Jammie Thomas-Rasset loses 3rd trial, faces $1.5M fine

vbimport

#1

Jammie Thomas-Rasset loses 3rd trial, faces $1.5M fine.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2010/11/ZC8UIi.png[/newsimage]The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its ongoing legal drama with Jammie Thomas-Rasset is one step closer to an end now that the Minnesota woman has lost her third trial. 


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/jammie-thomas-rasset-loses-3rd-trial-faces-1-5m-fine-36239/](http://www.myce.com/news/jammie-thomas-rasset-loses-3rd-trial-faces-1-5m-fine-36239/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

you go girl show them whos boss!


#3

This circus needs to stop now with the RIAA losing and looking like the fools they are.

They can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she downloaded the songs. It is a travesty of justice that it got this far and she is innocent (even though someone in her household may not be).

RIAA needs to go down in flames.


#4

Wonder where she will get $1.5mil from??


#5

the RIAA wants Thomas-Rasset to end the games and admit guilt
How odd…

The likelihood of a fourth jury ruling in her favor seems even more unlikely, and the court appears to be tired of the continued legal actions. The RIAA has paid a significant sum to collect very little in damages, but wanted to send a message that piracy won’t be tolerated.

That’s a helluva expensive “message”. I wonder if advertisement wouldn’t be cheaper. You know, on Google, where you can still do this. :slight_smile:


#6

What she needs is an RIAA insider …

She needs to publish email addresses, phone numbers, fax numbers, mailing addresses … and everyone supporting her in the USA to phone/fax/email/mail complaints and protesters about the RIAA’s behaviour in this case, and other cases.

At the very least, it’ll clog their mail, email, phone lines, fax machines & office entrances for awhile, preventing any business, at least until they change EVERY mobile phone number, fax number, phone number, office address … that’s got to be a real kick in the nads, and more to the point, a huge hit in the pocket.


#7

The RIAA can go to trial after trial and spend millions (hopefull).
If and when the defendant gives up, she’ll declare bankruptcy a’nd the RIAA will get NOTHING. Millions invested (or at least hundreds of thousands… corporate lawyers don’t work for free) and $00000 collected. Sounds fair to me!


#8

I hope the courts stop wasting tax dollars on this. The deadbeat should pay the fine. It is theft after all.


#9

the fines for the downloading are rather absurd. i do think, however, her mother should be fined for naming her daughter jammie.


#10

Kenny54, what tax dollars are you talking about? the court fees will be absorbed by the loser of the case.


#11

[QUOTE=penguin_head;2554872]They can’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that she downloaded the songs. It is a travesty of justice that it got this far and she is innocent (even though someone in her household may not be).[/QUOTE]
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases AFAIK. I believe this is a civil case.


#12

I’m not a fan of the RIAA, but honestly this woman is a complete and utter moron. She should’ve paid the $25k fine and be done with it, instead she’s trying to make herself out to be some kind of hero for taking on the riaa and a lot of people are being stupid and falling for it. She’s guilty and she knows it, she’s just a dead beat loser who thinks she should get away with doing whatever she wants and not having to pay the price. Instead of giving her sorry ass a fine, she should be put in jail for a while to give her some time to think about how stupid she really is. Her crap is getting old and the courts should punish her with jail time not some fine that she even said she wasn’t going to pay anyway.


#13

[QUOTE=paulw2;2554890]Wonder where she will get $1.5mil from??[/QUOTE]

Selling bootleg albums and DVDs? :confused:


#14

[QUOTE=Rebeldawg;2555106]I’m not a fan of the RIAA, but honestly this woman is a complete and utter moron. She should’ve paid the $25k fine and be done with it, instead she’s trying to make herself out to be some kind of hero for taking on the riaa and a lot of people are being stupid and falling for it. She’s guilty and she knows it, she’s just a dead beat loser who thinks she should get away with doing whatever she wants and not having to pay the price. Instead of giving her sorry ass a fine, she should be put in jail for a while to give her some time to think about how stupid she really is. Her crap is getting old and the courts should punish her with jail time not some fine that she even said she wasn’t going to pay anyway.[/QUOTE]
Ha!

All that, and they can’t even prove it was her that did it?
I’m glad the USA doesn’t have the death penalty for downloading copyright files :stuck_out_tongue:


#15

Wow, and if the courts put her away they get zero money for anything, and has to pay even more for the time spent in jail. Think all that jail time is for free? Not even close. Somewhere there was an article that said that it can cost close to $31,000 a year for each prisoner.

Either way, somebody is going to lose a lot of money and that would be the tax payers.


#16

[QUOTE=debro;2555119]Ha!

All that, and they can’t even prove it was her that did it?
I’m glad the USA doesn’t have the death penalty for downloading copyright files :p[/QUOTE]

Actually, it was proved that she did do it as at the time the feds took her harddrive out of her laptop (I believe that’s what she used) she had a new one that had replaced the one she was using to distribute the 24 songs and she admitted in court that she had replaced previously replaced the harddriv so that’s why there was no evidence found on the new one as it hadn’t been the one used during the time she was caught sharing files.


#17

They claim it is all over what 24 songs… well then about $24.00 should just about cover it
and that is probably way to much for the crap music that is out there now days. :confused:


#18

[QUOTE=Blu-rayFreak;2555069]Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt only applies to criminal cases AFAIK. I believe this is a civil case.[/QUOTE]
If there is a Fine it is a criminal case. A fine goes to the government.
In a civil case it would be a law suit & be called a settlement.

I still think my idea for protecting music is the best.
Performers only do live concerts & allow no recording.
That way there is no piracy & they don’t lose all that money.
Because we all know they are losing so much money to piracy they are all homeless & living on the streets Poor CEO’s of the RIAA & MPAA being homeless & broke.
They are producing CD’s & DVD’s at a loss aren’t they ?


#19

If the RIAA is trying to send a message, why doesn’t it be the bigger ‘man’, so to speak, and just drop this lawsuit, since the only message I’m getting from the RIAA, is that they just don’t care how much money they loose, as long as they get their way in the end.