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…

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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