minute that OJ would've gotten off if he didn't have a ridiculously good defense team. The law likes to make a big deal about the prosecution having to prove their case, but just as much of the onus rests with the defense proving their own case, especially in this legal system where you are largely guilty until proven innocent. OJ definitely had the tougher job. It was the prosecution's to win.


RE: Question
By JCheng on 10/11/2007 12:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
None of that made any sense. Just FYI.


By Regs on 10/10/2007 4:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Pick hard working Americans who never stole a thing in their life and worked for everything they have....and of course their not going to side with a person who is painted as a theif and a liar.




By Christopher1 on 10/10/2007 5:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, if you really believe that they have 'never stole a thing in their lives'..... you're stupid. Everyone has stolen something in their lives: I once stole a cheap .99$ squirt gun from Kmart when I was 12 for the cheap thrills and because I was pissed that their squirt guns ($40 of which I had bought) were so flimsy that they broke in 2 seconds or in the bag when I was walking out to the car!

Everyone has stolen something in their lives, and the only people who say they didn't are people who I look upon with suspicion because I know better.


By Spuke on 10/10/2007 8:19:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I feel sorry for you though, it must have been difficult growing up in such a deceitful environment.
Here we go. The typical "christian" judgment calls.

A bible verse from MATTHEW 7:1-5:

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull the mote out of thine eye; and behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast the mote out of thy brother's eye."


By Reflex on 10/11/2007 1:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
I did not make a 'judgement' call based on religion. I related the truth of my upbringing. I am a Christian although hardly a practicing one(ie: no church, don't give a damn about 'traditional' religion). I mentioned my religious upbringing because for me at the time it definatly was a factor in my behavior, for others it could be other things. Being a mature adult now I don't need a 'god' figure to do the right thing, as a kid though it was certainly persuasive.

My point was that there are plenty of people in the world who do not steal things. And never have. That the original poster dosen't believe it says more about himself than anything else. I have no way of knowing what his religion or upbringing are, or what role they played in him believing that everyone is a thief.

For one so concerned about 'christian judgement' you are awful quick to judge...


By redbone75 on 10/11/2007 5:59:50 AM , Rating: 1
In regards to your previous post, I was about to argue on your behalf as to why you should not be voted down... until I read the last sentence. It may not have been a "Christian judgment" you were making, but it was a judgment nonetheless.

As for your current post, I think you're a little confused. A Christian accepts Christ as savior and the son of God, so a "god figure," as you put it, is tantamount to your beliefs as a Christian, whether observant or not. So I ask you: where is the deceit now?

I'm not trying to start a religious debate, or even bash religion. Believe what the f*&# you want to believe and don't judge others. I'm not a religious person, either, but I do have MY beliefs that I don't force on others. I could give a shit about what you think of me as long as you respect my right to not give a shit.


By Reflex on 10/11/2007 1:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
I am not going to argue theology, at this stage in my life I do not need a notion of a 'higher power' in order to do what is right. What my personal beliefs are nowadays are honestly no one's business, and conveying them would require a lengthy dissertation on how I reached the conclusions I have. Honestly, its amazing how simply saying that as a child my moral decisions were affected by my religious upbringing causes such a firestorm and voting down, as though its some sort of crime to admit that my parents were religious and raised me with that ideal. For me, it was simply a statement of fact, I did not steal anything, ever, and those were the reasons why when I was a child(I have different reasons today).

The poster below understood that I was not judging the person himself, honestly I do feel sorry for him if he believes that everyone steals. I would have difficulty allowing people into my home, my vehicle or my life if I truly believed that about everyone, even in the most benign sense.


By Myg on 10/11/2007 7:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
I found this particular response quite unsettling; it aptly demonstrates the general lack of understanding for what "Judging" actually is.

Judging someone is when you give them a name and you reference them directy with it, IE: "Theif", "Murderer", "Fool" and try to replace their identity with those references. In doing so they lose their human identity and are boxed away in a simple and demeaning concept/stereotype.

Meanwhile, Judging actions or situations is completely different, which is what the previous poster did, he said "it must have been difficult growing up on such a deceitful environment". He did not say "You are a theif, im sad for you".

Judging someone is a usurping action against God, because only he has the right to judge in such an absolute manner. Meanwhile saying to someone that what they did was wrong (ie:"It isnt right to steal") offers them the chance to change, or the chance to see whats wrong with their life/enviroment and possibly change their ways/perception.


By Gholam on 10/11/2007 4:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
Have you ever copied music from a CD, that you bought, to a digital music player, that you also bought? Congratulations, according to Sony BMG, you're now a thief.


By Christopher1 on 10/12/2007 10:55:16 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah right, and I am the Dali Lama! Everyone has stolen something in their life, as I said. Even our local PRIEST has admitted that he stole something before in his life, but that he fessed up to it years later and repaid the person who he stole from.

I did that as well when I was 18. I went to the store, told them I stole a squirt gun from them when I was 12, and paid them the .99$ with interest, about 4 bucks.

Yes, not stealing is 'unusual'. My parents weren't 'deceitful', in fact there were more honest than most people, which meant informing me of the simple fact that people lie about all sorts of things in their lives and people steal all sorts of things in their lives.


ummm
By acejj26 on 10/10/2007 3:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't 24 songs * $150,000 / song = $3.6 million, not $3.3 million?




RE: ummm
By TomZ on 10/10/2007 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 5
You're forgetting the quantity discount they apply for theft of at least 24 songs. :o)


RE: ummm
By codeThug on 10/10/2007 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
already posted or I'd mod you up...


RE: ummm