Supreme Court Won't Hear Jammie Thomas Appeal

from the but-of-course dept

We didn't think that the Supreme Court would grant cert to hear the appeal in Jammie Thomas' case and now it's been confirmed. As we've said for a while, neither Jammie Thomas's case nor Joel Tenenbaum's case,were ideal cases to take to trial, and both people mounted questionable defenses, which massively harmed their credibility. There are serious issues that could have and should have been covered in these kinds of cases, including the Constitutionality of certain levels of statutory damages. However, the way they went about this case made sure that it was doomed from the start. And, unfortunately, now it's just more bad precedent out there.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:14pm

    they should be ashamed of what they are doing. catering for the entertainment industries whilst doing what the government says is not following the law and in this and all other 'file sharing cases', the punishment is way over the top in relation to the so-called crime!! there isn't a single song produced that is worth what she and others have been fined. and remember, it's all so the governments friends can be encouraged to keep on supporting political campaigns!!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:18pm

    Pirtae mike once again supporting the pirates, she should face up to her crimesa.

    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    What are you stoopid pirates doing here? Mike supports copyright!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Atkray (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:22pm

    Now

    Rikuo, now you will see all the maximalists jumping up and down with glee.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:26pm

    Re:

    In a pretty short article, you somehow managed to find lines where he supports piracy. Funny, I saw phrases like "questionable defenses" "neither...ideal cases" and "doomed from the start".

    Fuck off.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Rikuo (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:27pm

    Re: Now

    Too late, the Richter scale I've got next to my desk is going nuts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    icon
    ChurchHatesTucker (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:36pm

    It's a push

    On the one side, their playlists (the files they got charged with) are pretty popular. Or so I hear.

    On the other side, they're kind of meh. There's much more interesting stuff out there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7. This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:39pm

    Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

    Pirate Mike once again supporting pirates. She should face up to her crimes.

    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    What are you stoopid pirates doing here? Mike supports copyright!
    ---------------
    There, fixed that for ya.

    Don't you kids wish YOU were influential enough here to have imitators? Heh, heh.


    Anyhoo, ACTUALLY, as I've said, I think the punishment MUCH too severe: should be quite limited -- to, say, the $3500 bucks they originally wanted to extort. Lower fines but more certain to be caught would be better.

    I'd mostly blame EFF or whoever backed her legal challenges in the first place.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:44pm

    Re:

    "Pirtae mike once again supporting the pirates, she should face up to her crimesa."

    I think the boy's been hitting the bottle while keyboarding.
    Perhaps he finally realizes what a lonely, wasted life he has...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

    "Don't you kids wish YOU were influential enough here to have imitators? Heh, heh."

    If you consider yourself to be an "imitator" of yourself, you have deeper psychological problems thant we already thought, boy.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:47pm

    Re: Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

    @Me: imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I have to say I'm fairly proud of the Techdirt modus operandi. They do make it look unique

    MY OPINION: Jammie Thomas knew that what she was doing was wrong. Who cares if the law system if flawed, it's better to ignore the faults it produces and focus on the results...which have been apparently zilch to none.



    Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
    http://techdirt.com/
    Where fanboys assert that working industries are doing it all wrong!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 12:59pm

    Re:

    Come on out_of_the_blew_a_donkey you can do better than that.

    I think you're slipping.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 1:13pm

    Re: Re: Re: Badly done imitation. At least spell right!

    Jammie Thomas knew that what she was doing was illegal.


    Fixed that for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    bob, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 1:37pm

    Re: Now

    Not just the maximalists, but those who support artists everywhere. The only ones who are sobbing are the copyright deniers and the creator haters.

    And it's not a bad precedent, it's a good one. Everyone predicted it would happen from the beginning except the tenured law professors who wanted to smoke up and dream wacko thoughts.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    E. Zachary Knight (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 2:48pm

    Re: Re: Now

    How exactly does upholding these insane statutory damage fees actually support artists? Is all that money going to go to the artists who wrote and/or performed the songs she uploaded? No. None of it is.

    That is stepping aside from the real issue that these damages will actually erode what respect of copyright the average person holds. When they hear that uploading 24 songs will get you fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, they are just going to laugh and go right on doing what they do everyday with the addition of complaining about how one sided copyright law has become.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    NA Protector, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 3:24pm

    Results?

    Focus on the result and not the process?
    So, it would be ok if I gave everyone in your family a deadly disease which killed you all and then rumage through your remains and developed a cure for it?

    Because, who cares if you suffer agonizingly long, terrible, deaths. I got the cure now, right?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 4:05pm

    Why is it that bad precedents make for good constitutional law, when the laws that the precedents are predicated upon are not constitutional, falling outside the original intent of the constitution?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Ezekial, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 4:27pm

    Re:

    I agree, she broke the law and deserves the punishment. She shared those files to 10s of thousands of people and should pay for every copy she gave away.

    On a side note, why is this site called Techdirt anyway. I never see any tech stories anymore. It should be renamed copyright and patent dirt since 99% of the stories anymore have to do with those topics

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 4:30pm

    Um, hold up a sec

    Exactly what precedent has been set here? A refusal to hear a case means just that. The Supreme Court refused to hear Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case, and her case alone.

    I have no idea where the hell you people are coming up with the idea that just because the US Supreme Court denied Thomas-Rasset her appeal means that there's some sort of precedent being set. All means is that the decision of whatever lower court ruled on the case last is the final outcome.

    In short, we're back to square one. No binding (nationwide) precedent has been set. The RIAA is still able to sue for outrageous amounts of cash if they so desire (however, after all the terrible press they received from the "we're gonna sue you into poverty for rest of your life" angle, they'd have to be really stupid to try something like that again), and the people still have the ability to appeal to the courts over the constitutionality of exorbitantly high damages.

    If something like this happens again, perhaps next time we'll have a defendant who has a better case to take to trial.

    As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 5:14pm

    Re: Um, hold up a sec

    Ummm, for starters, it's precedent in whatever circuit it was heard. There are only 11 in the country, so each one covers a lot of real estate (and district courts). And it's not uncommon for one circuit to look at another when crafting an opinion about a case with similar circumstances. Certainly the lawyers will.

    As noted elsewhere, this whole matter is the Frankenstein created by the zealots of EFF and tenured law professors who pushed her into the spotlight to further their cause and beliefs rather than act in the best interest of their client.

    Now she gets to hold the bag while they tilt at their next windmill.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    icon
    mmrtnt (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 5:15pm

    Feeding

    Makes you wonder, if Jesus were alive today, how much would he be fined for sharing copies of loaves and fish?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 5:33pm

    Re: Re: Um, hold up a sec

    Correct. In this case this precedent would cover the Eight Circuit. However, there is no nationwide, legally binding precedent being set (I'm not a lawyer, I'm simply basing this on what limited knowledge I have from my education in business law).

    As for the argument of one circuit/the lawyers looking at the result here when crafting an opinion about a case, that's pretty much a given. However, it's also equally likely that they could dismiss what happened in the Eighth Circuit and come to their own conclusion on the matter.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    icon
    Internet Zen Master (profile), Mar 19th, 2013 @ 5:35pm

    Re: Feeding

    Depends on how much the Roman equivalent of Monsanto was charging for fish and bread.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 19th, 2013 @ 6:41pm

    Re: Feeding

    Fined? Fined? Did you see what happened to the bugger? Crucified, that's what happened to him! Now if only Thomas-Rasset were crucified, bob would jizz in his little corporate pants.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Mar 20th, 2013 @ 3:08am

    It's a pity. You have 2 lives destroyed for what's not even akin to shoplifting (and bad lawyers/attitude). I'm sure the MAFIAA is feeling all warm inside ;)

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Grumpy, Mar 20th, 2013 @ 7:07am

    If a 222K fine for sharing 24 worthless songs is not "cruel and unusual punishment" I wonder what is ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  26.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 22nd, 2013 @ 11:19am

    Did the crime... pay the fine

    Yo Jammie!

    You seriously believed those free culture lawyers who
    told you that you are entitled to other people's hard
    work for free...

    Oops! They were wrong.

    I am betting they won't pay your fines for you.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This