An anonymous reader writes:
It’s, “no secret
that
the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has responded to
the growth of online file sharing with a wave of copyright infringement
litigation,” wrote James Alonso, Marc Friedenberg, Michael
Nguyen,
Shawn Oakley and Sarah Calvert from The Columbia Science &
Technology Law Review.
“Often, the individuals targeted by the RIAA fear
the overwhelming
costs of defending themselves in court, and many have agreed to pay
large settlements.”
Often, but not always.
Now, inspired by the examples of people such as the five very
reluctant heroines mentioned below, increasing numbers of victims are
deciding not to let themselves be terrorised into settling.
The five, courageous in every sense of the word, are:
- Patti Santangelo, a New York mother of
five children, two of whom have now become RIAA targets
- Rae-Jay Schwartz, another mother, bound
to a wheelchair by multiple sclerosis, the terrible central nervous
system disease
- Marie Lindor, a 57-year-old home health
aid whose knowledge of computers and computer systems is zero
- Tanya Andersen, a disabled mother living
off a disability pension
- Jammie Thomas, a young mother of two
from Minnesota
But it’s Thomas, the first of the American RIAA
victims to actually
appear in court, who’s caught the attention of the
international
mainstream media for more than just a day or two.
Horrified by the negative (for them)
PR
the case has been generating, using their connections, political power
and influence, the labels are doing their best to distort facts and
spin Thomas as a cold schemer whose depredations forced the RIAA to
take her to court.
Cary Sherman, the organisation’s chief spin doctor,
said he was “surprised
it took this long
for one of the industry lawsuits to go to trial” when in
fact, the
organisation has done everything it can to stop any of these cases
actually reaching a judge and jury.
Thomas has also achieved two other firsts:
As far as I know, she’s the first to launch her
own forum, and for the first time since she was forced into
the limelight, she’s telling her own story, in her own words.
One of the subjects she touches on was that it wasn't her
decision to replace the harddrive. This fact was a major
decision in her persecution.
also never dreamt how large of a story my case would become.
Before
I went to court, no one except those close to me knew of this situation
I was dealing with. Now, I can Google my name and read articles about
me. A very odd and surreal feeling for me as I never wanted this much
notoriety, ever. Unfortunately, a lot of the articles I’ve
read are
full of half-truths, conjectures, and right out lies. I can understand
media outlets having a deadline to meet, but I cannot understand media
outlets filling the holes in their stories with incorrect information.
‘Best Buy made the decision
to replace the hard drive’
I would like to now talk about some of that incorrect
information
which has plagued news articles and comments. First, I will finally set
straight the issue with my computer hard drive, when it was replaced,
why it was replaced, who replaced it and what might have happened to
the old drive. I have read many comments and articles that I had my
hard drive replaced after I learned of my suit. This could not be
further from the truth. What most people don’t know, if I did
have my
hard drive replaced after I was served the initial complaint to this
suit, that would be considered spoliation of evidence, which is a
criminally prosecutable offense. All the following dates, keep in mind
so you can see the timeline yourself.
