My feelings are that this is obviously illegal, but the music industry is repeatedly wrong to go after people like they do. As Thomas argues, the damages are excessive but this only makes me think she was lying earlier when she said someone else was using her IP address to file-share. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions: not the person stealing music, and not the industry for being money-hungry and over-pricing its product.
I also have beef with the expert the RIAA brought in for the original trial. Dr. Doug Jacobson, a computer engineering professor at Iowa State University, spoke about the impossibility that the songs were merely ripped from a CD. Thomas' defense correctly points out that he may have been biased, given that the company Jacobson founded, Palisade Systems, deals with personal technology and data security. As a journalist I have real problem bringing someone that has commercial ties to something, even if it is their area of expertise.
Overall I would think that Jammie Thomas is guilty, but should not be punished as severely as she is. There really isn't a good guy in this whole thing, and there won't be until, by some miracle, the recording industry stops trying to suck our wallets dry. Even iTunes isn't perfect; a dollar a song is still to high (buy all tracks for a 13-song album and you're right back where we started), and if you don't use iTunes software or an iPod it's not the most convenient thing in the world. Like the Long Tail article we read earlier, there is a breaking point where people will pay to get convenience over a free product, and for me its not $.99.
Showing posts with label Jammie Thomas. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jammie Thomas. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Why Go After the Little Guy?
I think the case of the RIAA suing Jammie Thomas in a digital copyright suit is baffling. With the ease of use of some of these file sharing programs, sometimes you're sharing files without even knowing it.
Many times when you start up the program, the default settings have you sharing certain folders that may or may not have music on them that you legally bought. A computer user who wasn't sure what they were doing could be illegally sharing music without knowing it.
In my opinion the RIAA should be going after these software companies who make the file sharing software. Obviously Napster was a target of the RIAA and Lars Ulrich, why should Kazaa, Limewire, and Ares get off the hook so easily?
Of course with the downfall of one program is only going to add to the rise of another. But there are a lot less software companies than there are file sharers out there. And there's a much better chance that the software companies can afford something in the neighborhood of $220,000 than can an individual person.
But screw it, that wouldn't be as much fun for the RIAA would it?
Many times when you start up the program, the default settings have you sharing certain folders that may or may not have music on them that you legally bought. A computer user who wasn't sure what they were doing could be illegally sharing music without knowing it.
In my opinion the RIAA should be going after these software companies who make the file sharing software. Obviously Napster was a target of the RIAA and Lars Ulrich, why should Kazaa, Limewire, and Ares get off the hook so easily?
Of course with the downfall of one program is only going to add to the rise of another. But there are a lot less software companies than there are file sharers out there. And there's a much better chance that the software companies can afford something in the neighborhood of $220,000 than can an individual person.
But screw it, that wouldn't be as much fun for the RIAA would it?
Maybe they'll give her a payment plan: Why would a 36K a year mom take on the RIAA (and vice versa)?
I recently read that some people think groups with anti-copyright agendas might be leading Jammie Thomas down the road she has recently found herself on.
A story on c|net’s News.com nailed why some might be suspicious:
“The question came up last week shortly after Thomas was ordered by a federal
jury to pay the record industry more than $220,000 for violating copyright law.
Why would a 30-year-old mother of two, who makes $36,000 a year, want to go
toe-to-toe with the recording industry.”- Greg Sandoval, news.com.
Although it really doesn’t make any sense, Thomas is going it alone. She’s claiming that no one is telling her what to do in this case; she insists this was her idea, what she wanted to do.
I’m not buying it, especially since the article said that her appeal is going to be supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) via a “friend-of-the-court” brief.
All in all I don’t know who I agree with in the case. I mean, upwards of $200,000 for downloading songs? That seems a bit steep. But at the same time, I do not support file sharing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve downloaded music, hell I still do sometimes, but I download one song here or there, rather than entire albums, and if the RIAA looked at what I’d downloaded, they’d laugh.
I download one-hit-wonder kind of stuff, I have “Informer” by Snow; “Land down under” by Men at Work; and “Rock me Amadeus” by Falco.
My point is even if I was going to be an honest consumer and buy three different albums just for three different songs; I probably couldn’t find two of the three albums. That is what I use file sharing for.
Other than that, I think file sharing is wrong. I’m sorry if you cant afford the album, but guess what, radio is still free.
A story on c|net’s News.com nailed why some might be suspicious:
“The question came up last week shortly after Thomas was ordered by a federal
jury to pay the record industry more than $220,000 for violating copyright law.
Why would a 30-year-old mother of two, who makes $36,000 a year, want to go
toe-to-toe with the recording industry.”- Greg Sandoval, news.com.
Although it really doesn’t make any sense, Thomas is going it alone. She’s claiming that no one is telling her what to do in this case; she insists this was her idea, what she wanted to do.
I’m not buying it, especially since the article said that her appeal is going to be supported by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) via a “friend-of-the-court” brief.
All in all I don’t know who I agree with in the case. I mean, upwards of $200,000 for downloading songs? That seems a bit steep. But at the same time, I do not support file sharing.
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve downloaded music, hell I still do sometimes, but I download one song here or there, rather than entire albums, and if the RIAA looked at what I’d downloaded, they’d laugh.
I download one-hit-wonder kind of stuff, I have “Informer” by Snow; “Land down under” by Men at Work; and “Rock me Amadeus” by Falco.
My point is even if I was going to be an honest consumer and buy three different albums just for three different songs; I probably couldn’t find two of the three albums. That is what I use file sharing for.
Other than that, I think file sharing is wrong. I’m sorry if you cant afford the album, but guess what, radio is still free.
Bills, Bills, Bills
How ironic is it that Jammie Thomas of Brainerd, Minnesota is going to end up paying $9,250 for the Destiny’s Child song, “Bills, Bills, Bills”?
Personally, I’ve never even heard the song but I can’t imagine it’s worth that kind of cash – though Guns N Roses’ "Welcome to the Jungle" might come close.
I kid though and it’s not nice to make fun of thieves paying the price for their decisions. Anyway, that’s the way the record industry would have us all see her and all those nice old ladies whose grandchildren were sharing music on the very same computers they didn’t even know how to turn on.
But, who are they kidding? No one actually buys into all of that record company b.s. I guess except for those 12 Minnesota jurors who threw the book at Thomas.
Thomas isn’t taking this all lying down, though. She’s got her website, Free Jamie, up and running. She’s also blogging daily on her MySpace Blog about how she’s going to appeal the decision and reports that she had as of Saturday at 11:09 a.m. raised $13,909.26, that’s almost enough to pay for two of those 24 songs and about a third of her annual pay according to her website.
She’s even got a YouTube video up now.
Perhaps the best way to sum up the completely diverse and often times idiotic public perception on this highly controversial issues is to simply quote a couple of the many juxtaposing comments from YouTube:
Maverick092588 said, “hahahhaha, you lost! you're a f****** loser! hahahahaha, f*** you, you're poor now! hahahahahhaha, i hope you and your kids starve.”
Meanwhile, Skyler2dope says, “F*** THE RIAA.”
As if it all wasn’t ironic and interesting enough before she’s also now touting ways to legally find music online, with a little thing called Project Playlist, and even purports to have read the, “copyright and legal disclaimers” this time.
Either way I guess the RIAA wins. They’ve surely got some people pretty worried, others are on their side and finally others will do the “smart” thing and settle out of court.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)