Print 50 comment(s) - last by Samus.. on Jul 26 at 11:48 AM

The ruling continues a proud tradition of the RIAA to blow the media industry's money, writing checks to lawyers and its small staff, while earning little in damages from its legal crusades.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset a Native American mother of four in Minnesota may finally be able to leave the world of lawsuits behind her, after a judge handed her a reduced fine of $54,000 USD for sharing 24 songs.  (Source: joonbug)

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis called the previous $1.5M USD verdict "appalling", "unreasonable", and "oppressive" in his ruling.  (Source: Minnesota Public Radio)
The media industry's crusade against filesharers is a costly one

Even as the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) can cheer the facts that the U.S. government has proposed to make illegal streaming a felony, and that major internet service providers in America have agreed to adopt a "six strikes" plan to police users, the organization continues to hemorrhage money in its eternal battle against piracy.

Case and point is the organization’s high profile battle with Jammie Thomas-Rasset [1][2], who endured three trials for sharing (stealing and making available) 24 songs (approximately two CDs worth of music) with defunct peer-to-peer client Kazaa.  In what may be the final chapter in the case U.S. District Judge Michael Davis has slashed the award from an astounding $1.5M USD, to $54,000 USD (of course this has happened before).

Judge Davis called the original award "appalling" and abusive.  He writes [Scribd]:

The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable.

He says the new award is substantial and still very punitive, writing:

In this particular case, involving a first-time willful, consumer infringer of limited means who committed illegal song file-sharing for her own personal use, an award of $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum award consistent with due process.

This reduced award is punitive and substantial. It acts as a potent deterrent.

The ruling is significant as the RIAA hired eight high profile law teams [source; Scribd] (far more than Jammie Thomas-Rasset could afford) to represent it over the course of the three trials.  Assuming at least one full time lawyer, one can draw an estimate from Ms. Thomas-Rasset's lawyer who claimed to be owed $130,000 USD in unpaid legal expenses for the case.

Using a mean estimate of $150,000 per case, per law team, the case likely cost the RIAA close to $3M USD -- 55 times what it would eventually be awarded [Ed. - Note: This is an estimate based on previously published data.  The RIAA has never published, and likely will never publish legal fees in this case, for obvious reasons.].  

That sum isn't unusual, though -- it's roughly with 2.3 percent return on its "investment" the media industry paid between 2006 and 2008 in direct legal fees.

That's not to say the RIAA hasn't been lucrative for some.  While the organization only has 107 employees [source; Scribd], 12 employees made over $200,000 USD in direct salary (and tens of thousands more in other pay) and the organization paid $14M USD, in total to its staff.  

And the good times for RIAA staffers and affiliates weren't merely limited to the healthy pay -- some have ascended to positions of power, such as lawyer Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., who recently became President Barack Obama's solicitor general.  Mr. Verrilli had been one of the lawyers on the RIAA retainer in both the Thomas-Rasset case and the high profile Sony BMG v. Joel Tenenbaum case.

Meanwhile, the recording industry has been on the hook for not only the massive legal fees, sweet salaries -- it's also poured millions it paid in lobbying federal and state politicians to try to push its agenda.

And remember that new "six-strikes" rule?  It still has to pay (much to its chagrin) to collect the list of infringing user IPs.  In short the (perhaps) final ruling in the Capitol v. Thomas case is a fair representation of the state of piracy policing overall -- big media is losing tens of millions of dollars, while the RIAA and its attorney's happily take a fair cut of that money to their bank.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

$54,000 is still too much
By MrTeal on 7/25/2011 11:27:23 AM , Rating: 5
A first time offender could shoplift a backpack full of 100 CDs and get off with community service and a $1000 fine. Granted this is a civil case and not a criminal one, so she won't get a criminal record from it, but the fine still seems excessive.

The other disturbing aspect of this case is putting a dollar value on every song shared. 24 songs might make for a $50,000 fine that one person might be able to pay off, but if ~$2000 per track becomes a precedent, it allows the RIAA to just sue for more counts. Share a couple dozen albums and a person could still be looking at $500,000; more than most companies would get for willfully dumping toxic chemicals into a river.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By AssBall on 7/25/2011 11:36:21 AM , Rating: 3
I agree. And how is a mother of 4 gonna pay 54k? It is still ridiculous.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Gzus666 on 7/25/2011 12:20:05 PM , Rating: 2
If she is smart, she will start a giant smear campaign based on a sob story about her kids and not having enough money to pay for them now. She could demonize them to the point of them having to back down if she played her cards right. Hell, she might come out with a donation from them for the children.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Natch on 7/25/2011 2:08:49 PM , Rating: 4
Or, more likely, now she can afford to sell the rights to her story for a million, and keep most of it (instead of handing it over to the RIAA idiots).

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Samus on 7/26/2011 11:48:07 AM , Rating: 1
I made some expensive mistakes as a kid, but if I downloaded music that cost my parents $54,000 dollars, they'd probably have put me up for adoption!

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By fatedtodie on 7/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: $54,000 is still too much
By AssBall on 7/25/2011 12:50:58 PM , Rating: 3
Karma? Since when does the US justice system use Karma?

Here's a fun excersize, match these actual crimes with the punishment that fits them:

1: Several premeditated counts of murder and attempted murder of a governor.
2: Drown your own child
3: DUI-Physical Control
4: share music with people

A: 5 years of legal intimidation, thousands in fees, and a 54,000 fine.
B: Months in Jail, $1000 fine, 2 years parole, pay it yourself fees for unnecessary rehabilitation programs, S21 insurance, 1 year pay it yourself ignition override switch, semi unemployable for 7 years.
C: ??? nothing/fine for obstruction of justice.
D: 3 free healthful meals a day in a clean and free establishment (asylum) with free top notch medical treatment.

Now if you still think our justice system makes sense, you must be a lawyer...

ANS: 1D, 2C, 3B, 4A

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By YashBudini on 7/25/2011 1:02:40 PM , Rating: 1
D: 3 free healthful meals a day in a clean and free establishment (asylum) with free top notch medical treatment.

And what about that bar of soap you dropped in the shower? You make it sound like a walk in the park, and yet people routinely make deals for less jail time. What are those people? Extra stupid? There's a reason there's a difference between jail and prison. Perhaps you should educate yourself about them.

Top notch medical car? Ever see the prisoners with Alzheimers, dementia, or mental health problems? Go ahead and link a prison that has top notch care there, if you can find a single one.

What numbers of prisoners are raped everyday in a prison. Guess who pays extra for all those crimes?

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By AssBall on 7/25/2011 2:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
You completely miss the point once again, Yash.

Loughner pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity. By the time they get around to sentencing him and appeals, etc, he will have had 10 years of mental care in a state facility, not a prison.

And yes I know the difference between a mental facility, a jail, and a prison, and you have seen way too many movies.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By YashBudini on 7/25/2011 7:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
I addressed only the point I quoted. You're the one who missed that.

If I was off topic then so were you with your original remarks.

Please continue to piss upwind if you must.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By AssBall on 7/25/2011 10:43:43 PM , Rating: 2
All you addressed was some weird infatuation you have with rape. Kinda weird, bro.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By YashBudini on 7/25/2011 11:48:59 PM , Rating: 3
I addressed prison life, including the wonderful health care you mentioned.

Since you narrowed the scope of the remarks considerably you should be asking yourself about weird infatuations with rape. Kinda works with your name though.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Jeffk464 on 7/26/2011 12:04:37 AM , Rating: 2
He does appear to be a little nutty.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Reclaimer77 on 7/25/2011 4:47:26 PM , Rating: 1
Lol Yash, do you even know what the discussion is about that you're arguing on? It doesn't seem like you get the point...

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By fatedtodie on 7/26/2011 5:56:42 AM , Rating: 1
Did you focus on 1 word of my post and ignore the rest?

She was offered to pay 1800 bucks for the 2400 songs she was illegally violating the license agreement of.

That is less than 1 dollar per song she was distributing.

She chose to fight it, and the law says the maximum $$ as a TON higher. The fact she only has to pay 54k is generous.

Get off your high horse and read the post before commenting please.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By ppardee on 7/25/2011 12:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."

Even $54,000 is excessive considering the value of the 24 songs. That is 2,250 times the accepted market value of the products "stolen". This is the equivalent of being fined $64,000,000 for stealing an average new car.

The justice system cannot be allowed to be used for intimidation or bullying, regardless of how much you want it to be.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Solandri on 7/25/2011 2:54:01 PM , Rating: 2
Compare to what the CRIA (the RIAA's equivalent in Canada) paid to settle a copyright infringement suit there. $50 million for violating copyright on 300,000 songs, or $167 per work. By that metric, Ms. Thomas-Rasset's fine should have been $4,000.

To give you an idea how ridiculous the $150,000 per infringement limit specified by copyright law is in these cases, back around 2002 I went through the RIAA's own stats on their website (which they don't provide anymore). I took their worldwide revenue, and divided it by the number of song titles. Their revenue came out to less than $150k per title. In other words, it's potentially more profitable for the RIAA to sue people for copyright infringement, than it is for them to sell the songs on the market. If that isn't the definition of excessive, I don't know what is.

The law badly, badly needs to distinguish between individuals copying for self-gratification, vs. commercial copying for profit or on behalf of others. The $150k limit is supposed to be used against companies pumping out bootleg CDs of popular hits, not against unwed single mothers downloading some songs to listen to.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By fatedtodie on 7/26/2011 5:59:19 AM , Rating: 1
So is less than 1 dollar per song she was illegally pushing to the internet excessive? because that was what she FOUGHT against.

Read the comment, then post a reply, don't read just a few words.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By drycrust3 on 7/25/2011 12:15:53 PM , Rating: 2
Share a couple dozen albums and a person could still be looking at $500,000; more than most companies would get for willfully dumping toxic chemicals into a river.

I agree. It seems pointless to me to sue a person for an amount of money they don't have and won't have. Even with the $54000 it is quite possible you won't have that sort of money, then you have to add to that your own legal expenses, and if you loose then you have to add to that the legal expenses of the claimant, and the whole thing becomes a sick joke.
All you will do is destroy the motivation to get out and work. Why should this guy go out and work when he can stay home and live off charity? From his own perspective it makes no difference, either way he has no money and won't for most of his life. His parents didn't bring him up to do this, and the government didn't pay for his education for that to happen either. The people of America invested in him so he could become an asset to their community, not be forced by the RIAA et al into being a liability. He would be better off running away to somewhere the RIAA can't find him or touch him, and then start building his life all over again.
The idea that people are born "free and equal" is sort of meaningless if you place an impossible financial burden on them at an early age.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By ilt24 on 7/25/2011 7:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have absolutely no sympathy for this woman. The RRIA originally asked her to stop sharing music and pay around $3000 for damages. While I imagine she did stop share music as soon as she got the letter, she decided to go to court. In court she lied about sharing any music and when found to be lying she then tried to blame her kids and other family members...what a nice mom.

As far as a criminal record, she is lucky they didn't bring her up on perjury charges.

RE: $54,000 is still too much
By Jeffk464 on 7/26/2011 12:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure she is judgment proof, fine her all you want. They wont see a dime.

Bill Breakdown
By Mitch101 on 7/25/2011 10:51:06 AM , Rating: 1
Id like to read the cost breakdown on why it cost so much.

Im sure they make more than 3 million a day in music sales so to lose a days pay to instill fear in file sharers is probably a small price to pay so they aren't going away any time soon and if they added a penny to the cost of every song downloaded they would recoup the cost in no time at all.

What needs to be investigated is the RIAA methods of identifying the file sharer. If they are bypassing ones firewall and security measures on a persons computer to identify the individual then this is no different than breaking into someones home looking for reasons to sue someone without a search warrant.

Really just get a Zune pass and move on.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By JasonMick on 7/25/2011 10:59:29 AM , Rating: 4
Id like to read the cost breakdown on why it cost so much.

Again, like I said, my figure was an estimate, based on past reported costs in the case.

If you've ever been involved with anything legal related, you realize how much attorney fees are in billable hours. It adds up fast.

When you have eight high profile law firms representing you (and likely with a blank check to bill whatever they want) in three different cases and several appeals process, you get a very big expense.

It would not surprise me if my estimate is too conservative. They clearly spent a LOT of money here. Their tax records show their significant legal expenditures (which are grossly in excess of my estimate, but cover numerous efforts, including threat letters, etc.).

What needs to be investigated is the RIAA methods of identifying the file sharer. If they are bypassing ones firewall and security measures on a persons computer to identify the individual then this is no different than breaking into someones home looking for reasons to sue someone without a search warrant.

In the Thomas-Rasset case, the RIAA's approach was well documented. It collected a list of content a particular IP was using and then used the fact that the Kazaa username associated with that IP was used by Ms. Thomas-Rasset on other services.

It seems pretty clear Ms. Thomas-Rasset did infringe the content, but the questions are:
a) Did the punishment fit the crime?
b) Was the amount spent worth it to the record labels?

Really just get a Zune pass and move on.
Zune pass is great -- my friend had it and we used to chill and listen to stuff on it! A lot of stuff I like is unfortunately not on it, though, when I last checked. Of course, a fair share of my favorite music is obscure independent music, so that's to be expected, I suppose.

I always try to buy music direct from musicians at concerts -- that way they get more of the money.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By tastyratz on 7/25/2011 11:07:11 AM , Rating: 2
Extrapolating the fees in that way also leads me to be their cost was even higher. Chances are the single mom in the ghetto just did not afford the same legal council as the riaa which most likely had both a higher billable rate and more man hours.

The idea of this crappy case was not to get 54k from her or even anything at all, it was the high profile killshot they wanted to set precedence for future cases. I am just glad to see it lowered to the 54k as it is not some astronomical life crippling unattainable figure. I am not saying i am glad to see 54k at all but at least they are on planet earth now.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By Mitch101 on 7/25/2011 11:20:26 AM , Rating: 2
Unsure of her legal fees associated if any with this and her personal time lost yadda, yadda, yadda I wouldn't be surprised if she files chapter 11 or 13 and they get nothing from her but I agree on your killshot theory.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By Mitch101 on 7/25/11, Rating: -1
RE: Bill Breakdown
By JasonMick on 7/25/2011 11:35:09 AM , Rating: 1
U Mad Bro? I was just curious not questioning your estimate.

No, it's fine. Just thought I'd shorten my explanation from the article, in case anyone was just skimming the text.

And I'm having a good morning (almost afternoon!), thanks!

RE: Bill Breakdown
By Mitch101 on 7/25/2011 11:59:07 AM , Rating: 2
No prob. Have a great day.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By Snow01 on 7/25/2011 2:14:05 PM , Rating: 2
Case in point. Not case and point. Sorry, I know that's nitpicking, but if it keeps the same mistake from reappearing, I'm ok with that.

Otherwise, a decent post. Reading this stuff just makes me scratch my head. One would think the music industry execs would eventually realize that throwing money at the piracy problem isn't going to stem the tide. But whatever, I guess. It's just too bad they're throwing away all that money on this rather than finding and promoting more new talent.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By BZDTemp on 7/25/2011 11:07:05 AM , Rating: 2
They just look at the IP address and log when then the ISP can tell them which subscriber had said IP the address at the time.

This is why some people have been targeted even though they have done nothing wrong and in fact someone else did the deed abusing the internet connection of the person targeted.

I've read about people found innocent in court because the Industry mobsters could not prove who did the file sharing because of an open wireless network. Some see this as a viable legal defense plan and have now made a point to run an open wireless connection - after all you're must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

If you're sitting on a LAN that does not log who get's what internal IP then I think the RIAA is gonna have a very hard time suing anyone on that LAN with success (unless they can go for whomever operates the network).

RE: Bill Breakdown
By fic2 on 7/25/2011 11:51:53 AM , Rating: 3
after all you're must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

That is only in criminal court. Civil court has a much lower standard. Look at OJ - not guilty in criminal court, but got hit in civil court.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By FlyBri on 7/25/2011 12:09:12 PM , Rating: 2
Using an open wireless connection as a defense is becoming less and less a viable option. It's becoming more widely accepted that if you do not have a secured, password protected wireless network, it's ultimately your fault, and anything illegal that happens on an unsecured network will also be considered your least to some extent.

If your wireless network was password protected though, and someone hacked it, you would then not be liable.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 3:19:15 PM , Rating: 2
If your network was password proteced and hacked, you would have to have a reputable 3rd party document that at the time it happened, which nobody is going to do because they receive their John Doe letter from the ISP or RIAA lawyers, months later.

Thus, what you wrote is theoretically true but it's practically improbable that any consumer of ISP services would get out of a charge with this argument.

Granted, some people do have firewalls, logging of access that persists for months but the vast majority of people with personal wifi don't.

RE: Bill Breakdown
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 9:13:00 PM , Rating: 2
... and if you hand the court a log that you had control over, it'd be easy for anyone to just insert a fake unauthorized access entry.

Then again, this is essentially what the firms tracking the infringers are doing, just handing over a logged # to an ISP then court, and having it taken as "proof", AFAIK.

punishment should fit the crime
By LKN436DD on 7/25/2011 12:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
$54,000 still seems excessive. I got a speeding ticket for 20mph over the limit and my fine was about $300. This woman shared $25 worth of music and practically got the electric chair. If you steal $25 worth of stuff from a department store, there's no way in hell you pay that big a fine.

RE: punishment should fit the crime
By Gungel on 7/25/2011 12:49:22 PM , Rating: 2
I think the fine was this high because she shared the music on KAZAA.

RE: punishment should fit the crime
By YashBudini on 7/25/2011 12:50:33 PM , Rating: 2
PA law for bootleg cigarette violations (no seal no tax for PA) was 5 times whatever quantity you had sold and possessed.

2 CDs are appx $25. How many copies did she sell? 20? That's $500 worth of loss sales. 5 times that = $2500.

Her fine should be proportional to the amount of money the rightful people lost. What to do? Claim bankruptcy and move on.

RE: punishment should fit the crime
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 3:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
She didn't sell any CDs, nor can it be proven that sharing them reduced RIAA member sales because those who attained them through her sharing were specifically those looking for them for free.

RE: punishment should fit the crime
By YashBudini on 7/25/2011 7:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
nor can it be proven that sharing them reduced RIAA member sales because those who attained them through her sharing were specifically those looking for them for free .

Now there's a catch 22. Try arguing that in court. Better yet, try the same thing with people who only want to buy hot cars.

By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 7:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
It would work fine in court... you wouldn't owe the automaker a dime for trying to buy a hot car, nor trying to sell one you stole from someone else.

It's a civil case. This is about losses not whether you think it's morally right or wrong.

Mandatory prison time is required
By Beenthere on 7/25/11, Rating: 0
By jconan on 7/25/2011 12:16:09 PM , Rating: 2
But it sure isn't a deterrent for RIAA, as they seem to be above everyone else. They also have added music from musician to their collections that they aren't authorized. Is RIAA in denial of copyright laws too as it doesn't apply to them?

By Solandri on 7/25/2011 3:03:26 PM , Rating: 2
Punishment is meant to be a deterrent thus mandatory prison time is required to get thru to those in denial about copyright laws.

Copyright infringement is a civil offense, not a criminal one. There are no prison sentences for violations of civil law, only fines.

Personally, I would actually welcome copyright infringement becoming a criminal offense. That would raise the standard for guilt from "a preponderance of the evidence" to "beyond a reasonable doubt", which would pretty much invalidate every case based solely on an IP address.

The RIAA however is trying to have their cake and eat it too. They've been trying to get laws passed which will add prison time to copyright infringement, while keeping it a civil offense (so they benefit from the lower standard of proof). If they get such laws passed, the courts will surely invalidate them as unconstitutional (deprivation of life and liberty for a non-criminal offense). But for people charged under it, it'll be a hellish few years while the case winds its way through the courts.

RE: Mandatory prison time is required
By mindless1 on 7/25/2011 3:40:11 PM , Rating: 2
There is so much logically wrong with your post that I don't know where to start.

1) It's not what folks who do something you dislike, "think" that matters, nor what you think, it's what is considered JUST and appropriate compensation for losses. This is a civil matter.

2) There is nothing to support $10,000 per copy as an appropriate figure, there is no data whatsoever that suggests losses of $10K per copy shared.

3) There is nothing to suggest a fine appropriate to the value of or lost revenue from the sale of what was shared, is "token". Quite the contrary. A "token" level of fine would be one less than the $1 it costs to download a track from a music 'site.

4) Civil law is about compensation not punishment. You cannot excessively punish one person for the acts of many and consider it just, nor a deterrent when obviously it has not deterred it has only oppressed an individual no more guilty than millions of other people doing similar things.

5) If we imprison everyone who breaks laws that have only a minor effect on society, soon there is nobody left to pay the tax money it would cost to house everyone else who is in prison. Your ideals are simply impossible to implement so there is no point in considering them further.

6) There is no denial about anything, civil disobedience has been around for quite a while in mankind's history.

7) Punishment must attempt to serve a useful end. There is nothing useful coming out of oppressing a select few for the actions of many. It's madness, like squatting one mosquito that bit you and thinking "there, I sure showed the entire mosquito population not to bite anyone ever again".

By Farfignewton on 7/25/2011 5:29:23 PM , Rating: 2
*Posted to cancel unintended down-rating*


Here is the real reson for the RIAA
By tng on 7/25/2011 10:45:22 AM , Rating: 2
big media is losing tens of millions of dollars, while the RIAA and its attorney's happily take a fair cut of that money to their bank.
Welfare for Lawyers....

RE: Here is the real reson for the RIAA
By Shig on 7/25/2011 11:55:48 AM , Rating: 2
Welfare? More like a cash register they can open at any time and take any amount of money.

I'll smile the day when big media turns their backs on the RIAA and then they sue each other.

RE: Here is the real reson for the RIAA
By tng on 7/25/2011 12:05:48 PM , Rating: 2
I would also love to know what the relationships are between the RIAA and the law firms that they hire. Ever wonder if there is some spread the wealth program at the RIAA so all of their legal friends make out?

No sympathy but who's the bigger thief?
By jklauderdale on 7/25/2011 6:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have little sympathy for a thief getting caught. At the same time, all the millions that the RIAA has made in these lawsuits and the artists they're supposedly suing for have barely seen a dime . Instead, the money they make goes towards funding the lawyers for future lawsuits. Lets not forget the labels themselves being found guilty of pirating music a few months back.

IMO: The question isn't who's a bigger thief, but who's a BETTER one: RIAA, their lawyers or the pirates?

By gorehound on 7/26/2011 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 2
These labels have been screwing over consumers for decades.They have been sued for price fixing CD's and lost.They have used illegal payola payoffs to play their manufactured popsongs and been caught.They have stolen from their own artists and got caught.They have had taken down their own artists personal websites and been caught.They are being sued bigtime by a group of Canadian Artists for ripping off their songs by not paying royalties.They are the thieves on all of us.Now they lobby our government and others with their millions of dollars in order to pass draconian laws of censorship and in the end they all have a plan for us.I forsee a near future when these greedy ass studios will only allow legal files thru their own personal store sites.eventually i forsee no netflix or itunes but a disney store and a fox store and a warner store,etc.
They have declared war on all of us and they will never win.Fight these asses and stop feeding their industry.Hit them in the pocket book.Buy used physical media.Do not buy new not buy digital file legal downloads as they get money from that.
starve these shysters out of business

“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki