Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


Journal: Jammie Thomas looses lawyer due to lack of funds 2

Journal by Dr_Art
The "Free Jammie" website recently announced that Jammie Thomas is no longer represented by her lawyer due to lack of funds.

Whether or not you think Jammie Thomas is really guilty of copyright infringement, her case is noteworthy because it is the first known case from the 30,000 or so the recording industry has filed against P2P users to actually make it to jury trial and receive a judgement. Her case is currently under appeal, and several controversial legal issues arose from the case. Most notably, at the last moment the judge changed his instructions to the jury to indicate that "making available" is copyright infringement, even though copyright law (Title 17 USC 106(3)) clearly states that an actual "transfer" must have taken place. Also, the appeal claims that the $9,250 per song judgment is unconstitutional and unjust since it is over 9,000 times the "actual" damages (see this article).

It's sad that the appeal on a case with such important legal issues may fail due to lack of funds.

Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it.