backtop


Print 109 comment(s) - last by Stas.. on Oct 11 at 2:06 AM


RIAA Counsel Richard Gabriel Addresses The Court  (Source: Wired Threat Level)

The Jury Found Jammie Thomas Guilty and Awarded $222,000 in Damages  (Source: Wired Threat Level)
The RIAA adds a notch to its belt of legal victories

“This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” said RIAA attorney Richard Gabriels, speaking to reporters just outside the Duluth, Minnesota Courthouse, minutes after Jammie Thomas was found liable for copyright infringement to the tune of $222,000.
 
Thomas, a single mom with two kids, left the courthouse without comment and did not speak with reporters.
 
Under the username “Tereastarr,” Thomas was found sharing just over 1,700 files via the Kazaa network on February 21, 2005. Of those 1,700 tracks, 24 were named – including music from popular artists such as AFI, Green Day, and Aerosmith – and for each one she was held liable for $9,250 worth of damages, coming to a grand total of $222,000.
 
Brian Toder, Thomas’ defense attorney, maintained that there existed no proof that Thomas was the person behind the keyboard, noting that Thomas or her computer may have been the victim of zombie botnet, spoofing attacks, or malicious crackers. “All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn’t do it,” said Toder, adding that Thomas was “not the person marauding as Tereastarr.”
 
This defense did not appear to hold up as it was found that Thomas used “Tereastarr” all around the internet, including online shopping, chat services, e-mail, and even dating services. The offending songs were linked to her cable modem’s MAC address, as well as her home IP address.
 
Gabriels called Thomas’ defense “misdirection, red herrings, and smoke and mirrors.”
 
Complicating Thomas’ defense was testimony from an ex-boyfriend saying while he had never seen her actively downloading music, she did have her hard drive replaced a month after her computer was picked up in the RIAA’s dragnets. Toder said that this was due to hard drive problems – something Thomas’ ex-boyfriend remembered her complaining about beforehand – but the RIAA argued that she had it changed to cover her tracks.
 
Forensic scientists could not find any evidence of file sharing on her new hard drive, and her old hard drive was not admitted as evidence.
 
Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, as Thomas’ loss is more formally known, was the first lawsuit of its kind to proceed before a jury as well as a landmark case that set precedent heavily favoring the RIAA in future legal battles. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled that one could be guilty of copyright infringement merely by the act of making copyrighted songs available for download; as a result the RIAA did not need to establish that Thomas at her computer at the time her was accessed by investigators, nor did they need to prove that anyone actually downloaded the music she offered.
 
While the RIAA no longer publishes the number of lawsuits it’s filed in its four-years-and-counting legal campaign against file sharers, many publications speculate that that number stands anywhere between 18,000 and 36,000 lawsuits, with untold more settling long before the actual trial.


Comments     Threshold


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

This is an easy defense!
By JackBurton on 10/4/2007 11:09:02 PM , Rating: 4
Easy defense...

Your honor, I don't know about you, but I was brought up to share. And my teachers always said, if you don't have enough for the entire class, then put it away. Well I've grown up now, and I DO have enough for the class. As a matter of fact, I have enough for EVERYONE. I also like to ask you, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus fed a starving crowd by magically duplicating bread and fish for everyone to eat. Would you sue Jesus for copyright infringement for multiplying bread and fish without the consent of the bread and fish store owners? He wasn't authorized to make copied. And I'm sure the bread and fish store owners would claim they lost millions of shells (or whatever they used back then for money) due to Jesus' "illegal" duplication tricks. I for one think Jesus with his magical powers did more good than harm for those people. And if you rule against my client, it would be like ruling against Jesus. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself one thing, do you WANT to burn in hell? I think not.

Thank you your honor.




RE: This is an easy defense!
By MamiyaOtaru on 10/5/2007 1:53:16 AM , Rating: 2
Does Chewbacca live on Endor?


RE: This is an easy defense!
By rdeegvainl on 10/5/2007 6:01:11 AM , Rating: 3
The Prosecution would like to respond that, jesus and his father owned the copyright to the fish, gave the fish permissions to use the copyright, and the fish and bread owners only sold the fish and bread. Not to mention the copyright on bread had expired MANY MANY years before.


RE: This is an easy defense!
By JackBurton on 10/5/2007 9:35:57 AM , Rating: 1
Your honor, there is no evidence of this so called "copyright" that Jesus and his father held. As a matter of fact, there is no evidence of his father.

Thank you.


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles
The RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later
August 30, 2007, 3:37 PM













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki