free jamie

[NOFX]

This is the girl who got sued by the RIAA and lost in court, now owes them $222,000 for sharing something like 24 tracks.

 

http://www.freejammie.com/

[VooDooPC]

One question, Why?

[ZesteR]

ya that link either is very slow or i'm not getting anything.

[stutters]

1. i'm disappointed. for some reason i was hoping to see "free jammies." i need some good jammies for the cold just around the corner.

 

2. jamie shoulda settled.

 

ya that link either is very slow or i'm not getting anything.

it's getting social network bombed, formerly known as /.'d. welcome to web2.0.

[ZeroDamage]

Don't steal music and movies online and then lie about it later.

[shaftiel]

Well, she had the option to just pay a fine of six thousand or something, but she decided to take them to court instead. Oops.

 

 

 

Shaftiel

[farmerisme]

LOL Bit of overkill. But just because you think you will not get caught does not mean it is right.

[benjester]

that's a great message to send to kids these days... break the law... lie about it... get caught... fight the lawsuit, and lose... then try to get someone else to pay for it... that's right kids... right and wrong, who cares... responsibility is over rated anyways.

 

 

don't break the law, and it wouldn't be a problem.

[dragonfly]

Just proves that she and the RIAA are idiots?

 

"Please help me get out of the consequences of my actions, which came about by trying to run from the consequences of my actions." <- That's all I heard.

 

"I will be a thorn in their sides for the rest of my life because of what they did to me..." lol Who does she think she is? Nope, no money going there! On a side note though, you can send me money. One time this girl didnt like me and it hurt my feelings. Now the only way I'll feel better is if people give me money. But dont give if you cant afford to, only promise me you'll tell everyone you know to feel sorry for me.

 

edit:

HAHAHA look at the title of her page with the vid: "The internet got her into this, the internet can help her out!"

Mom, its' nott my folt!!! TEH INTERNETZ IZ EViL!!!!1!

 

Actually, it was 1700 songs she stole.

Edited October 9, 2007 by DarkArchon

[tookey]

thats what she gets for using kazaa

[Playaa]

as much as I hate the RIAA for their idiocy, and I actually do feel bad for her and her kids...there's an entire world out there of people who are more helpless due to circumstances they can't control...she got herself into this mess...my money is going to the starving kids in Africa instead.

[boiler]

I don't think stuff like this should be posted in forums. She broke the law, so sad for her. Don't act like an idiot and break the law, get caught, lie about it, take it to court, lose, then whine like a baby and say it's still not my fault while asking for money to make sureyou never learn your lesson in the first place.

 

Stealing music/movies is against the law. I have no problem with that at all. If it were my music I was trying to sell, you better believe I'd want to go after every person that copies, distributes, or owns my stuff without having paid for it. I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA 100% on everything, but the law is the law and it's a black and white situation.

 

Buy music from iTunes or something if you don't want to buy the whole CD. Don't plea to the greater interwebz that you have somehow been wronged and want to get out of the situation you put yourself in by being a moron. I hope she doesn't get a dime from anyone, and if someone does give her any money, that really speaks volumes about their character.

 

[/rant]

 

*If you don't like the copyright laws, then work to get those changed through lobbying and legislation. Don't think you're making it change by giving money to help this woman get out of her own responsibility.

Edited October 9, 2007 by boilersax

[appalachian_fox]

I didn't go to the site, but I hear that there's a Jamie that is being offered for free. This better not be another "Free Tibet" scam. Free, pssh. You know how much money people sank into THAT?

[stutters]

*If you don't like the copyright laws, then work to get those changed through lobbying and legislation. Don't think you're making it change by giving money to help this woman get out of her own responsibility.

i was all "right on boilersax" up until this part. grassroots doesn't work in politics, and there's no way a collective is going to form comparable to the resources of the riaa/mpaa. because consumers are incapable of forming a political lobby doesn't mean there isn't a change in consumer preferences.

 

illegal file sharing isn't just a small fraction of the population. according to a report in 2005, there were approximately 9M users on some form of public file sharing (p2p, usenet, bittorrent). i'm not arguing that inherently makes it right, but presumabl these are (or were) customers of the riaa or mpaa. it's not a new thing, either. personally, i've been collecting non-drm, royalty free (free to distribute as intended by the original author) mp3's since 1997 on teh pwn 33.6. with broadband availability increasing since ~2000, interest has exponentially grown. again, i'm not arguing this makes it right or legal.

 

you can't change consumer preference, though. you can, and arguably should, figure out a way to monetize it. arguably, people want a way to own a piece of media and use it where they please, whether its on their portable media player, their computer or other home media system, in the car, or at work. technically, even if i purchase a cd, i'm only allowed to use it for personal use on the medium it was provided. the riaa could reasonably come after me for copying 12 cds (@ 12 tracks, or 144 files) to my computer and using it on my ipod, even though i own the cd.

 

itunes is close, and even trying to fight the good fight with drm-free music. amazon is getting closer (and cheaper), but they're lagging by a decade, and still limited by availability. that lag has caused me, and i'd assume others, have grown to expect (or demand) music to be free, and the industries hesitation to respond, is too blame.

 

independent musicians are being hurt by his archaic distribution mentality, too. fortunately they have some new role models. radiohead is letting you name the price on their new album. nin broke from their label and will distribute independently. and, if you know where to look, there are a few other unknown artists out there making good music for free - knowing that live shows and merch is where their money is at.

 

{/rant}

[boiler]

I know that the grassroots stuff doesn't work, I guess I was just trying to offer an alternative possibility to make a stand other than giving money to someone that doesn't deserve it. In my opinion, the people that want to give money would be better off sinking it in a waaaay longshot such as a lobbying campaign than giving it to this woman. well put, sj.

[[LaW]Maverick]

Bottom line:

 

The RIAA is one of the most ridiculous organizations on the planet....why?

 

They want to right protect EVERYTHING! Why should I pay for entertainment that I can use only in certain ways or on certain devices? That's dumb. Back in the day, you could buy a cassette tape, listen to it wherever you wanted and have no worries--that included making a copy of the tape for a friend. Now if you buy a CD, you could get in trouble for making a back-up copy for yourself. Similarly, they're making monitors and TV's to conform to new rights management technology so that soon we will have to buy new monitors to watch purchased downloaded content. It's ridiculous! Where will it end? Are they going to surgically implant chips into my brain so that I can only listen to music in my head an nowhere else? Come on.

 

When Napster was in full-swing, the record industry saw its highest sales numbers ever. Why? Because people were able to listen to a song from an artist they'd never heard of, and if they liked it, they'd go out and buy the CD rather than sorting through various mp3's looking for ones of decent quality. I did it myself on more than one occasion.

 

I recently purchased a DVD set because I saw some downloaded episodes on my computer that I got from a friend. I would've never bought the DVD set before, because I wasn't sure that I'd like the show.

 

Here's my biggest complaint: prices are overly inflated for media by an insane margin. The record industry said they charged artificially high prices when CD's first came out because there was only one CD manufacturing plant in the United States, and they promised that as soon as there were more plants, the price would come down. Why is a new CD $15, when a new DVD is also $15? It costs a hell of a lot more to create that DVD than it does the CD. They could sell DVD's for $10 and still make a significant profit from what I've read, but I can understand the higher prices to an extent because some movies costs millions of dollars to make and only make a million in theaters. Somebody has to make their money back, or we'd soon not have any more movies...or at least no crappy B movies :-)

 

Now, all that being said, I'm sure as hell not paying $1 a song, because that costs more than the bloody CD's. I'd consider paying 10 cents a song...maybe, but if I PAY for a song, I SHOULD be able to use it however I see fit as long as I'm not illegally distributing it. When you buy a car, they don't tell you that you can only drive it in certain states, ownership will expire in 3 weeks, and you can't ever let your friends drive it. The song is something I paid for.

 

Also, a lot of unknown bands try to get famous by releasing their music for free on the 'net. If you support the artist, you're supposed to order their CD. It's a good way to get your name out, and it's keyed me into a lot of "local" bands I would have otherwise not ever listened to.

 

Ok, after all that rant; this is what I have to say 'bout Jamie. She screwed up, she should have settled, but I hope it does to go the supreme court and some of those old fogies realize how screwed over the consumer will end up if the RIAA is allowed free reign with as much DRM as they want.

[stutters]

btw, if you pay $.99 for more than 8 songs from 1 vs, yer a sap (or a zune owner). full discs are typically $8+ (amazon) - $10+ (iTunes). again, close, but late.

[[LaW]Maverick]

btw, if you pay $.99 for more than 8 songs from 1 vs, yer a sap (or a zune owner). full discs are typically $8+ (amazon) - $10+ (iTunes). again, close, but late.

 

I thought full disc with burning rights through iTunes was still $.99 a song, thus 'bout $22 a CD. That not the case anymore?

 

I pay the Zune subscription fee and download over a hundred songs a month for $14...not bad in my book. When I slow down, I'll go to a song-by-song basis, but I still get to keep all the ones I downloaded with the subscription.

[boiler]

btw, if you pay $.99 for more than 8 songs from 1 vs, yer a sap (or a zune owner). full discs are typically $8+ (amazon) - $10+ (iTunes). again, close, but late.

 

I thought full disc with burning rights through iTunes was still $.99 a song, thus 'bout $22 a CD. That not the case anymore?

 

I pay the Zune subscription fee and download over a hundred songs a month for $14...not bad in my book. When I slow down, I'll go to a song-by-song basis, but I still get to keep all the ones I downloaded with the subscription.

These are all good ideas.... except the $22/CD thing. If that's not the case, then great.

 

$14 a month seems pretty darn reasonable to me for over 100 songs, considering you can pay that much for 10-14 tracks on a CD.

[anonymo]

You're all misinformed as to what the RIAA and MPAA do and who they serve. You're also all too used to free music.

 

Do you know what the going rate for completely open rights to a piece of music is these days? (basically the right to do everything but sell it directly or as a compilation) It's about $15/track.

 

You want to do something about the high cost of music and movies? Don't fund the mainstream. Also, don't blame the RIAA, blame U2, Metallica and all the corporate artists that saturate the industry these days yet still demand higher prices for their works.

 

Without the RIAA many small/independent artists would never see a profit on all the hard work they put into their music.

 

 

Oh, completely off hand...what's a small fraction to you SJ? 9/400 seems like a small fraction to me

[NOFX]

As I read the comments here, most of you seem to believe she is a criminal and she is breaking the law.. Apparently the RIAA and the MPAA have done a great job of brainwashing everyone. Copyright law when used as it was intended and as it was created is a good thing. Say you or I are in a band and we make a homebrew CD. Copyright law prohibits a large corporation from making a billions of dollars from selling the music we made.

 

Instead we have a couple of guys with alot of money already.. who have manipulated the music industry so much over the past few decades they can get away with what they please.. They end up by law owning the music we made, give us a few penny's for the music we produce and they profit the rest. Its just a big scam, but unfortunately that was the only way to get your music out to be heard.

 

Is morally right to make someone pay $220,000 for sharing 24 songs. Obviously this person wasn't computer savvy enough to even turn the upload off. Do you guys who say she is a criminal, honestly believe the punishment fits the crime?

 

The music industry business model is an aging one and it can not sustain itself much longer, yet the executives who don't want to give up their income are doing everything they can to hang onto it. You make your money and when the times change, you get out. You don't manipulate everyone and the law to hang onto your dying business model. Are we going to force people to use gasoline cars forever because the oil companies will lose profits if we switch?

 

The RIAA is a bunch of dirty scumbags who went after one poor girl who shared a few songs. They will only take people to court who are distributing songs, not downloading. They did not file this lawsuit to protect their business. They did this to scare you from downloading music, in hopes you will go out and buy a CD(which they get about 90% of the profit and the artist gets very little). If they really wanted to protect their business, they would have sued the massive torrent seeders who distribute complete discography's. Support the artist, not the executives in suits..

 

sorry for the rant

 

 

*EDIT*

 

no I did not send her any money either, she will never pay them... she will just have a judgment against her whole life.. There is no debtors prison and they can't force you to pay. RIAA slogan should be, share a song, we'll ruin your credit.

Edited October 9, 2007 by NOFX

[dragonfly]

Is morally right to make someone pay $220,000 for sharing 24 songs. Obviously this person wasn't computer savvy enough to even turn the upload off. Do you guys who say she is a criminal, honestly believe the punishment fits the crime?

 

1 - No.

 

2 - I agree, she didnt even know how to erase her hard drive...

 

3 - I dont think so, but I'm not the judge - that's someone else's job.

[ShadowDog]

bittorrent with DHL Disabled, Upload at 1kb, and private trackers with encrypted data FTW

[[LaW]Maverick]

From what I've heard you can also get away with things as long as you don't share an entire file. That's why it's hard to go after the people using torrents, because you're only sharing bits and peices of the file at a time, and if you never upload the whole thing, technically, you haven't shared the file. You can't open 5 mb of a 300 mb movie, after all.

 

That being said, $220,000 is $9,166.67 a track...there is NO WAY that is reasonable....judge or not, and I think that charge in itself is criminal. Jamie handled things wrong though, she should have settled then counter-sued if she really didn't want to pay anything and take those #*@#$ to the chopping block.

 

It's copyright laws the protect the smaller bands trying to make it to the big show--not the RIAA. The RIAA has become greedy and corrupt, and, quite frankly, NOFX is right. Their business model is aging, and it doesn't hold water anymore--yet they're trying to get us all to conform to it anyway. Digital media is more complex than that, and I can only hope that our law-makers realize that the consumer is losing in a bad way right now.

 

So the big wigs in the RIAA might only be able to afford 1 Lamborghini instead of 3...boo-hoo.

[boiler]

It's true that the monetary damages are waay excessive in this case, but it still doesn't change the fact that what she did was illegal and she should have to pay for it. I'm not saying the RIAA is always right and isn't a corrupt greedy group, but as far as the law is concerned, they were within their legal rights to go after people that illegally share music.

 

My thoughts about the legality of music sharing aside (I don't want to fan the flames of those who disagree with me on this topic - I know there are many), this woman needs to own up to her problem and stop whining and asking for other people's charity. Until laws get changed, she deserves some kind of punishment by law. $220,000 worth of punishment? No. But definitely something, and more than what was offered as a settlement fee.