Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 83895	2007-10-17 01:39:00	Hooray For Jammie!	SurferJoe46 (51)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
602233	2007-10-17 01:39:00	As I figgered, Jammie Thomas is appealing the verdict won against her by the recording industry for violating copyrights by sharing music files, but not the way I thought she would . . . now the appeal has taken an unexpected twist . The contested issue was expected to be the judge's incorrect instruction to the jury that Thomas could be held liable for simply making the tracks available, without evidence or proof or adjudged that anyone had actually downloaded them . Instead, Thomas now contends that the $222,000 damage award for the sharing of 24 tunes is excessive in relation to the actual losses sustained by the plaintiffs . Those losses, Thomas will argue, amount to the real wholesale price of each digital track, somewhere around 70 cents per . Even the statutory damages that the record labels were permitted to seek are so large as to be punitive damages, the appeal says . Thomas is seeking a new trial on the damages issue . Failing that, she has another chance to appeal the verdict itself . My thought here . . . she still has the right to appeal the anti-constitutional violation of "presumed innocent until proven guilty" . . . . but that's down the road if this appeal poops out .	SurferJoe46 (51)
602234	2007-10-17 02:03:00	Its strange they fine her for making available the tracks, however........she did NOT profit or illegally download the tracks, someone else did! Thats like a radio station broadcasting recordable music....its available to be recorded, however only those that do so are fined!...if you get my drift!	SolMiester (139)
602235	2007-10-17 02:05:00	I read drifts, drafts, drifty people and drafty people too...but this lawsuit is daft, drifty and dopey.	SurferJoe46 (51)
602236	2007-10-17 02:14:00	I just realized that I hope a Yahoo! Slurpspider finds this! Go, Jammie...Go!	SurferJoe46 (51)
1