Print 43 comment(s) - last by oTAL.. on Oct 3 at 8:41 AM

The RIAA loses another pivotal infringement case

Many music fans and supports of consumer rights were appalled when Jammie Thomas was ordered to pay $220,000 in restitution to RIAA for allegedly making copyrighted songs available on peer-to-peer network Kazaa.

The original verdict called for Thomas to pay the massive settlement amounting to $9,250 per song and she was said to have made a little more than 1,700 tracks available. RIAA attorney Richard Gabriels said outside the courthouse after the verdict was handed down, "This is what can happen if you don’t settle." In other words, if we tell you to pay, pay whether you did it or not.

This week, Gabriels isn’t quite singing the same tune he was in October of 2007. Judge Davis had previously announced that he was considering a retrial in the Thomas case in May of 2008. This week Davis threw out the jury verdict of $220,000 and declared a mistrial.

CNET News reports that Davis declared the mistrial on the grounds that he misguided the jury during the original trial. Davis told the jurors that simply making copyrighted songs available for sharing amounts to infringement.

That statement from Davis drew the ire of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and other consumer groups who claimed the instructions to the jury were erroneous. Obviously, RIAA maintained that the instructions given by Judge Davis to the jury were valid.

RIAA attorney Timothy Reynolds said, "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online--and would solely benefit those who seek to freeload off plaintiff's investment."

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Oh noes!
By JasonMick (blog) on 9/25/2008 12:23:51 PM , Rating: 5
Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online


You wouldn't have to have even a small burden of proof, would you now, I mean what with it making it so hard to charge grandma's and the computerless of downloading gangsta rap....

RE: Oh noes!
By DASQ on 9/25/2008 12:35:43 PM , Rating: 5
Wait... PROOF... in a court of law?!

Christ, I thought having the Judge wear pants was hard enough.

RE: Oh noes!
By rtrski on 9/25/2008 1:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
If you're referring to His Honor the Pump-wearer, he's no longer a judge. :)

RE: Oh noes!
By corduroygt on 9/25/2008 1:49:05 PM , Rating: 5
- What do you call a lawyer with an IQ below 50?
- Your Honor

RE: Oh noes!
By Darkefire on 9/25/2008 7:55:31 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the answer was "Mr. President".

RE: Oh noes!
By erikejw on 9/25/2008 8:57:03 PM , Rating: 3
Noway, that is a very ignorant statement of you you shameless republican.

Teh correct anser is:
- What do you call a lawyer with an IQ below 20?

RE: Oh noes!
By borismkv on 9/25/2008 11:00:19 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I think that would be the question. I mean...That's what question marks typically turn sentences into, after all.

RE: Oh noes!
By Quiescent on 9/26/2008 11:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
Jeopardy, my dear.

RE: Oh noes!
By rubbahbandman on 9/26/2008 9:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Haven't you heard? 99% of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

RE: Oh noes!
By Bainne on 9/25/2008 12:37:58 PM , Rating: 3
No kidding!
Heaven forbid a conviction actually relies on proof that an infraction happened, rather than just the possibility that it did. The potential for a "crime" to take place should be enough to convict anyone, right?

.... Ya, or not

RE: Oh noes!
By FITCamaro on 9/25/2008 1:27:07 PM , Rating: 5
I'm sorry. This is the police. You potentially ran someone over on your drive to work today. You're under arrest for vehicular manslaughter.

RE: Oh noes!
By Sulphademus on 9/25/2008 3:25:21 PM , Rating: 3
I own a machette. Think I should turn myself in for Potential-Assault-With-A-Deadly-Weapon?

RE: Oh noes!
By someguy123 on 9/25/2008 9:30:59 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that you even think you have the capacity to assault someone with that machete is proof enough. I'm sure you welcome people to your home now and again, so you're also guilty of sharing this deadly weapon with your friends and relatives.

RE: Oh noes!
By AlexWade on 9/25/2008 4:55:41 PM , Rating: 5
Sounds like a good idea for a Steven Spielberg movie. We can get Tom Cruise to play the policeman hunting down these potential crimes.

RE: Oh noes!
By feraltoad on 9/29/2008 3:29:25 AM , Rating: 2
Don't taze me, Bro!!!

"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings

Related Articles

Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki