Jammie vs. the RIAA

M

mattkw80

New member
Hey Guys,

Don't know how you feel about this situation, but just wanted to let you know, I've sent a little money to this web site.

http://www.freejammie.com/


She only needs a $1 or so from everybody, for her legal defence fund, so that she can properly defend herself from the RIAA.

Check out her you tube video if you want.

She's been randomly selected as a target of the RIAA - to be made example of.

They are now suing her for $200,000 for something most of us here have all done ourselves.

Thanks for checking out this thread.
 
mattkw80 said:
She's been randomly selected as a target of the RIAA - to be made example of.

They are now suing her for $200,000 for something most of us here have all done ourselves.

Thanks for checking out this thread.
Click to expand...

She lost the lawsuit already, she now owes the $200K. She can appeal, but she may very well be wasting more money.

Note that she could simply declare bankruptcy at this point; if she needs more money, it's to pay legal fees as lawyers are generally averse to working for free.

I haven't posted 1,700 songs for download off my computer, nor do I have any illegal downloads (or any downloads, for that matter) to my knowledge. I do not condemn her, but neither do I feel a need to pay for her lawyers.
 
Nine Inch Nails as well.....


QUOTE :

The news comes from Reznor himself, who posted the following note on the band's website:

Hello everyone. I've waited a LONG time to be able to make the following announcement: as of right now Nine Inch Nails is a totally free agent, free of any recording contract with any label. I have been under recording contracts for 18 years and have watched the business radically mutate from one thing to something inherently very different and it gives me great pleasure to be able to finally have a direct relationship with the audience as I see fit and appropriate. Look for some announcements in the near future regarding 2008.

Exciting times, indeed.

Reznor had apparently been chafing under his Interscope contract for quite some time; most recently, he encouraged fans in Australia to steal his album because the label priced it too high there. It'll be exciting to see what sort of system he comes up with for distributing his songs -- most likely, he'll be watching the Radiohead situation closely when that album is released on Wednesday.
 
mattkw80 said:
Nine Inch Nails as well.....


QUOTE :


Reznor had apparently been chafing under his Interscope contract for quite some time; most recently, he encouraged fans in Australia to steal his album because the label priced it too high there. It'll be exciting to see what sort of system he comes up with for distributing his songs -- most likely, he'll be watching the Radiohead situation closely when that album is released on Wednesday.
Click to expand...


The problem with stealing the record is the record companies still get thier money. The only time they don't is when the album is sent back to the distributor. So if you steal it, say from Walmart, Walmart pays for it.
 
SteveM said:
The problem with stealing the record is the record companies still get thier money. The only time they don't is when the album is sent back to the distributor. So if you steal it, say from Walmart, Walmart pays for it.
Click to expand...


I'm not even a hardcore downloader.

I've got 1000+ CD's. (I just bought the whole White Stripes discography, in 1 shot).


My whole issue on this....... they are suing this girl for 1/4 million dollars.

How does that stop digital piracy?

How does that turn the music business around?

She has to pay roughly $9000 per per song.

This move will hurt the RIAA.
 
mattkw80 said:
I'm not even a hardcore downloader.

I've got 1000+ CD's. (I just bought the whole White Stripes discography, in 1 shot).


My whole issue on this....... they are suing this girl for 1/4 million dollars.

She has to pay roughly $9000 per per song.

This move will hurt the RIAA.
Click to expand...

"Sued". You need to use the past tense here, the RIAA has already won.

Sure, it will hurt the RIAA from a public relations perspective. Why should I care? I am not the RIAA.

Neither am I a downloader or uploader. This is a private dispute between parties who are adults. I see no need to fund either of them.
 
She's building a trust fund for the appeal.

Your not the RIAA, and you should not care at all.

Why did you post to this thread anyway ?

The fund is going ahead without your consent..... it's made $2800 in the last few hours.


mshilarious said:
"Sued". You need to use the past tense here, the RIAA has already won.

Sure, it will hurt the RIAA from a public relations perspective. Why should I care? I am not the RIAA.

Neither am I a downloader or uploader. This is a private dispute between parties who are adults. I see no need to fund either of them.
Click to expand...
 
She could have easily just paid a $2000 fine and been done with it. She gambled and lost. Sorry, but I have no interest in paying for her stupidity.

My whole issue on this....... they are suing this girl for 1/4 million dollars.

How does that stop digital piracy?
Click to expand...

It sends a message loud and clear.
 
I'm not so sure.

RIAA is taking alot of heat from this.

Bands and consumer's have also realized that music can get from the band to the customer without an RIAA at all.

Radiohead, NineInch Nails..... are 2 of the heavy hitters.

I sent $10 her way. A small drop in the bucket for sure, but we'll see tommorow, where she is at with her fund.

I feel sorry for her, as she was selected randomly out of thousands of downloaders.

Suing her for 1/4 million is un-justifiable.

The whole issue of someone's privacy of course is also a whole other issue - but I guess with you guys from the U.S. that's already completely out the window. Bush has made it clear he'll tap whatever he want's, whenever he wants.
 
mattkw80 said:
The whole issue of someone's privacy of course is also a whole other issue - but I guess with you guys from the U.S. that's already completely out the window. Bush has made it clear he'll tap whatever he want's, whenever he wants.
Click to expand...

No offense, but that is childish nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, its almost gibberish.

I've made 60 commercial albums. I have also recently signed with a major label, one that was involved in this lawsuit. Your perspective about stealing music might change DRASTICALLY if people were stealing from YOU. Its a huge problem. This lady wants to be a hero for being a lawbreaker. No thanks, I dont care. Someday she may be stealing YOUR stuff. No matter what you might think now, you probably will be whistling a different tune if you get in a position that you personally lose money because of people like her.
 
im confused on why somebody else should pay for her bad choice.. im not buying the whole single mother sob story. there were kids 15 years old that had to pay more than her.. and decided to pay.. because they knew they were stealing music


it also bugs me that she is denying she did anything wrong

she got caught with her hand in the cookie jar and now is asking us to buy the cookies
 
Last edited:
Obviously your going to take the RIAA view on this, you've signed with them.

At any rate.... downloading is wrong.

But the RIAA's bullying this individual is going to cost them.

Hope you sharpened your pencil before you signed David..... the RIAA screws their own artists around as well, pretty badly.


Out of curiosity..... what are some of the 60 albums ? (I just gotta hear some DavidK work.......)


DavidK said:
No offense, but that is childish nonsense. It has nothing to do with anything we are talking about, its almost gibberish.

I've made 60 commercial albums. I have also recently signed with a major label, one that was involved in this lawsuit. Your perspective about stealing music might change DRASTICALLY if people were stealing from YOU. Its a huge problem. This lady wants to be a hero for being a lawbreaker. No thanks, I dont care. Someday she may be stealing YOUR stuff. No matter what you might think now, you probably will be whistling a different tune if you get in a position that you personally lose money because of people like her.
Click to expand...
 
mattkw80 said:
Obviously your going to take the RIAA view on this, you've signed with them.

At any rate.... downloading is wrong.

But the RIAA's bullying this individual is going to cost them.

Hope you sharpened your pencil before you signed David..... the RIAA screws their own artists around as well, pretty badly.


Out of curiosity..... what are some of the 60 albums ? (I just gotta hear some DavidK work.......)
Click to expand...
hmmmm ..... first off, artists don't sign with the RIAA, it's more like an oversight committee over a lot of labels and artists and, as such, doesn't really have any artists of their own.
Secondly, the RIAA and actually, major labels are doomed anyway. CD sales have plummeted and things like this do increase the publics dislike of those organizations.
As digital downloading (which has overtaken CD sales in dollar amounts) continues to become the main way people get music, old style record producing/marketing methods will go the way of the dinosaur.
That's part of why they're flailing around like this. The suits can't get their minds around the new reality and think that this will protect their sales. It won't.
Many studies have shown that lots of people who download are more likely to buy CDs. It's similar to when video recording came out. There were predictions of the end of the movie studios. But ultimately, once they figured it out, it became another gigantic revenue stream.
This will be the same way ....... in the end, new companies that aren't so fossilized will figure out how to make money with it and take over the industry and plenty of artists will go out on their own like Radiohead is doing with their new album.
 
I have no sympathy for the woman if she's guilty. It's a risk you take when you break the law. Even if you don't agree with the law, you have to follow it.

The part that bugs me is how little PROOF the RIAA has to submit. They couldn't prove ANY of their charges. They just did some hand waving and said we're pretty someone at her IP address uploaded some songs.

I've been on a music industry boycott for seven years now (ever since Metallica vs. Napster). I crack once in awhile, but I think I've only bought around 10 CDs in that whole time.
 
Dethska said:
They couldn't prove ANY of their charges. They just did some hand waving and said we're pretty someone at her IP address uploaded some songs.
Click to expand...

Huh? Her ISP pegged her IP address as the one that made her music folder available for filesharing, with a Kazaa username she commonly uses on other sites. That's plenty of evidence for a civil case ("preponderance of the evidence"). Note she also got rid of the hard drive in question, which could have proven her case if true. Her entire defense was a Bart Simpsonesque "I didn't do it" (or if you prefer, a Shaggyesque "It Wasn't Me"). Thus, the RIAA did a better job of proving their case than she did of proving hers.

She should have settled . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top