7 comments

• 

  Michael

  1 year ago

  Ms. Thomas ruined her own life. This episode and others like it give me cause to warn teens, parents, anyone who will listen: they could get you. You could be sued or even put in jail. But my advice almost always falls on deaf ears. The seeming anonymity of the Internet mixed with narcissism and a sense of invinicibility, catalyzed by the lure of free entertainment, is too easy for most people to...what? Let me do what I want to do with my own art. Stop stealing from me!
  reply
• 

  Recording Studio

  1 year ago

  It is going to be rough for all individuals, agreed. This also sends a message to bandits, quite how loudly and clearly is yet to be seen. One thing is becoming crystal clear. The profession to be is the legal one. They are the only ones who always come out of it with money in their pockets. When morality and ethics become words of no consequence, what else can one expect. I share your angst.
  reply
• 

  JB

  1 year ago

  Michael:
  
  On one foot, I agree with you. There is no doubt in my mind that Ms. Thomas deserves to be punished. I am merely asking for the punishment to fit the crime. She is a single mom who makes a little over $30,000 per year and has two kids. Does a quarter of a million dollar fine really fit? It is the law, I don't argue that, but there is a human element here too.
  
  If anyone had had her best interests in mind, they would have told her to settle. Settle, pay a small fine (relatively) and move on. With others being settled by the truckload, there was no reason to make this the test case.
  
  RS: You laugh. But I've got my application to law school right here on my desk...
  
  Don't tempt me.
  reply
• 

  Doug McCaughan

  1 year ago

  To put this in perspective, she is billed $222,000 for making songs available breaking copyright (and if I read the judgment correctly it was "for making them available" not actually distributing anything---that's like arresting me for possibly providing beer to children because I have a 6 pack in the fridge and people under 21 walk through my house) BUT a school bus driver gets busted for drinking on the job and is fined $482 http://www.twincities.com/ci_7094916?nclick_che...
  
  Glenn Reynolds (http://instapundit.com/archives2/010264.php) sums it up "One offends a powerful interest group. The other just puts kids at risk." while summarizing James Lileks: http://buzz.mn/?q=node/2693
  reply
• 

  JB

  1 year ago

  Doug: The issue here is not whether or not copying took place. When you obtain copyright in a work you receive a set of exlusive rights to the work, reproduction is just one of those rights. Another, the one that is relevant here, is the right to publicly display or perform the work. The argument isn't that her "making available" equals copying, that it equals public display and violates that exclusive right.
  
  So the beer analogy, though entertaining, is a bit flawed in this case.
  
  There is still a valid legal question about whether or not making available constitutes public performance, but if this issue reaches the supreme court, I have a pretty strong feeling they will rule that it is given their track record in this area.
  reply
• 

  Maria

  1 year ago

  As the victim of copyright infringement on a regular basis, I have to agree with Michael. People who knowingly violate copyright law should be punished. They are STEALING the hard work of others. And not only are they stealing for their own personal use, but they're illegally sharing the property in such a way that the property's revenue potential for its owner is diminished.
  
  It's clear (and unfortunate) that the recording industry had decided to make an example of Ms. Thomas. A single mother of two is now facing $220K of debt because of her own stupidity. If they'd made their case against someone less likely to gain public sympathy, there wouldn't be copyright champions like you, Jonathan, sitting on the fence about the case. It would be more clear-cut to the general public.
  
  But to me, it IS clear cut. She's made her bed and has to lie in it. A lesser penalty would not have made the recording industry's point so well. The way I see it, she's fortunate: they could probably have gotten a lot more in the judgment if they'd tried.
  
  And the lesson being taught is so much stronger: it doesn't matter who you are or how a penalty will cause a hardship for you. If you get caught, tried, and convicted, you'll pay. Period. Creative professionals can only hope that this case will act as a deterrent to stop others from stealing their hard work.
  reply
• 

  JB

  1 year ago

  Maria,
  
  I want to be clear that I am certainly not coming out in favor of copyright infringement or in letting those guilty of it go. That would be suicide both to me as a creative professional and as the Webmaster here.
  
  But I have to believe that this woman was given some terrible advice. She clearly did it. She should have taken the deal, spent 3000 dollars and moved on with her life. Instead, largely at the behest of the anti-RIAA movement, she pressed on and now is saddled with nearly a quarter million dollar judgment.
  
  I believe that she deserves to be punished and severely, but that amount is unreasonable for someone in her position, especially when she has two kids.
  
  I agree that Ms. Thomas did something wrong and needs to be punished. I just think the verdict might be out of balance and that she was set up as a sacrificial lamb.
  
  She made poor decisions, but I think her lawyers made the dumbest ones of all...
  reply