1. Home
  2. >>
  3. Latest
  4. >>
  5. Hush, this is Jammie Thomas

Hush, this is Jammie Thomas



Hush, this is Jammie Thomas


“I have been accused of being responsible for copyright infringement without the prosecution having to prove that I was aware of it (…). This doesn’t seem right to me, this gives me the strength to fight ”. So spoke mom Jammie on the pages of P2P Net.

Jammie Thomas has proved resolute, despite the accusation of having shared 24 files and a $ 220,000 fine on her boss. You have faced the battle with the content industry head-on, which spreads terror among netizens by pouring tens of thousands of subpoena requests only to American ISPs.

Jammie, amazed to be raised to ******, confesses to never having wished for such popularity , nor that he wanted to ride the wave of protests against the content industry to gain support and attention from forums, blogs and fundraisers. Rather, he wanted to set a good example for his children, to teach them to fight to defend their rights, especially if they are accused of a crime never committed, a situation not uncommon in cases of file sharing.

If the debate on the net is gradually more and more fervent, the imagination of journalists is fervent in the case of mother Jammie, who on numerous occasions have plugged the holes in a sensationalist way, sketching in their reports “half truths, conjectures or deliberate lies”. Jammie takes the opportunity and the visibility to clarify some misunderstanding.

For example, there is no appeal in progress. The process is over. What Jammie is doing now, contrary to what is reported by the international press, perhaps not very accustomed to the procedures of the US legal system, is a post-trial motion . It is an instrument with which an attempt is made to deconstruct the accusation by supporting its unconstitutionality. The road is uphill but Jammie will persist in her attempt to convince the judges that an IP address cannot in any way identify a person .

Any regrets? Jammie explains that she could have given in to the RIAA’s proposals and agreed on a refund, which would undoubtedly prove less than the $ 9,000-a-song fine. Everything would have been less complex and less noisy, but the labels would have won it for the umpteenth time.

This is why Jammie does not intend to act as a sacrificial victim immolated by the RIAA on the altar of deterrence. This is why he invites other accused people to do not bow your head in the face of the content industry: “The more people decide to defend themselves against the accusations, the more expensive it will be for the RIAA to bring these lawsuits, and the less resources that the RIAA will be able to appeal to to lash out at others”.

Gaia Bottà