Another ethics vs actual punishment case...

[CuRRent MooD:] Fine

[CuRRent Song:] None

[Last FooD/BeveRage:] Spicy Chicken Noodle / Pearl Milk Tea

Case in topic: Retrial of Jammie Thomas-Rasset ends with massive fine imposed on her

Links:
Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty - with links to the whole retrial at the end
Analysis: $1.92M fine in music piracy case could hurt RIAA

What began as a first trial with damages linked to $220,000 becomes $1.92 million worth of damages awarded to RIAA on the retrial - something that we can imagine when linking to an internet crime or stealing of music - but all for 24 songs being shared out from the defendant's PC. 24 songs for 1.92 million? I'm pretty sure my dear Emil Chau does not need to work for subsequent lives ahead if money can carry over to next lives.

Right view of case: She did share out 24 songs, in the case they mentioned are downloaded copies and does not have a legal copy of (means she does not own a copy of the CD or purchased from authorised sources). In prosecutor's view, these 24 songs are potentially shared amongst thousands of users, leading to a slapping of a fine of $80,000 per song and thus amounting to $1.92 million. So yes, she did commit a crime by downloading and sharing the songs, in law and ethics she's wrong.

Opposing view of case: 24 songs for $1.92 million? That's like saying being fined millions for stealing a CD, or hang on the rope for stealing (ehm, sounds like some other country does it). Even for the first case, fining $220,000 for 24 songs on a commoner sounds insane. How long will it take for me to pay $220,000, let alone $1.92 million? It's obviously pushing the defendant to bankruptcy. People mentioned she could be jailed, but based on what I read, this is a civil case and not criminal, thus liable to fines. I think a sane, normal person prefers to be jailed for this one.

Debating view of case: People are not talking about defendant being "innocent" or "guilty" but more of the $220,000 or $1.92 million. I think there's a lot of holes in this case, since the defendant claimed she did not see the warning messages that Kazaa (this was the p2p software that caused her problems) gave her. Some would think she's on purpose to feign innocence by claiming she was not using the PC, or she did not receive warnings, thus being slapped with such a fine...but $1.92 million is overly ridiculous. If they doubled or tripled the original, say $660,000 just to remind her that evidence shows she did commit a crime and re-emphasizing the power of the law, it sounds sensible but...almost 2mil? It's almost 10 times the fine imposed on the first trial to a commoner!

Oh well, after seeing all the evidence and stuff, while I won't say she's right, but certainly the amount is ridiculous.

.LuKe.

A highlight to IT (Computer) Security before I blog my usual...

[CuRRent MooD:] Dampened

[CuRRent Song:] None

[Last FooD/BeveRage:] Medicine / Milo

For all who have thought of the notions:

"I'll delay updating my Antivirus."

"Spyware/Malware cleaners are for experienced, rich and busy people. A normal person like me would be out of it, since they will not be on my PC."

"Why does Microsoft flood us with so many updates???"

This is a serious case in the State of Connecticut, United States of America. Links per mentioned:

InfoWorld: http://weblog.infoworld.com/robertxcringely/archives/2008/12/the_julie_amero.html

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julie_Amero

Blog of Julie: http://julieamer.blogspot.com/

ComputerWorld: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121839&intsrc=hm_list

To get a summarised idea of the case, read the Wiki link or the ComputerWorld link. It's something you may least think of while using a PC, but imagine the terror on Julie's face when she was pasted with incredulous accusations from parties that knew NUTS about technology and malware/spyware. This case highlighted some key issues:

1) IT ignorance can possibly get you into big trouble.
2) Lawyers may, and possibly do, get into all sorts of cases just to earn that buck. Even if it meant ruining a person's life and in the end did not get the original claim proven. This is clearly a case where all but the most cruel of people would curse and condemn the judiscation that went against Julie.
3) IT staff just had it harder nowadays - and you do really need to update your knowledge.
4) Your work environment does not protect you as much as you think.

When I read this case just now, I was chilled to the bone, and the heart went heavy. How could it happen, and why? It's clearly a case of so many things that can be prevented but did not happen. The last part of it? She was revoked of her teaching credentials and what I would say as a "going-through-the-motion" legal charge of USD$100. This case ruined her life, her reputation, and she lost the child in her as she had a miscarriage. I would get a good lawyer who wants to earn that buck to sue whichever shit people to claim back so much losses she incurred during the course of this case.

So much IT security loopholes - the OS, security software, firewall, lack of knowledge...wow, that can certainly kill.

Would you think twice about your computer security now?