

The consul argues the defendant's due process rights were violated






Jammie Thomas-Rasset




Source: RIAA v. The People

Comments     Threshold


RE: truly asinine
By MScrip on 12/13/2012 10:02:13 PM , Rating: 2
We know tons about this case... it's been reported on for the last 7 years.

We know the number of songs she was caught infringing upon... the names of those songs... each and every ruling and all the damages against her... etc.

Why would they keep any actual proof a secret? Isn't that the whole point... finding the truth?

I'm not doubting that Jammie could have shared songs with millions of other people. That's precisely how Kazaa works.

What I'm asking is if the courts knew exactly how many computers were connected to Jammie's computer at any given time... and how many songs were actually transferred from her computer.

Basically... did she or didn't she?

I find it hard to believe that you can be found guilty of something you may or may not have done...

RE: truly asinine
By Trisped on 12/13/2012 11:06:24 PM , Rating: 2
Right, we do not have the evidence, hopefully the court does.

RE: truly asinine
By mlambert890 on 12/15/2012 12:30:52 AM , Rating: 2
Evidence is shared in a courtroom. It isnt trumpeted to the public. What you "know" about this case is merely what the media has reported which is merely a *version* of what was made public.

Unless you sat in the courtroom or read the courtroom transcript, you honestly don't know anything about the case.

The "truth" is found *in the court*. The court is not the court of public opinion. Its the courtroom. If you had a legal battle in front of you, you wouldnt want sensitive evidence that might be deeply personal shared with every moron blog commenter, so count this as a *good* part of "the system".

WIth all of the information on the web, and all of the time people spend on the web reading about and commenting on things, its amazing how few people do a bit more research to just understand how things like the court system work.

