In the first file-sharing case to go to trial, the RIAA is seeking up to $3.6 million

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
Not really. The thing is most users simply don't have much bandwidth. Most P2P networks have a couple thousand users that have huge amounts of bandwidth that are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the sharing. Back when I used to use Napster, I was on dialup... good luck getting much out of me, lol. The other thing is some people leave themselves connnected and uploading even when not downloading, but other people only upload when they're actively downloading. This usually means they upload less than they download because you log in knowing what you want to look for, but people don't immediately find stuff they want from you unless your collection is huge.

Bandwidth usage might mitigate culpability to some extent for some users, but the fact remains that the small number of leeches make up the only category that uploads nothing.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Darius871


Bandwidth usage might mitigate culpability to some extent for some users, but the fact remains that the small number of leeches make up the only category that uploads nothing.

That's true to an extent. But if you make penalties equal to culpability, remember that on average you can only upload as much as you download. (because total uploads = total downloads). This means, most people are responsible for double their own consumption on average. That being said, most networks have a few thousands of people whose uploads far exceed their downloads just because they have massive collections and loads of bandwidth. I'd be a bit more sympathetic to the companies if they went after those people.

Then again, I don't care all that much... I'm listening to a bunch of wierd stuff I can't really find in stores if I listen to anything at all.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
I well expect that believing her to be a liar and perjurer influnced where they set the damages.

Callled it.

..."is she just incredibly stupid? You decide:

Jammie Thomas used one hard drive for Kazaa... but sent a different one to the prosecution. Amazingly, they noticed.
Doh!

Thomas's attorney claimed that her account might have been hijacked by a Wi-Fi hacker hovering outside her window. The prosecution had little trouble disproving this: she wasn't using Wi-Fi, and they matched her cable modem's MAC address to the Kazaa traffic.
Doh!

Jammie Thomas carefully covered her tracks - by using the same login name for Kazaa that she uses for all her email, online shopping, and MySpace account.
Doh!

The blue-collar jury in Duluth wasn't impressed by the dissembling, and a juror told WiReD that the fine they imposed reflected her dishonest defence.

"Her defense sucked... ."

Another juror interview I say yesterday said the damages were influnced by her lying and cheating in court, and that two of the juoror were so pissed at her lying, that they wanted to impose the maiximum $150,000 x 24 fine. Old lawyer her tells you do not trot stupid lies in front of a jury, they will punish you for it. Old layer also tells you, that it will kill any sympathy for the bench.

I would not be suprised if her lawyers were brought up on ethics charges. There is a duty not to present evidence you should know is false.