Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government Media Music News Your Rights Online

In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000 793

Posted by timothy
from the there-go-some-hearts-and-minds dept.
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Well the price went up from $9250 per song file to $80,000 per song file, as the jury awarded the RIAA statutory damages of $1,920,000.00 for infringement of 24 MP3s, in Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset. In this trial, although the defendant had an expert witness of her own, she never called him to testify, and her attorneys never challenged the technical evidence offered by the RIAA's MediaSentry and Doug Jacobson. Also, neither the special verdict form nor the jury instructions spelled out what the elements of a 'distribution' are, or what needed to be established by the plaintiffs in order to recover statutory — as opposed to actual — damages. No doubt there will now have to be a third trial, and no doubt the unreasonableness of the verdict will lend support to those arguing that the RIAA's statutory damages theory is unconstitutional." Update: 06/19 01:39 GMT by T : Lots more detail at Ars Technica, too.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

In Round 2, Jammie Thomas Jury Awards RIAA $1,920,000

Comments Filter:
  • Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arizwebfoot (1228544) * on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:36PM (#28381921)
    Some thoughts about this award:
    • Crooked, obscene, irrational, ineffective assistance of counsel, insane, tom foolery, crooked, baseless, should have used NYCL, undeserved, excessive, way excessive, legally raped, crooked, sanctions, more sanctions, terroristic actions, bungled, inept, crooked, bad dog bad, sit in the corner, stupid, payback, legal hos, dumb award, timeout, crooked, who ya gonna call, something is rotten in Denmark, spanked, what will you do when they come for you, retrial, bought jury, bad judge, all bad, and did I mention crooked?
    • by winterphoenix (1246434) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:38PM (#28381953)
      Also sexy, but everything's sexy to me.
    • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Geoffrey.landis (926948) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:01PM (#28382267) Homepage

      My thoughts about this award is that it makes it quite clear that the average person posting on slashdot does not know anything about law. If you read slashdot, you'd think that there would have been no possibility of RIAA winning because they are incompetent idiots without a clue.

      Apparently not.

      Note to self: don't depend on /. for legal news.

      • by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:18PM (#28382459)

        no possibility of RIAA winning because they are incompetent idiots without a clue.

        All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.

        • by westlake (615356) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @09:01PM (#28383823)

          All they had to do was find 12 citizens just like themselves.

          The federal jury is essentially creation of the federal courts.

          You do not get to handcraft your own:

          In civil cases, each party shall be entitled to three peremptory challenges. ... All challenges for cause or favor, whether to the array or panel or to individual jurors, shall be determined by the court. 1870. Challenges [cornell.edu]

          The federal juror is 18 or over, a US citizen resident in the district for at least one year, writes and speaks English with reasonable proficiency and is physically and mentally fit for service. 1865. Qualifications for jury service [cornell.edu]

          You could make a persuasive case for the geek being the idiot in court - to the despair of his consul and the joy of his opponent -

          and the most common mistake he is likely to make is to show contempt for the jury.

      • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MBCook (132727) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:21PM (#28382501) Homepage

        I think it's fairly clear she was guilty. There was some doubt, but I'm not surprised she was found guilty at all.

        I am surprised at the amount. I figured it would be reduced to be more reasonable. My big problem with all this is the damages. $18,000 per song is 900 CD sales per song at $20 a CD.

        For simple infingement (not intentional theft) I could see $100 a song, or $250 a song. But $18,000 is ludicrous.

        I was hoping the damages would be overturned as bankruptingly high and unconstitutional. I was hoping we'd get a precedent of vague reasonableness in this kind of thing.

        Nope.

        But the guilty verdict? Unsurprising.

        • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gnasher719 (869701) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @08:01PM (#28383119)

          For simple infingement (not intentional theft) I could see $100 a song, or $250 a song. But $18,000 is ludicrous.

          Well, it's $80,000, not $18,000. However, I cannot possibly see even $100 per song as justified. As far as I know, these file sharing programs require that you distribute about the same amount of songs that you download yourself. Or, turning the argument around, the amount that others download from you is about the same as what you download, so on average any song that is made available for downloading will be downloaded _once_. Damages are at most $0.70 per song (that's what the music company makes if I download a single song from iTunes). So even if we assume without justification that these songs were downloaded from her computer ten times each, that's only $7 per song.

          I always though that statutory damages are not meant as a punishment, but as a means to give the copyright holder fair compensation in situations where the actual damage is impossible to establish. So I would agree that the RIAA deserves not the amount that they can actually prove, but a reasonable estimate of the actual damages. $80,000 in damages would be Ok if we could reasonably estimate that a song was downloaded about 115,000 times from her computer. Which is ridiculous.

          • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Informative)

            by Solandri (704621) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @09:31PM (#28384107)

            Well, it's $80,000, not $18,000. However, I cannot possibly see even $100 per song as justified.

            To put $80,000 per song in perspective, look at the RIAA's 2001 marketing stats [azoz.com] (last year I could find figures for new releases). On average each new CD title brought in about $500,000 in revenue. If you figure conservatively 8 songs per CD, that works out to $62,500 per song.

            In other words, the jury awarded more averages damages per song than if she'd prevented all copies of the song from ever being sold.

          • by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @09:57PM (#28384329) Journal

            I always though that statutory damages are not meant as a punishment, but as a means to give the copyright holder fair compensation in situations where the actual damage is impossible to establish.

            According to the CONTU report ("Committee On New Technological Uses", back when congress was working on extending copyright to software), and if I recall it correctly, the statutory damages are apparently intended to be both punitive and to allow the copyright holder to recover enough from the few moles he manages to whack to make up for the many he missed.

            The precedent is a church choir director who purchased sheet music for a song that was scored out of the range of his choir (and most singers), did a transposition that made it singable, ran off a few copies for his choir, and offered the transposition back to the original author and publisher, gratis, for their next edition. Instead of "incorporating the patch", they sued for some large number of thousands of dollars (real money in those days, too) for the infringing copies of this derived work. And won.

        • Re:Well . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

          by lymond01 (314120) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @08:09PM (#28383263)

          I think it's fairly clear she was guilty.

          But is the law under which she is considered guilty reasonable? That's really the question at the heart of RIAA vs The Consumer. Sometimes I look at all the hard work and money that goes into making and marketing a recording artist, and think it IS wrong to acquire songs without payment. The music has value, otherwise we wouldn't buy it.

          But then the Internet has drastically changed how fast music can be sent around the world -- I envision in the not too distant future wireless connectivity everywhere and you just have a music subscription to everything (or maybe, like TV, certain channels, etc). Wherever you are, you can turn on your car, your iPod, your stereo, and select any of numerous playlists you've saved in your online profile, and just listen. Nothing is stored locally -- it doesn't have to be. But you pay for access.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jedidiah (1196)

        This isn't a matter of law so much as it is a matter of jury behavior.

        I wonder if Jamie had run over the plaintiffs with her car if that jury would be so generous.

    • Pirates (Score:3, Interesting)

      by arizwebfoot (1228544) *
      All the RIAA did was cloud the identity of who the real pirates in this case was.
    • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rycross (836649) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:28PM (#28382593)

      I've seen a lot of people claim that defendents in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.

      *Dons flame-retardant suit*

      • Good point, however even if NYCL was the worst trial lawyer, his knowledge about the RIAA, copyright, etc is amazing. Include that from all I've been able to gather, he does seem competent as a trial lawyer (few lawyers are really any good at being a trial lawyer).

        Perhaps NYCL will correct me on this, I've seen great litigators who never step foot in a courtroom and would be a disaster at trial. On the other hand I've seen great trial lawyers - both criminal and civil - who don't have the finesse to be
      • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

        by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray@@@beckermanlegal...com> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:38PM (#28382727) Homepage Journal

        I've seen a lot of people claim that defend[a]nts in copyright infringement cases should use NYCL. Forgive my bluntness, but do we really have any evidence that NYCL is a particularly skilled lawyer? Is he more likely to obtain a favorable verdict than the lawyers that these people are using? It seems like we're assuming that he's a good lawyer because he's on our side.

        Agreed.

        • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Rycross (836649) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:43PM (#28382797)

          Sorry if I phrased the question trollishly. I think a better way of putting it is this: If I were accused by the RIAA, do you think you'd be a good lawyer to represent me at trial. If so, what are your qualifications? I don't do much infringing anymore, so I'm unlikely to need your services, but I'd be interested in knowing.

          Its my impression that you're very knowledgeable, but since I'm not a legal expert, my impressions mean nothing. Sorry if you've already gone over this.

          • Re:Well . . . (Score:5, Insightful)

            by NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) * <ray@@@beckermanlegal...com> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @08:02PM (#28383147) Homepage Journal

            Sorry if I phrased the question trollishly. I think a better way of putting it is this: If I were accused by the RIAA, do you think you'd be a good lawyer to represent me at trial. If so, what are your qualifications? I don't do much infringing anymore, so I'm unlikely to need your services, but I'd be interested in knowing. Its my impression that you're very knowledgeable, but since I'm not a legal expert, my impressions mean nothing. Sorry if you've already gone over this.

            I don't really think it's for me to say. And I don't think your comment was trollish in the least. You were cautioning people against retaining a lawyer just based on the fact that they like him. And when I said "agreed", I meant it.

            • by HeadlessNotAHorseman (823040) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @10:52PM (#28384785) Homepage

              I don't really think it's for me to say. And I don't think your comment was trollish in the least. You were cautioning people against retaining a lawyer just based on the fact that they like him. And when I said "agreed", I meant it.

              How do we know that you are not just agreeing with Rycross to trick people into thinking you are a good lawyer when in fact you are not? And which goblet has the iocane powder?

  • by SoupGuru (723634) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:38PM (#28381951)

    $1.92M for 24 songs is unreasonable? What makes you say that?

  • by guruevi (827432) <evi@smo k i n g c ube.be> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:39PM (#28381959) Homepage

    I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double.

    Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.

    • by QuantumG (50515) * <qg@biodome.org> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:41PM (#28381987) Homepage Journal

      haha.. never assign to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence.

    • by Frosty Piss (770223) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:46PM (#28382067)
      I recall in the previous stories on this case, everyone kept say "Slam Dunk!". I thought that the defense lawyers where supposed to be a "crack team" and yet from the Slashdot write-up, it seems the defense left much to be desired. What happened?
      • by davmoo (63521) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:59PM (#28382229)

        The lawyers, no matter how good, were up against one major obstacle during both trials. And that obstacle is that the evidence overwhelmingly said she was guilty of what they were accusing her of.

        I don't like the RIAA either. And I also think this award is even more silly than the last one. But that makes two juries now that have found this twit guilty. Its time for her to fess up, quit trying to play the victim, and settle for a few thousand dollars.

        And if the intarwebs community wants to be taken seriously in their fight for reasonable copyright laws, they need to find a better case to rally around. One where the accused person really is innocent. Continuing to support Jammie Thomas-Whateveritis only makes us look like stupid pirates.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Continuing to support Jammie Thomas-Whateveritis only makes us look like stupid pirates.

          Maybe some people are just stupid pirates?

          Some people's attitudes going into it ("I don't care about law, it doesn't make sense to me so I'm going to download anything and everything I want. In fact, I'll download more than I can ever watch in my lifetime just because I can!") appear to come from a stupid pirate mentality...

          Not to say I agree with RIAA, etc., but I don't think I can agree with the other side of stupidity, either. :)

    • I'm starting to believe this lady was paid off by the RIAA to set an example by letting it go through the justice system with a bad defense and keep pushing their luck for the amounts awarded and setting precedents. In the back room she just gets paid everything back in double. Really, how difficult is it to punch through the RIAA's statements? The average helpdesk technician would punch holes in their statements if called as an 'expert witness'. I'm really starting to doubt the value of lawyers in these type of cases. The Chewbacca defense might even stand.

      While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert. It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.

      But I should point out that this outsized verdict (a) makes it inevitable that the verdict will be set aside, and (b) cripples the RIAA's attempts to justify their statutory damages theory as against constitutional attack. Had the jury awarded $50,000 or $60,000 the RIAA would have more of a chance to hold on to the verdict, and would have had a less embarrassing precedent to try to defend in other cases.

      • by nweaver (113078) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:24PM (#28382535) Homepage

        While it's difficult to second guess the decisions a trial lawyer makes, it is hard for me to understand why defendant's lawyers gave the plaintiffs a free pass on the MediaSentry/Jacobson nonsense, and didn't even call their own expert. It is likewise difficult to understand why the jurors weren't instructed as to what the plaintiffs had to prove in order to establish a "distribution", or why it was assumed that they were entitled to recover statutory damages (as opposed to actual damages) at all, there having been no questions or instructions relating to the essential elements of that.

        Probably because the realization that the expert witness (I read the written testimony, and I know Yongdae Kim as a colleague: he is an excellent and honest researcher and professor) can't really contribute to the defense.

        This is a civil trial, in terms of probabilities. The probability of misidentification of the computer goes way down when you remove the wireless, password protect the computer, and go from there.

        The problem is, Media Sentry's evidence is pretty compelling: Identify her IP, identify her commonly used username, identify the songs, and she wasn't offering up a defense of being a poisoner/spreading bogus files.

        As much as you'd like to believe it is nonsense, an honest expert witness for the defense would be forced to acknowledge all of this.

        Yongdae Kim's written testimony mostly covered cases which could not have occured (no wireless, etc) and which were specifically ruled out by the judge for being irrelevant possibilities, or which would be exceedingly unlikely (a trojan on the system soley for KaZaA, IP address hijacking which, if Ms Thomas's computer was on, might result in RST storms from unexpected data, dropping the hijacker, by a hijacker who anyway was trying specifically to frame Ms Thomas), and on the stand he'd have to say so.

        This is likely why Dr Kim was not put on the stand: during mock cross examination, Ms Thomas's laywer realized just how damaging Dr Kim's testimony would be in the hands of a plantiff's attorney.

  • Throwing on purpose (Score:5, Interesting)

    by vivaoporto (1064484) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:44PM (#28382045)
    It looks like classic civil disobedience. Break am unjust law, get punished in the maximum extent possible and appeal at a superior court, all the way to the Supreme.

    That, or massive incompetence of her defense.
    • by FWSquatch (1092051) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:58PM (#28382221)
      I'm voting Civil Disobedience on this one as well. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that 80,000 per song is excessive. After the first case was tossed, the judge even made a point of how ridiculous the first verdict's damages were and begged congress to do something about it. The jury wanted to send the message that she was guilty but wanted to add something to it that might help change the laws. Stealing music is wrong, but our copyright laws that set the damages are way out of whack!
      • by Bigjeff5 (1143585) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:36PM (#28382695)

        It isn't stealing music.

        The punishment for stealing music worth less than $250 retail is a class 1 misdemeanor, 6 months in jail and/or a $2500 fine.

        This is copyright infringement, and it is a whole different beast than stealing.

        To test this, try stealing music you've already purchased - it's impossible. But you can sure infringe on the copyright on music you have already purchased!

  • by JobyOne (1578377) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:49PM (#28382131) Homepage Journal
    According to some wikipedia article the median American individual makes about $32,000/year (never mind the fact that women make $27K). Multiply that by a career lifespan of 45 years and you get $1.4 million.

    They have just judged that she should pay 1/3 more than a typical American will make in their life.

    What's wrong with this picture? Clearly she would have never spent that much on music...
  • by BlueKitties (1541613) <bluekitties616@gmail.com> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:51PM (#28382139)
    Any goon sitting at a computer can cause millions of dollars in damages at the drop of a hat. The problem is that people have assigned value to information. Personally, while this may seem radical, I personally believe that distributing information should be entirely legal in any situation except where someone is personally threatened (say, giving out SSNs and Bank Account numbers.) This would instantly destroy a lot of business, but the matter of the fact is that these businesses should have never existed in the first place. If companies could charge people for using mathematical constants or specific words, we would be in the same situation. It is inheritly wrong to charge people for information. Piracy is not theft, it never has been and never will be -- piracy is a name given to steal inherit immutable social rights.
  • by Froobly (206960) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:51PM (#28382145)

    While it seems absolutely insane that an individual can be sued for so much for something so inconsequential, I have to say that she really made it easy to side with the RIAA.

    If it weren't for her destruction of evidence and blatant perjury, the courts might be likely to have some sympathy for her. Instead, she insulted the courts in a way that made Hans Reiser look well grounded. It was obvious to anyone following the trial that she was the one sharing the files, and while she didn't need to volunteer that information necessarily, the deliberate obfuscation (returned hard drives, etc.) put her on the wrong side of the line.

    I think this is a terrible precedent that was set, but really, I'm not surprised. The RIAA, of course, will never see their money, but then Jammie Thomas will never own a material possession again, either, so I guess it's even.

  • A Little Perspective (Score:5, Informative)

    by Reason58 (775044) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:54PM (#28382183)

    Assuming a price of $15 per album, the defendant could have stolen 128,000 CDs and resold them and it would have been less damage than what they are collecting for two dozen songs.

  • $2M? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by C_Kode (102755) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @06:59PM (#28382243) Journal

    $2M for 24 songs? Sounds like jury tampering.

  • by syousef (465911) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:00PM (#28382249) Journal

    So all I have to do is, twice a year write an awful song, then get someone to put it up on a torrent and that's worth $160,000 right? That's a freaking awesome alternate reality! I can live like a king for playing guitar badly a couple of times a year!

    By that kind of accounting, I'm worth billions. Boat salesmen will knock. Bikini clad women will swoon. I can have any car I like!

    Tell the truth now, you're just trying to outdo the British, aren't you? They only used to send their convicts to Australia for a dozen years for stealing a loaf of bread. You'd ruin people's whole lives over copying a song.

  • by eddeye (85134) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:16PM (#28382435)

    As a lawyer, I'm not surprised by this outcome. I admit to not closely following this case. But from what I've read, her defense arguments were really weak. Oddly enough, Ars Technica says it best:

    A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence. ...

    The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.

    I really can't emphasize that last part enough. Winning a civil trial isn't about being "right" in any objective sense. It's about convincing normal people. If your explanations (technical or otherwise) go over their heads or seem implausible, you will lose. If the jury senses any sort of deception or dishonesty, you will lose. Sometimes if they just plain don't like you, you will lose. Clearly erroneous results can get overturned on appeal, but may cases are close enough calls that an appeal won't help.

    On the facts above, I'd have found her liable too. It was clearly her computer with a username she commonly used. That creates a reasonable inference that she used Kazaa on it. While there are many ways for her to rebut this presumption, the flimsy conjecture offered doesn't cut it. Especially if she seemed less than forthright.

    That said, the damages award is completely insane. I'd have given nominal damages, enough to hurt but not crippling (on the order of $100-500 per song - yes, below the statutory minimum of $750). It will get reduced on appeal, but not to that level. Maybe something on the order of a few thousand per song. My guess is that the jury really disliked her dishonesty and smacked her for it with huge damages.

    I won't criticize her lawyers since I don't know all the details. Maybe these were the best arguments they had. Maybe their client chose to use this defense against their recommendations. Undoubtedly the news reports distorted the story. Whatever the case, the defense was really weak. This verdict was predictable.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by selven (1556643)
      I'll copy-paste one of my previous posts, setting the damages to about $500 total.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1272143&cid=28363955 [slashdot.org]

      Except that millions of people did not download from her. Most likely, two people downloaded off her and uploaded it themselves (she should not be responsible for these acts, which those people themselves are responsible for)

      Now, let's do the math.

      Assumptions:
      - 1 download = 1 lost sale
      - she uploaded 24 songs, each one worth 99 cents
      - 2 people downloaded ea
  • Absolutely Nuts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard (633989) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:16PM (#28382443)
    No distribution was ever shown. The RIAA Plaintiffs even said that they wouldn't show it because it's impossible to show. THIS IS INSANE!!!

    I, for one, cannot wait to see the entire music industry implode in favor of artists who record at home with the low-priced equipment available, and who market through cooperatives over the Internet. Let Big Music Die Now Please!
  • by Bryan Gividen (739949) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @07:26PM (#28382567)
    "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." One line says it all. I can't see this standing when it is appealed. Twenty-four music files being available for download, whether it's wrong or not, does not warrant what is effectually a life-sentence worth of money.
  • Well Done! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ratboy666 (104074) <[fred_weigel] [at] [hotmail.com]> on Thursday June 18, 2009 @08:02PM (#28383153) Homepage Journal

    Well done, RIAA, and a hearty thank you to your minions at MediaSentry.

    I now feel that I am REALLY getting my monies worth from my Internet connection. Just downloaded 1,000 songs in a collection "Best Rock Songs Ever".

    Used Bittorrent, so I figure that, at 80,000 per song, I just copped 80 MILLION DOLLARS last month!That theft took just 5% of my transfer cap, so I *could* go for 1.6 BILLION if I really got cracking!

  • Out of time (Score:5, Funny)

    by gmuslera (3436) on Thursday June 18, 2009 @08:42PM (#28383605) Homepage Journal
    Her lawyers invested all their time preparing the Chewbacca defense, and when at the court they realized that Lucas will sue them for 2M for using it, they picked the cheaper alternative.

"The Street finds its own uses for technology." -- William Gibson

Working...