This is the second big victory for the RIAA this month, after the even-more-ridiculous decision that filesharer Jammie Thomas should pay $US80,000 per song. But unlike Thomas, Tenenbaum hasn’t come out and said he will outright refuse to pay the fine, and it looks like this is a more concrete win for the RIAA dirtbags.

The RIAA specified to TorrentFreak that the money won will go to more lawsuits, not to the artists the RIAA supposedly represents. It looks like yet another episode in this long public relations attack in which the organisation mercilessly kills any sympathy for their cause that might have existed. [TorrentFreak]

The decision has taken a ton of twists and turns—even after the jury had decided what Thomas had done was in fact illegal filesharing, the punishment wasn’t at all clear. Originally she was to be fined for over 1,700 songs, which was then whittled down to 24 “representative” songs, and the per song fine has shot up from the initial $US750 (the legal minimum) to the current $US80,000.

Apparently Thomas “gasped” when the number was read out loud. We don’t blame her, although our reaction was more fist-shaking and muttering about old white men in suits than sheer surprise.

The ordeal isn’t over, of course—Thomas will appeal the decision and it’ll probably be heard by a few more judicial levels before any final say is had. Jammie, we’re pulling for you. Stand tall. Or sit down, it’s easier to steal music that way. [Ars Technica]

As long as it is not done “maliciously, or to an excessive extent, or with resulting injury,” Niagara County, NY Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza ruled that using a Taser to obtain a DNA sample is legally valid.

In the case of one Ryan S. Smith, accused of shooting and a gas station robbery:

Smith was handcuffed and sitting on the floor of Niagara Falls Police Headquarters when he was zapped with the 50,000- volt electronic stun gun after he insisted he would not give a DNA sample.

He already had given a sample, a swab of the inside of his cheek, without protest the previous month. But police sent it to the wrong lab, where it was opened and spoiled. Prosecutors who had obtained a court order for the first sample went back to Sperrazza, who signed another order without consulting the defense.

To be fair, Sperrazza cited several precedents of her own to justify the ruling—including one case in Wyoming where it was deemed legal for the police to Taser a suspect to force him to open his hand for a search. The state’s own Criminal Procedure Law also states that the use of reasonable force is legal to carry out a court order. Is refusing to give up a DNA sample on the same level as being violent? That is to say, should it be a Taserable offence? [Buffalo News via HardOCP Image via Flickr]

The story said the watergun was filled with Fox urine, which according to commenters in the know, can be bought at stores as a rodent repellent. Good to know! Although the man is facing charges, I hope he gets off. Although in some cultures, if convicted, he’d almost certainly be facing a firing squad of urine filled water guns. Think about that for a second. [twincities via obscure store]

Imagine it: Each week the juror in question could have a separate case… One week it’s child abduction, another week it’s child rape (the two charges in the real-life case this imaginary show is based on). Of course, there are a few details to work out – like why the main character is always on jury duty – but that shouldn’t stand in the way of a good story.

But you would have to explain why they weren’t kicked off the jury each week as well, which is what does happen in real life. At least real life can give us a tagline for the show: “”I don’t know which way to go, so I’m holding a poll.” Yes, she actually said that, after disclosing all the confidential evidence of the trial.

(Insert canned laughter here.)

Fortunately, the real life trial continued without the advice-seeking juror.

[The Sun via Cnet via AllFacebook]