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

The RIAA are gangsters
By Parhel on 10/5/2007 12:15:11 PM , Rating: 2
“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.

It's comments like that that really make me dislike the RIAA. They are low-life gangsters - thugs - and they should be taken to court themselves and charged with racketeering.

If they feel they are in the right, then they should have no problem taking it to court. In fact, they should prefer it. Why do they feel the need to threaten the public into settling like that?

RE: The RIAA are gangsters
By mmntech on 10/5/2007 12:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with that. The problem with RIAA is they seem to get away with stuff that a lot of similar organizations do not. Cartels are supposedly illegal for one. I remember reading an article on the BBC about the UK based author trying to buy songs from Amazon's new service, and being denied because he was not a US resident, however, there was no such blocks on movies. Even the MPAA doesn't have the strangle hold as RIAA does.

On the case itself. Did she do it? I don't know. I've always been strongly against this type of civil case since it seems like an abuse of court if the person hasn't been held criminally liable. RIAA has long been strong arming itself in the music industry. They fight their own customers, their suppliers. Apple, XM, internet radio are all in or have been in battles with them at one point over pricing or trying to deny fair use. Of course the record labels have the right to earn money from their products, but the way they're going about it is definitely an anti-trust violation. There needs to be some EU style hearings over these groups like what was done with Microsoft.

I personally don't think this is worth $222,000 even if she did download them. Maybe a grand at most. She likely won't end up paying that much though. Fortunately, RIAA won't see any of that money, since it will have to be used to cover their legal fees.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles
The RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later
August 30, 2007, 3:37 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki