Fined 1.92 million for file sharing

[pcgolfer85]

This is completely ridiculous!

http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/jammie_thomas_asks_judge_throw_out_monstrous_verdi ct

[Triprift]

She should of taken the first verdict of 220,000 on the chin sure even thats over the top but its damn site better that 1.92 mill damn. And Kazzas still going?????

[Iarwain]

If you read around you'll find more facts.

I was actually banned from guru3d for arguing with Hilbert on this very topic. All he can do is spout off about how the RIAA is so greedy.

The truth of the matter is:

The woman did not share just, what was it, 24 songs? There are 1700 songs associated with her username.

She attempted to destroy her hard drive once the investigation began.

She was originally charged 220 thousand and refused it, demanded a retrial based on a wording issue.

During the retrail she continued to profess her innocence. Making up new lies about how her children or husband probably did it, which didn't come up at all in the first trial.

She still continued to claim innocence, despite the prosecution having her IP address, her NIC's mac address, as well as a username she admitted to using.

FURTHER, and this is the most important part to me, the RIAA before the trial agreed to settle with her for 3000-5000 dollars (they wouldn't specify).

FURTHER, they agreed to settle with her at any point during the trial>

FURTHER, they agreed to settle with her for that exact same amount after the 1.9 million was awarded.

This woman is a freaking idiot, she deserves it.

Read:

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article6534542.ece

Operative point:

Cara Duckworth, for the RIAA, said that the industry remained willing to settle. She refused to name a figure, but acknowledged that Thomas-Rasset had been given the chance to settle for $3,000 to $5,000 earlier in the case. "Since day one we have been willing to settle this case and we remain willing to do so," Ms Duckworth said.

She's lucky she's not been charged with perjury or attempting to destroy evidence.

[DaMulta]

LOL who in their right mind would want to pay even 3 thousand dollars for 24 songs?

Damn I would not of just of attempted to of destroyed my hard drive if I had the chance......I would of been blended into a million pieces....

Opps I had my wireless connection open again, and my bad I guess someone used my internet connection to do this crime that everyone living in this day has done at one point in time in their life......

[FordGT90Concept]

If that statement is truthful that they were willing to settle for $3000-5000, I would have taken it just to get that giant monkey off my back. The RIAA is now committed to see it through just to cover their own costs. She's on a one-way street to a jail sentence me thinks.

Then again, the public has caught wind of this story and everyone is angry at the big bad RIAA picking on little old mother. If the RIAA does string her up for 6+ digit figures, it basically signs and dates the RIAA as the wolf in the "three pigs" story. XD

[Iarwain]

LOL who in their right mind would want to pay even 3 thousand dollars for 24 songs?

Damn I would not of just of attempted to of destroyed my hard drive if I had the chance......I would of been blended into a million pieces....

Opps I had my wireless connection open again, and my bad I guess someone used my internet connection to do this crime that everyone living in this day has done at one point in time in their life......

Well actually, 1700 songs were associated with an account she admitted to using, so that really only comes out to, even at 5000 dollars, 2.94 per song, which isn't terrible. She's spent far far more than that in legal costs, and 50 times that in intrusions into her life over.

And if you did that successfully, you'd be tried for destroying evidence, and go to jail, not just pay a few thousand dollars.

And I see your point on the last part, but many many people steal from stores, this doesn't make it okay. The same applies to people who lie to sell cars or houses. Many people do it, it's still wrong, and you try to punish the people you catch.

[DaMulta]

For destroying my own stuff?

Prove that was the hard drive in question lol

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9316/downloadcar.jpg

[Steevo]

For destroying my own stuff?

Prove that was the hard drive in question lol

http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/9316/downloadcar.jpg

They do by logging the downloads from your IP, date and time, packet capturing, and by verifying the download. So weatehr you stil have the data or not is irrelevant, you were caught sharing it.

[DaMulta]

They log what?

http://www.giganews.com/

ROFL

Know how to download, and you won't have problems.....

[FordGT90Concept]

For destroying my own stuff?
Sure, you can destroy your stuff unless you are under investigation, which she was.

[Deusxmachina]

http://i32.tinypic.com/24mxog1.jpg

[Iarwain]

http://i32.tinypic.com/24mxog1.jpg

The victim's families were not awarded that money, that is simply an advance Air France elected, on their own, to give them.

At this point, there is no proof air france was criminally negligent or even truly liable at all, this could be a defect with all similar planes from the manufacturer, which would put the manfacturer technically "at fault"

So technically, Air France had very little reason or call to pay the families anything at all, though it's cool that they did.

The comparison means nothing at all. The true difference between the two is that in one an airliner simply had an accident (presumeably, we don't really know why yet as far as I know) and in the other case, the person was engaged in a criminal act.

Plus, as I said, it's her fault it's 80k per song (Not really, she was sharing 1700 songs) for continuing the trial when she knew she was guilty.

[FordGT90Concept]

So technically, Air France had very little reason or call to pay the families anything at all, though it's cool that they did.
Sure they did: less likely to get sued by those individuals. Shaking a big pile of money in front of someone has a tendency to make them shut up and be "happy."


The comparison means nothing at all. The true difference between the two is that in one an airliner simply had an accident (presumeably, we don't really know why yet as far as I know) and in the other case, the person was engaged in a criminal act.
I agree--one was out of courtesy, the other is out of idiocy.

[Iarwain]

I meant very little legal reason, of course. Paying the families to be happy naturally makes sense for the airline, but they were in no way obligated to do so.

[FordGT90Concept]

Indeed...at least not yet. XD