Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. Comment - Jammie Thomas-Rasset infringed, says jury; fined $80,000 / song

   (Jun 19, 2009 - 2:57 PM)

   Paul,
   
   I've been pulled over twice for speeding, and yes, I still love the law.
   
   Once I paid the fine. The other time I argued the case, and won.
   
   Did you have a point? Or were you just trying to be clever?
   
   GC Hutson

2. Comment - Jammie Thomas-Rasset infringed, says jury; fined $80,000 / song

   (Jun 19, 2009 - 2:49 PM)

   Um... Jeff... at what point did I ever say I was "ok" with any of it?
   
   In fact, I'm very much NOT ok with virtually every aspect of it, on both sides of the table.
   
   --The RIAA is propagating a cold-war between content providers and content users. They have used questionable, heavy-handed tactics to push a private agenda for corporate interests for years. (Being a trade organization, that's actually their job.)
   
   --Ms. Thomas-Rasset violated federal law, and has continued to make one bad decision after another for herself and her family.
   
   --Ms. Thomas-Rasset's counsel originally argued that "hackers" must have "broken into her computer and distributed copyright protected material." In this last trial, she blamed her children. (Wonder why the jury of her peers were so turned off by her. Weird.)
   
   The main point of my original post... as was clearly stated... the law is ENTIRELY weighted on the side of the copyright holder. Period.
   
   It doesn't matter if you agree with the law. It doesn't matter if you hate Sony... It doesn't matter if you "hate da man...." or you hate the judicial system... or anything of the like.
   
   The law states, if you create a Work... you own it. And no one can copy or distribute it, without your permission.
   
   For the record, I do think $1.9 million for 24 songs is extreme.
   
   But I didn't render the judgment... nor did the RIAA... nor did the judge...
   
   That was the jury... of her peers.
   
   Thus, before you go insulting me, you might want to first research what she said to 12 of her neighbors, that they obviously REALLY didn't like.
   
   GC Hutson

3. Comment - Jammie Thomas-Rasset infringed, says jury; fined $80,000 / song

   (Jun 19, 2009 - 2:23 PM)

   PC_Tool is an ok guy... his heart is in the right place.

4. Comment - Jammie Thomas-Rasset infringed, says jury; fined $80,000 / song

   (Jun 19, 2009 - 2:20 PM)

   Either people are not reading my entire post, or I'm not explaining this well....
   
   I am extremely bothered by this ruling. Thus, my editorial.
   
   Everyone agrees, that she violated the law.
   
   Everyone agrees, $1.9 million is a lot of money.
   
   Many people keep missing a key point in all of these discussions......
   
   5 years ago, the RIAA offered to settle this issue for $200/song. She refused.
   
   The RIAA did not write the law.
   
   The RIAA did not render the judgment, nor establish the verdict.
   
   12 of her neighbors... 7 "soccer moms" and 5 men found for the RIAA, and passed a judgment that included $1.9 million dollars in fines.
   
   HER OWN ATTORNEY alluded to the fact that the jury just flat didn't like her because of the way she presented herself in trial.
   
   --She chose to distribute the material (the songs)....
   
   --She chose to ignore the law...
   
   --She chose to refuse much more reasonable settlements for 5 years...
   
   --She chose to go to trial...
   
   --She chose to make a bad presentation to her peers...
   
   These are simply facts....
   
   Do I hate it for her?... absolutely.
   
   Do I feel bad for her, and more over for her family and her kids?... absolutely (there are no words).
   
   Could SHE have ended this long ago, by making better decisions?... absolutely.
   
   G.C. Hutson
   Sadien, Inc.
   http://www.sadien.com

5. Comment - Jammie Thomas-Rasset infringed, says jury; fined $80,000 / song

   (Jun 19, 2009 - 9:10 AM)

   I'll answer a few of your questions, point for point:
   
   You asked:
   "My question is, how do they come to these astronomical damage numbers? "
   
   Statutory damages. Under the law, a copyright holder can seek up to $150,000 in damages without proving tangible damages, per work infringed.
   
   You asked:
   "How can they pull these damages seemingly out of thin air without evidence that proves each instance?"
   
   Same statute. You don't have to prove damages. You only have to be "51%" convincing there was infringement. Depending on the level of "willful behavior" proven, the amount changes. She very willfully distributed music via Kazaa. They very willfully sued her.
   
   You said:
   "Also, I just don't see how this is going to have any impact on anything."
   
   Do you see all the people in an uproar over this? Impact.
   
   You said:
   "Millions upon millions download illegally every day, and one case like this is not going to stop that."
   
   Millions upon millions of people who download illegally just paused, and had a cold chill go down their spine. Which is exactly what the RIAA was after.
   
   G.C. Hutson
   Sadien, Inc.
   http://www.sadien.com