This is rediculous all-around

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.

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?

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.

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.

Bullshit

Excuse me for being so frank, but after hearing about Jammie Thomas' trial against the RIAA (truly a David and Goliath-type tale), that was the only word that came to mind.

Jammie Thomas is a 30-year-old mother of two who makes $36,000 per year. She was found guilty on October 4 of violating copyright on 24 songs by providing them for download from her Kazaa account. Thomas denied ever using file-sharing software. However, her Kazaa user name, "tereastarr" has long been attached to Thomas. (In fact, it's her MySpace user id)

The verdict would have Thomas pay up $220,000; quite a sum considering her financial standing. It didn't take jurors long to deliberate on the appropriate sum. Thomas could have been fined anywhere from $750 to $150,000 per song. Jurors settled on $9,250. Juror Lisa Reinke said, "You go too low, it's not going to stop the illegal downloading of music. People are going to think, 'I could do this, I could go through federal court and get off cheap.'"

REALLY?! You really think people would have sat there and thought that $750 per song made it affordable? (24 songs at $750 each would still have been $18,000.) The jury was FAR too harsh in their judgment.

Thomas has since said she would appeal the verdict, an uphill battle considering the support and financial clout of the RIAA. Even still, I cannot say if her efforts are heroic or dumb. Yes, it sucks to pay for music that's out there for free, but at the same time I wouldn't want someone stealing work I had done, either. Yes, most of the money goes to record companies, but it's the principle of the matter. They cannot be bypassed.

Even still, the amount the court ordered Thomas to pay is ridiculous.

People can help support Jammie by donating to her site, FreeJammie. As of the 13th of October, over $13,000 had already been donated.