backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 53 comment(s) - last by brybir.. on Jun 18 at 12:43 PM

The retrial of Jammie Thomas v. the RIAA will begin Monday. The first time around, she was found guilty and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages for sharing 24 songs. Ms. Thomas's case was the first RIAA case to go before a jury.  (Source: AP)

Ms. Thomas will be represented by Kiwi Camara this time around. Mr. Camara was the youngest student to enter Harvard Law School and graduated with honors in 2004. Mr. Camara intends to follow the Thomas case with a class action suit against the RIAA.  (Source: The Honolulu Advertiser)
Arguably the U.S.'s biggest P2P trial is ready for the spotlight again.

If you haven't been following the saga of the RIAA versus single mother Jammie, here's a quick recap.  The RIAA alleges that on February 21, 2005 its agent MediaSentry detected 1,702 songs being shared by a Kazaa user with the IP address 24.179.199.117 and the screen name "tereastarr@KaZaA".  Logging a complaint with internet service provider Charter Communications, the RIAA discovered the apparent identity of the user -- Jammie Thomas.

The RIAA approached Ms. Thomas and demanded a settlement as they have with many alleged P2P infringers.  However, unlike most, Ms. Thomas refused and the RIAA made good on its promised to take her to court.  The trial was the first P2P trial to go before a jury.  Over the course of the trial, the RIAA provided evidence that "tereastarr" was indeed Thomas -- showing that she used the same screen name on EA Sports, Match.com, and Yahoo accounts, complete with evidentiary screenshots.  The trial concluded with a ruling that Ms. Thomas was guilty of sharing 24 songs -- tracks by Aerosmith, Green Day, Guns 'n Roses, among others -- and an order for her to pay $9,250 per song in damages, for a total of $222,000.

The landmark damages would have been the largest fine handed to a single P2P file sharer in U.S. history.  Ms. Thomas, however, appealed.  Thanks to recent cases that have cast doubt on the legal argument that "making available" is tantamount to infringement -- something the jury was told to be true -- the guilty verdict was thrown out and a retrial was ordered.  An attempt by the RIAA to appeal the retrial failed.

That retrial is set to begin Monday.  Ms. Thomas's old lawyer, Brian Toder, stepped down in May 2009.  She is now represented by Kiwi Camara, an attorney who was the youngest person to matriculate at Harvard Law School.

Also in Ms. Thomas's camp is Computer Science professor Yongdae Kim.  Professor Kim will testify on 14 ways her IP or modem MAC address might have been spoofed or framed -- though all of the ways are extremely unlikely (requiring hardware Ms. Thomas did not have or other unlikely factors).

Mr. Camara tried to get the MediaSentry evidence thrown out during pre-trial, to question the record labels' ownership of the disputed tracks, and to make an argument that Ms. Thomas's tracks were covered under "fair use".  All of these attempts were thrown out by the judge.  Thus the case is likely to play out much like the first.  However, Mr. Camara reportedly has a strategy if the defense that she didn't do it fails -- to argue that the damages are unconstitutionally excessive.

The trial -- which will be longer this time, covering 5 days instead of the previous span of 3 days -- will also serve as a prelude to a broader assault by Mr. Camara on the RIAA.  Mr. Camara plans to bring a class action suit against the record label enforcement agency, with the help of Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
How?
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2009 8:47:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Over the course of the trial, the RIAA provided evidence that "tereastarr" was indeed Thomas -- showing that she used the same screen name on EA Sports, Match.com, and Yahoo accounts, complete with evidentiary screenshots.

First of all, this lady is a complete moron. She uses the same screen name for everything on the internet - and I bet she uses the same password too.

However, how did the RIAA obtain screenshots of all her accounts and be able to identify them as her? Did they solicit EAsports, Match, yahoo, etc for her personal information related to that screen name to verify it was her?




RE: How?
By aegisofrime on 6/15/2009 9:13:57 AM , Rating: 6
quote:
First of all, this lady is a complete moron. She uses the same screen name for everything on the internet - and I bet she uses the same password too.


And you don't?

Look at what I found on Google:

Zune Boards - View Profile: mdogs444
V6 Performance.net Forums - View Profile: mdogs444
AudiForums.com - View Profile: mdogs444
Patriot Memory Support Forums - View Profile: mdogs444
XtremeSystems Forums - View Profile: Mdogs444

Those are either all you, or more than 1 person likes to use the screen name Mdogs444. Which is more likely?


RE: How?
By ipay on 6/15/2009 9:22:55 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for that big LOL


RE: How?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/15/2009 9:23:00 AM , Rating: 2
You too ;)

A quick Google search...

Nokia Users - View Profile: aegisofrime
RWG - aegisofrime - Viewing Profile
DavinciTeam / Forum - View Profile: aegisofrime
MOBANGO : Profile - aegisofrime
Playstation 3 News - aegisofrime Offline Newbie

Moral of the story -- a lot of people use the same name for everything. It makes things easier to remember, though its less secure.


RE: How?
By aegisofrime on 6/15/2009 9:40:15 AM , Rating: 2
I know. I should have added that in my post, since that was my point as well.

We are only human after all. Sure, we can use randomly generated passwords and usernames, but that makes things hard to remember.

Or we can use one of those auto-filling programs to remember said difficult-to-remember usernames and passwords, but that's putting all the eggs in one basket, and it's not really that much more secure. You could lose everything you have online if your hard disk crashes, taking out those stored passwords.

That's why my bank gives everyone of their online banking customers one of those authentication tokens. It's the best compromise between security and convenience, in my opinion.


RE: How?
By Ratinator on 6/15/2009 11:15:37 AM , Rating: 1
Realise that you can make an extremely secure password by using a passphrase like "Pick up eggs and Milk." None of todays technology will come close to breaking that in our lifetime (That includes GPU based cracking). Heck you can probably even sticky note that and someone in your office would be none the wiser (not advocating sticky notes by the way). The one problem I have found though is many sites limit the length of the password so the phrase above ends up being too long.


RE: How?
By monomer on 6/15/2009 1:18:15 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, I switched banks when my online account changed their security so that the password was limited to 6 numeric characters. Secure!


RE: How?
By Ratinator on 6/15/2009 2:14:54 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, that is horrible.


RE: How?
By monomer on 6/15/2009 2:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
I actually didn't even realize this for quite some time, as I was allowed to make a password with as many alphabetical characters as I wanted. It turns out that my telephone banking password was tied to my on-line password, so they just kill everything after 6 characters, and convert the characters to numbers based off of the telephone keypad. I decided to see if my telephone banking password worked on-line, an lo-and-behold, it did. I can just put in the 6 numbers, then enter gibberish of any length after that, and still log-in normally. Needless to say, I was not impressed.


RE: How?
By acase on 6/15/2009 9:23:25 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL nicely done sir!


RE: How?
By mdogs444 on 6/15/2009 9:41:54 AM , Rating: 2
Forums yes, typically because of email address. But not for bank or financials, or same passwords.


RE: How?
By JasonMick (blog) on 6/15/2009 10:09:48 AM , Rating: 3
Well, I think his point still stands -- EAsports, Match, yahoo are all either forums or personal sites, not bank or financial sites.

And the RIAA never claimed to have evidence she used the same password. They just argued that they found profiles that had been accessed by her IP on these sites and were able to show that the accounts on Match had pictures of her on them. Still not definitive proof -- it could all be a very elaborate identity fraud. But it still strengthens their case and shows the dangers of reusing your username.


RE: How?
By 9nails on 6/15/2009 1:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
They clam that *she* used the same screen name for the multiple accounts. If they found that screen name on her computer then the argument would be hard to refute. But likewise, if the defense was able to find other uses of that screen name matching another IP Address, it might work against the RIAA. With any luck, they can. I'm not saying that it's likely however. It seems fairly clear that she used the account and had the files available for sharing.


RE: How?
By AntiM on 6/15/2009 9:21:30 AM , Rating: 3
Anyone that gets pinched by MediaSentry is a moron. They probably still have Napster installed, (long after it was abolished) with the shared folder still shared, and no firewall protection.

After being hit with the lawsuit, her hard drive was evidence and was forensically examined; that's how they found the information about the other accounts.

That pretty much counteracts and kind of defense of mistaken identity. I think the best she can hope for is to have the damages decreased. Maybe $10 per song? That's assuming the RIAA can prove the labels have copyright registrations to the songs in question.


RE: How?
By Brainonska511 on 6/15/2009 10:12:58 AM , Rating: 2
She should go with the argument that "making available" is not copyright infringement.


RE: How?
By SavagePotato on 6/15/2009 10:15:45 AM , Rating: 5
I used to get calls pretty much on a daily basis from limewire users that had no idea they were sharing or any idea what they were doing was illegal.

I work for an isp with bandwidth hard caps and without fail people would call with gigs and gigs of upload with no clue why, inevitably the question would come back, do you use limewire? uh yeah, the end.

Peer to peer for the masses is the definition of ignorance, joe blow gets high speed and his cousin/brother/friend/whatever shows him, hey look at this, you can get music online neat huh.

I talked to a lady one time who was livid that her limewire wasn't working right and demanded that we send a service call to fix it. When I told her it was illegal and unsupported so she was on her own she acted completely shocked, and according to her she worked at the police station and had never heard of anything like that being illegal. Cue 20 minute conversation with a fence post who refuses to believe downloading music is illegal and you get the drift.

I imagine these are the kind of people that get pinched by media defender...


RE: How?
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 9:45:38 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me, but you have overstepped what is appropriate. The ISP provides a service, it is inappropriate for them to try to judge or lecture about what the user does.

You should have stopped after simply explaining that P2P applications like Limewire use a lot of bandwidth so her monthly limit will be reached very quickly.

Anything more than that and you are trying to play mommy or moral guardian. Just stick to the facts of why they reached their bandwidth cap, no more, no less.


RE: How?
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 9:49:05 PM , Rating: 2
I should clarify that I am not justifying piracy, rather being against nannying. I don't try to lecture someone who jaywalks, exceeds the speed limit, or many other crimes which don't effect me (and arguably not the RIAA, it has never been proven that not doing P2P magically puts more disposable income in someone's wallet so a college kid or single mother can then buy lots of overpriced music).


RE: How?
By SavagePotato on 6/16/2009 10:20:34 AM , Rating: 3
When someone demands that you fix a peer to peer client or that as an isp you have an obligation to make the service work so they can pirate music, then yes, I find it very appropriate to inform them that it is both unsupported and illegal. Illegal being the primary reason it is unsupported.


RE: How?
By Yawgm0th on 6/16/2009 1:53:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Cue 20 minute conversation with a fence post who refuses to believe downloading music is illegal and you get the drift.
Downloading music is not illegal. Show me the statute that criminalizes downloading music.

Even downloading pirated or unlicensed music is not illegal. Tort law is not criminal law and there need not be a statute regarding a particular action for a lawsuit to result. Proof of damages caused (in this case, the loss of record sales or MP3 downloads due to the pirated music being provided) is all that's needed for a successful lawsuit.

So what she was doing was not illegal. She was completely right. However, she could easily be sued, as can anyone else who provides music through a peer-to-peer application.


RE: How?
By invidious on 6/16/2009 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
P2P is not illegal, it is not copyright infringement. This is why we have courts, so dumb people don't try to interpret the law on their own.

This the same issue with people who want to ban guns because they can be used in crimes, but so can knives, baseball bats, tasers, rocks, sticks, and fists. Just because something can be used for a crime doesn't mean that thing is illegal.

Just because the majority of traffic on P2P programs is copyrighted material does not mean that it all is. And it certainly doesn't give you or your company the right to call people criminals. Maybe some day consumers will demand that ISPs stop treating them like children.


RE: How?
By SavagePotato on 6/16/2009 10:25:32 AM , Rating: 2
If it were bit torrent that would be one argument.

I have yet to see or hear of anyone using limewire to download anything other than copyrighted music.

In this case the person even admitted to using it for that. Nonetheless Good luck finding an isp that cares if your limewire isn't working.


RE: How?
By jonmcc33 on 6/16/2009 1:21:44 PM , Rating: 2
Her hard drive was evidence?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jammie_Thomas

The hard drive she gave them had nothing to do with Kazaa or any of the files claimed. It helps when you try to dig deeper instead of assuming everything.

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/10/defense-p...


R.I.A.A
By Tegrat on 6/15/2009 9:56:19 AM , Rating: 5
R aping
I nnocent
A verage
A mericans




RE: R.I.A.A
By NaughtyGeek on 6/15/09, Rating: 0
RE: R.I.A.A
By descendency on 6/15/2009 11:33:55 AM , Rating: 5
Fining someone 222,000 $ for 24 songs is legal? When did 2 CDs cost 222,000 $? What happened to the 8th Amendment (in the Bill of Rights? LOL)?

"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. "

Notice they are not required to prove that she shared more than a few CDs worth of music, just 1. I mean she's being tried as if she shared 10,000 CDs worth of music. (around 22$ per CD)

Political idiots want to go around and accuse each other of being fascist, socialist, etc. don't understand the basic meaning of the word. THIS is as close to the definition of Fascism (business becoming government) as anything. Where is the anger? Where is the name calling?

When it comes to media, the average consumer has none, except to pay.


RE: R.I.A.A
By mmntech on 6/15/2009 2:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'd just like to point out that fascism is not business becoming government. It's corporatocracy you're thinking of. The best example would be the British East India Company's rule over India, or Hudson Bay's rule over Rupert's Land. Fascism by definition is a government that is based on ultra-conservative radical nationalism. Fascism itself has little to do with economics, unlike communism. Nazi Germany still practised a mixed economy for example. The conservatism in fascism is not the same as modern pro-business neo-conservatism, which is based on the classical liberal view of small government is better. Fascism supports big government, limited freedom, and total control of citizenry.

As for the eighth amendment, it all depends on whether this is a criminal or civil trial. The Bill of Rights only applies to interactions between citizens and government, not citizens and private parties. Criminal law regulates the latter. From what I've read, this is a civil case so the right to protection from excessive fines does not apply.

I agree that the RIAA's demands are considerably excessive. If she shared 1000 songs as they claim, maybe a fine of $10,000 at most seems fair but $222,000 is ridiculous. I think they're trying to make an example out of Ms Thompson but it has turned into a PR nightmare for them. If the fine had been more reasonable, this would have gone unnoticed. However, the tactic has backfired and turned this woman into a Robin Hood-like figure. RIAA would be wise to just drop this case. The cartel needs to reevaluate its tactics as obviously, law suits have not worked. They've unfortunately been slow to embrace technology. There's a lot of money to be made from legal subscription based P2P but the record companies totally dropped the ball on that one.


RE: R.I.A.A
By mikeyD95125 on 6/15/2009 8:43:57 PM , Rating: 2
What about the FBI warning before every movie about 5 years in prison, $250,000 fine. I'd call that excessive.

I think the punishment should be more than the cost of the work. But how much a is a big question.


RE: R.I.A.A
By jonmcc33 on 6/16/2009 1:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
You're talking about this?

http://www.fbi.gov/ipr/

It says "up to" and would probably be under most extreme circumstances or repeat offense. I agree that $222,000 for 24 stupid songs is a bit much. The problem is how many people downloaded those songs off of her? Each download from her was an offense.


RE: R.I.A.A
By Oregonian2 on 6/16/2009 7:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
In the previous trial, the RIAA had not shown ANY songs to have been uploaded from her drive -- only that there COULD have been some.

This caused some discussion way back when about if it were serious copyright infringement if one left a CD out in the open where someone COULD have grabbed it and copied it.


RE: R.I.A.A
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 9:42:16 PM , Rating: 2
But they weren't proving even 1, they were only arguing she was making it available beyond a reasonable doubt.

I agree though, when digital tracks sell online for $1 each, it is totally ludicrous that the award be more than this, plus minimal court costs (not the RIAA mob of lawyers which they didn't need for a simple $1/song settlement) if she wouldn't settle for $1 each.


RE: R.I.A.A
By ira176 on 6/16/2009 1:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
The burden of proof in a civil case is less than that of a criminal case. A preponderance of the evidence I think is what is required to find guilt in civi proceedings. Also, either the RIAA didn't have the hard evidence to go forward with filing a criminal complaint or they chose to just go the civil route, keep the woman out of jail, and go for her money. She would be worth more out of jail than in.


RE: R.I.A.A
By Solandri on 6/16/2009 3:23:05 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I agree though, when digital tracks sell online for $1 each, it is totally ludicrous that the award be more than this, plus minimal court costs (not the RIAA mob of lawyers which they didn't need for a simple $1/song settlement) if she wouldn't settle for $1 each.

That doesn't work. The fine needs to be large enough to discourage illegal copying. If the fine is the same as the cost to buy the product, then it makes no sense to buy the product. Just steal it. If you get away with it, you get it for free. If you get caught, you only pay as much as you would've paid if you had bought it in the first place. So the fine needs to be significantly larger than the cost to buy a copy.

But yeah, $9k per song is ludicrous. Those fines were made with commercial pirates in mind - the people who stamp out tens or hundreds of thousands of bootleg CDs and sell them. The law badly needs to be updated with lesser but still significant penalties for people who illegally distribute stuff online. Something on the order of $10 to $100 per song, with increasing penalties for repeat offenders. Only if there's evidence of mass distribution should the penalty be anywhere near $9k.


RE: R.I.A.A
By Shmak on 6/15/2009 12:01:38 PM , Rating: 5
This is a US case and therefore, she is innocent until proven guilty. Until the verdict is final, she's innocent.


RE: R.I.A.A
By jonmcc33 on 6/16/2009 3:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately not, in case you don't remember OJ Simpson's first case - where the criminal case he was found not guilty for murder but the civil case he was found LIABLE for wrongful death. This is not a criminal case so "innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply.


RE: R.I.A.A
By omnicronx on 6/15/2009 12:51:17 PM , Rating: 2
The problem here is the case in which this precedent was set, is flat out wrong in my books. Judge Aiken's claim is that the defendant fulfilled the requirements of US copyright law which claims:
quote:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
The big problem I see here is that by these definitions, legally owned rips are not illegal copies as defined by fair use. Until someone actually shares said copy, it is just another form of paid music. Oppose to sharing illegal downloaded music which would fall under the category distribution of copies.

For example in other cases there is nothing stopping you from putting a legally ripped MP3 on your website for you to access from another location as long as you are not intending to share it (i.e you can't leave said copy on your friends computer). As soon as someone else downloads that file it becomes illegal sharing, but just because it is available publicly does not make it illegal. (still talking about legally owned music here)

While this is very unlikely that someone owns all the music in their shared directory, I don't see how this can be proven without having access to the defendants computer/music library in the first place. Seems kind of chicken and the egg if you ask me.

Yes it is illegal, and yes what she did was wrong, but I don't feel the RIAA is playing by the same rules as everyone else and that is far more wrong in my books than sharing 24 songs. It should be required for them to actually download the song from the defendant, and have a comparison done against all known pirated copies of said music to make sure it was not privately ripped. Otherwise it is my opinion that you are not innocent until proven guilty, as all of proof against you is retrieved after the fact.

For all intents and purposes, I could have a song labeled METALLICA-ENTER SANDMAN that is just white noise and happens to be around the same size as the real track and it could be considered illegal distribution under the current precedent .


RE: R.I.A.A
By Solandri on 6/16/2009 3:09:38 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big problem I see here is that by these definitions, legally owned rips are not illegal copies as defined by fair use. Until someone actually shares said copy, it is just another form of paid music. Oppose to sharing illegal downloaded music which would fall under the category distribution of copies.

For example in other cases there is nothing stopping you from putting a legally ripped MP3 on your website for you to access from another location as long as you are not intending to share it (i.e you can't leave said copy on your friends computer). As soon as someone else downloads that file it becomes illegal sharing, but just because it is available publicly does not make it illegal. (still talking about legally owned music here)

That's where the studios lost me too. I take photos so I'm all for copyright protections. But early on mp3.com tried to offer a service where if you put a music CD in your computer's hard drive, their app would verify that the CD (check it with a copy stored at mp3.com), then let you download a mp3 versions of the song. They made this to help sales of mp3 players back when most people didn't know how to rip their own CDs, and computers were slower so ripping and re-encoding to mp3 took some time. The studios got this service shut down as illegal distribution.

By the studios' own logic, when I buy a CD, I am buying a license to play that music for personal use. If I were buying a physical copy of a CD, it would be property and I could do anything I wanted with it, including copying it for resale. But it's a license, so they get to restrict what I do with it (i.e. no public performances) as it relates to distribution. But if I have a license to use it, then it doesn't matter if I play the music from CD, from mp3s I've ripped, from a streaming server I set up for personal use, or from mp3s someone else has ripped. I'm authorized to listen to that music. How I choose to do so is none of their business.

Back in the day, I used Napster, and currently use bittorrent to download copies of music whose CDs I bought but have since lost or damaged. From my reading of copyright law, this is legal. I tried asking the studios for replacements of the lost/damaged CDs for a nominal material and handling fee, but never got a response. Last I checked, Disney is the only studio which has an official replacement policy. Frankly I think this should be legally required for anyone claiming to sell a license. Only if they offer and publicize such a program for a reasonable fee, only then do I feel the studios have any business putting any restrictions on how I replace damaged or lost music that I bought a license to use.

http://disney.go.com/disneyvideos/dvdsupport/faq.h...


RE: R.I.A.A
By Oregonian2 on 6/16/2009 7:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the studios' own logic, when I buy a CD, I am buying a license to play that music for personal use.


I agree that's what it should be, but the RIAA has said that it's not that. The RIAA says the buying of a CD gives rights for THAT copy to be listened to. Not "THAT music", but "THAT copy".

I don't think they've sued to make that point, but they do give this interpretation in the form of testimony by RIAA/record-company folk in the trials (referring to CD RIPS as stolen copies).


RE: R.I.A.A
By phxfreddy on 6/15/2009 10:42:50 PM , Rating: 2
Its only ILLEGAL because the RIAA has undue power and got congress to make it a crime. Copyright .... when I hear that I also hear the words "CIVIL SUIT"....

....making it criminal was only a way for putting pressure on people on the behalf of a private company!!!


RE: R.I.A.A
By phxfreddy on 6/15/2009 10:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
Its only ILLEGAL because the RIAA has undue power and got congress to make it a crime. Copyright .... when I hear that I also hear the words "CIVIL SUIT"....

....making it criminal was only a way for putting pressure on people on the behalf of a private company!!!


RIAA = FAIL
By LRonaldHubbs on 6/15/2009 8:34:06 AM , Rating: 5
Fuck the RIAA.




RE: RIAA = FAIL
By codeThug on 6/15/2009 12:34:10 PM , Rating: 5
...and the idiot jurors that go along with this tripe.

If you do anything today, visit this web site and get familiar with your rights, powers and responsibility as a juror. http://fija.org/

You absolutely have no obligation to listen to what any judge instructs you to do. As a juror, you in fact have more power than the judge in determining the outcome of these kinds of heavy handed witch hunt trials. Jurors are routinely railroaded by agenda driven judges and are made to believe that they must decide guilty with only the flimsiest of circumstantial evidence.

Jurors need to start using their own judgment instead of relying on megalomaniac judges.

This litigation should never have gotten to this point.


Can't wait to see...
By NullSubroutine on 6/15/2009 8:35:09 AM , Rating: 5
RIAA/MPAA brought up on charges of extortion, racketeering, and mail fraud.




RE: Can't wait to see...
By tastyratz on 6/15/2009 9:32:07 AM , Rating: 5
Riaa= modern day digital mob.


*giggle*
By jay401 on 6/15/2009 1:30:31 PM , Rating: 2
Kiwi Camara
:D




RE: *giggle*
By codeThug on 6/15/2009 1:35:35 PM , Rating: 3
sounds like a name for a porn actress


RE: *giggle*
By mindless1 on 6/15/2009 9:51:01 PM , Rating: 3
Or the modern Engrish spelling for a fruity looking device that takes pictures.


Shared might not mean shared.
By Morphine06 on 6/15/2009 12:47:26 PM , Rating: 3
So, they have proof that 24 songs were available for download. Where is the proof that they were actually downloaded by someone? It all makes no sense. It's like sentencing someone for murder with no body.

Yes your username is blahblah444, you had 24 songs, AND this list of people downloaded them X number of times so you owe for each CD/song. Why can't the legal system use a bit of common sense.

Disclaimer: I don't pay much attention to these cases, so I might have no idea what I'm talking about. In fact, I'm sure that is the case. Nevertheless, the story irritates me.




RE: Shared might not mean shared.
By dragonbif on 6/15/2009 8:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
hehe Kazaa used to keep track of how many times your stuff is downloaded.


By Oregonian2 on 6/16/2009 7:26:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, they have proof that 24 songs were available for download. Where is the proof that they were actually downloaded by someone?


They didn't, and the judge for the first trial made a ruling that they didn't need to and that just having it available for being stolen was sufficient. That bad ruling was the basis, afaik, for that trial being thrown out and it now being redone.


By dark matter on 6/17/2009 6:43:18 AM , Rating: 2
Look, we all know she did it. She knows she did it. The judge knows it.

The defence should have asked her to admit it, as this would have then worked in her favour for what I believe to be her true defence. That the damages could be nullified.

You just have to put it to the judge and the jury the following facts.

1. The RIAA, or media sentry have zero proof that ANYONE else has downloaded ANY music from her. Simply ask the RIAA, Sony, etc, for the figures, how many people have downloaded from this woman and who they are.

2. The RIAA, or Sony have zero evidence that people who download a track would have purchased that track if it was not available for free.

If the plaintiff is unable to ascertain or provide any figures backed up with evidence how many people have downloaded from this woman and out of that figure how many was truly a lost sale then they cannot realistically claim damages. You cannot just arbitrarily pick a figure from thin air.

If they only have evidence that Media Sentry have downloaded music, then there is no case, as Media Sentry are authorised to make duplicates (otherwise they would be guilty of IP infringement themselves)

Then I would have fired up a browser, typed in YouTube and ask the plaintiff how they come up with damages for lost sales, etc, when the majority (if not all) the songs they are claiming Jammie has cost them money on are freely available to anyone in the world, right now, for zero cost.

You can only claim damages if it has cost you money and you can prove it has cost you money.

1. They don't know who or how many people Jammie have downloaded from Jammies computer.
2. They don't know who out of those people would have purchased the track if it was not available for free.
3. The songs are already available for free on Youtube.

Thus 24 x $0 = $0 damages

That, dear friends, is how she should have played her card.

The judge would have been in her favour. Her honesty would have helped win over the Jury, and the fact the RIAA, Sony are unable to answer how they come up with the damages claim would have swung the vote.




By brybir on 6/18/2009 12:41:04 PM , Rating: 2
I think it would have been even better for it to be like this:

Jury awards $222,000 in damages. Motion by defense attorney. Judge reduces the award to $50 while in front of the Jury. Jamie Thomas gets her wallet out and gives them $50 in cash on the spot.

$0 just does not have the irony value that a token small award would. It would embaras the attorney's of the RIAA and make the jurors feel a bit dim for going along with the 200x + damages awards when a misdemeanor theft of $50 of CD's does not have jail time in most states and amounts to about $300 in fines where I live, if that.

Whats even better is that most copyright folks are quick to point out that copyright infringement =/ theft which is true. Very different. But with theft, their is a chance that the original owner is deprived of their goods. With copyright infringement the argument seems to be that by allowing others to download from her she is depriving the record companies in the same way that a theft would (loss of sales or merchandise or whatever) but in one case she gets fined $220,000 and the other she gets fined $300 or $500 and probably does not spend more than a few hours in jail if at all.

Can you imagine a theft of $50 in CD's from Best Buy resulting in a criminal sanction of $200,000? No, it would be shot down so quickly as unconstitutional you wouldent even blink. But because this is "civil" court and we are talking about the vaunted and immortal copyrights, we give damages that are that high and some people think that is okay. Amazing.


By brybir on 6/18/2009 12:43:05 PM , Rating: 2
And not to reply to my own post, but as OP said, we will fine her $200,000+ even though we can never prove how many people actually ever uploaded from her. Could have been any number between 0 and a lot. But the damages are still amazingly high.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki