[I]n [their] case against Thomas-Rasset, we have absolutely no problems with what the labels did and why they did it. Even though hers were civil jury trials, there can be no reasonable doubt: Jammie Thomas-Rasset was downloading and exchanging hundreds of songs without compensating the artists or the copyright owners, and she got caught.Doesn't sound like that's going to happen.
As much as we think the music industry’s broader campaign against customers is poor business and policy, we completely support a system in which a copyright owner has the exclusive right “to do and to authorize” anything under Section 106 or Section 106A. We never have questioned that principle, or the system that supports that principle. Jammie Thomas-Rasset has violated these principles without a legal excuse or limitation, and it seems she has played the public for foolishness, taking advantage of a broader anger at the music industry specifically, and more generally, a U.S. copyright system that has some problems, but is still one we feel needs calibration but is worth supporting.
Ms. Thomas-Rasset should pay her lawyers for their work, and the copyright owners for her infringements.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Copycense: Don't 'Free Jammie'
Copycense is highly critical of the music industry, but even more critical of Jammie Thomas-Rasset in the wake of the $1.92 million verdict against her for use of Kazaa to download and "share" songs: