backtop


Print 44 comment(s) - last by bplewis24.. on Oct 9 at 3:26 PM


Jammie Thomas stands accused of sharing 1,705 songs in April 2005.  (Source: NewsMax.com)
Deemed to have nothing to say of relevance, Cary Sherman will have to wait for another day in court for a soap box

Judge Michael J. Davis barred Recording Industry Association of America President Cary Sherman from testifying in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first RIAA lawsuit to go to jury trial. With Sherman struck from the witness list, testimony wrapped up Wednesday and a decision is expected today.
 
“I don’t want to turn this case into a soap box for the recording industry,” said Thomas’ counsel Brian Toder. RIAA lawyers argued that Sherman could provide valuable testimony to the jury over the case’s significance and the harm the RIAA has suffered due to piracy.
 
Even after Judge Davis rendered his motion to bar Sherman’s testimony, RIAA counsel Richard Gabriel continued to press on. Emphasizing the importance of Sherman’s testimony, Gabriel argued that Sherman is needed to help the jury see the “massive problem of file sharing,” and that the RIAA is not out to make money but “to prove a point.”
 
Judge Davis remained stalwart, refusing to reconsider.
 
Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas is significant because it is the first case among the RIAA’s litany of more than 18,000 lawsuits to make it to jury trial. With most of the suits, the RIAA tends to push for a settlement to avoid costly litigation; defendants, facing overwhelming legal fees and the costs of going to court, usually settle for amounts that range from around $3,000 to $11,000.
 
Previous testimony in Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas included witnesses from Sony BMG, Warner Bros., and EMI Records of North America. In one such testimony, Sony BMG’s head of litigation Jennifer Pariser equated Fair Use to stealing when she testified that if “an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song,” adding that making “a copy” is just “a nice way saying ‘steals just one copy.’”



Comments     Threshold


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

hmm... reality
By xxsk8er101xx on 10/4/2007 7:40:01 PM , Rating: 2
interesting ...

Tell me, how is a single mom going to pay 220k dollars?

you can't make a stone bleed. You can only get what she has and if she's a single mom she likely doesn't have much. So in reality she didn't have anything to lose as she couldn't pay the settlement anyway. How do you make someone who has no money pay money? It doesn't happen and you can't throw people in jail for not having money.

This can get appealed because the jury had no knowledge in what they were being a jury for. It was a one sided case that completely favored the RIAA.

A good lawyer should stop up and fight for her rights and our rights for nothing. This is criminal regardless if what she did was right or wrong. Companies have no right to sue people for large amounts for alleged offenses and get away with it.

It would be like me suing you for 200k dollars because i said you hit me and i won. Even though the evidence isn't there besides a bruise.Which could have came from anywhere.

This is but a first step to a collapsed society when the wrong go unnoticed and the good people who can do something about it do nothing.




RE: hmm... reality
By imaheadcase on 10/4/2007 8:00:51 PM , Rating: 3
Even if she lost she still wins for other people. This case is another thorn in the side of RIAA even if she lost. Because of being an single mom it puts bad light on RIAA for going after her.

Just wait till the follow up when RIAA tries to collect, it can't collect. Because as stated many times the defendant can't pay and the judge knows this fact.

Its like O.J Simpson, he lost his case and is forced to pay the victims family so many millions, he can't pay it, so the family goes after every little thing they can. Like his Rolex they just got.

Now picture the RIAA in the limelight collecting money from this lady..


RE: hmm... reality
By SavagePotato on 10/4/2007 8:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
Actualy come to think of it, they no doubt spent a ton of money on their own high priced lawyers to take this to trial as well.

Much much more no doubt than they will ever collect out of this woman. Suits like this are a joke, someone I know sued over unpayed work for renovations, and won. Never collected one red cent. Can't collect blood from a stone as was mentioned. That was only $5000 much less 220k, and from someone a hell of a lot better funded than a single mother.

It's true, all they have done is spend alot of money to look very bad.


RE: hmm... reality
By Christopher1 on 10/5/2007 12:07:22 PM , Rating: 2
You hit the nail on the head. People have trouble getting less than 1000 dollars from other people, so how are the RIAA and MPAA going to get 220,000 dollars from this woman?

Like you said, they aren't and this case is an absolute joke, because she will just file for bankruptcy and never have to pay one red cent.


RE: hmm... reality
By SavagePotato on 10/4/2007 8:07:51 PM , Rating: 2
The public backlash of millionaires suing a single mother for 220k should be severe, at least I would hope.

In a world where you can run someone over and kill them while speeding, and get off scott free (recent case here). While someone gets fined 220k dollars for downloading 2 CD's worth of songs, Well it realy makes you wonder what exactly is wrong.


RE: hmm... reality
By dluther on 10/4/2007 11:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell me, how is a single mom going to pay 220k dollars?


The record companies will garnish her paycheck up to 25% until the debt (with interest) is satisfied, or she dies. If she ever gets married, her spouse will share that burden as well. And if she dies, liens will be placed on any and all valuable possessions, the value of which will be determined while held in probate.


RE: hmm... reality
By vortmax on 10/5/2007 10:44:54 AM , Rating: 2
That stinks for her kid(s)...


RE: hmm... reality
By marvdmartian on 10/5/2007 10:45:14 AM , Rating: 1
Not to sound racist or anything, but that seems to me the very best excuse I've ever heard for a single mom to go on welfare & foodstamps! Go ahead, garnish her non-existant paycheck!! ;)

As far as anything of value, all she has to do is give it as a gift to her children before she dies. Perfectly legal, as I'm pretty sure that's how OJ has hidden money he'd otherwise have to pay to the Goldmans.

Truthfully, it wouldn't surprise me to see someone with a big wallet step up and anonymously pay this amount. It would be great if every music artist pitched in some money to pay it, as it would show the public (and future jurists) how the musicians think the RIAA is full of shit too! :)


"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
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