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

Deception at its finest!
By Setsunayaki on 10/7/2007 7:23:26 AM , Rating: 2
Anyone with half a brain can truly see through this...

Here is what happened....as theorized by most who are in the legal profession.

Most lawyers who know about laws and resolutions know that legally an ISP is responsible for identifying to a user what he or she can utilize a controlled product for...Most ISPs encourage downloading, specially with early comcast and verizon commercials that show person downloading music from napster and kazza....

Lawyers have endless testemonials from users who subscribe to ISPs......In fact, all of the evidence appeals to the JURY and defense in an overwhelming fashion....

However, the RIAA had always been losing cases...without any real major victories....Now without any major victories in the legal system, one can not refer to a case to aid the prosecution secure victories in future cases...So we do what practically every important company does in one form or another...

STAGED A CASE.....

The RIAA can easilly find someone who supports their cause...along with a judge who will be bribed to support the cause. This is easy as people in the US are always BRIBED in passing laws...and USA TODAY loves documenting such things in important cases...

So they take one person, have that person download music....after planning...they make a case of it...The defendent is fed by the plaintiff....along with the lawyer and they work together to actually create a guilty verdict...

the judge imposes a harsh sentence...Then the RIAA covers the fine in the case, otherwise the subject will come forward....as so far there isnt an appeal for this case and this case would be PERFECT to appeal and even win...

The result?

Now a case exists and everytime someone is sued....they cite the case and Immediately it becomes easier to convict practically anyone they please...

Yeah, I know....You will all say that I am insane and crazy...but I attended a legal forum that had 37 lawyers debate about this case....and most of these lawyers agreed that this was a case that was so shady.....that the only real way it passed through was to have justice setup..

The RIAA is desperate and since the only way it can collect money is through the Judicial Branch, by actively creating cases which rule on certain decisions...they can actively use existing cases to "enforce" laws that do not exist....

Example of another time when this happened in our history as a nation:

Just study segregation and how judges through court cases, used decisions to actually enforce their opinion of what the law should be, which became law......though not passed through congress....

Anytime the supreme court says "I believe that decision X is not constitutional" when laws exist or dont exist in the matter....All laws existing in the matter...instantly are changed....while the Congress actually passes laws....the Judicial branch INTERPRETS, but this interpretations generates laws because if they claim that something is unconstitutional...the congress can not create a LAW directly against the ruling of a judge.....

Even Walmart and Home Depot have cases in which they have manipulated the court system into having laws created based on interpretation that is in the interest of the company, rather than the interest of people......

Well take care of yourselves...




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs

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