RIAA Confusion In Tenenbaum & Thomas Cases? 229
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota, and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. In both cases, the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time. In Thomas-Rasset, they've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $54,000 the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum's motion for remittitur. What is more, it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict, the RIAA offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $25,000, but she turned them down."
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
welcome to the internets.
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Informative)
True, she makes the RIAA guys look like the good folks.. and that's hard.
Now, “Here’s what I’m telling them,” says Jammie.
“You guys can settle this on my terms or take it to trial and try to prove the damages.
“You’re going to be lucky to prove more than $24 ”
I do not understand why Slashdot continues to support this woman.
Some background from the Wiki and http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars [arstechnica.com]
The RIAA first warned Thomas with a cease-and-desist letter and settlement offer.[when?] Thomas refused to settle, and was then sued on April 19, 2006, by several major record labels for copyright infringement.
In the trial, the plaintiffs alleged that on February 21, 2005, Jammie Thomas shared a total of 1,702 tracks online. The plaintiffs, however, sought relief for only 24 of these.
Two weeks after MediaSentry noted the infringement of "tereastarr@KaZaA" (and notified the user via KaZaA instant message that he or she had been caught sharing files) back in February 2005, Thomas-Rasset hauled her Compaq Presario down to the local Best Buy. There was a problem with the hard drive, so Best Buy replaced it under warranty.
That might sound like no big deal until you realize that Thomas-Rasset later provided this new hard drive—and not the one in the machine during the alleged February infringement—to investigators and to her own expert witness. It becomes an even bigger deal when you realize that she swore under oath—twice—that she had replaced the hard drive in 2004 (a full year earlier) and that it had not been changed again since.
Next up was Eric Stanley, who had been hired by Thomas-Rasset before her first trial to examine the same hard drive that was turned over to recording industry investigators. Thomas-Rasset at first told Stanley that the drive had been replaced in 2004, well before the alleged infringement, so this evidence looked like it would be great for Thomas-Rasset... until recording industry lawyers deposed Stanley and Thomas-Rasset on the same day. At some point during that day, Stanley heard something that led him to examine the physical drive once more during a break. It was then he found the sticker with a manufacturing date—of early 2005.
Stanley realized he was looking at a drive that had likely not even been in the machine when the alleged infringement took place.
So she refused a settlement offer at the very beginning even before being represented by a lawyer, then repeatedly lied under oath to judge and jury(no wonder the damages were soooooo high, juries hate being blatantly lied to and want to teach such people a lesson) and now is still being...well... a dick. Imagine if the only punishment if you get caught stealing(stealing real goods, pedants please note) was to just pay up later, everyone would just steal then and pay up later if got caught. On top of that, the $1/song is for downloading the songs, not uploading which has a bigger punishment under law since the plaintiffs potentially lost revenue. I am sure this distinction will be lost on most of the posters here again who will repeatedly say the actual damages are just $24.
Anyway this was one of the worst cases that should have gone to court against the RIAA. They sued wrongly lots of times but this one case should've been settled long ago by Thomas, she knew she was in the wrong and tried to weasel her way out of it by lying.
More, if you want to read:
Why was Thomas-Rasset's password-protected computer running KaZaA in February 2005, and with the "tereastarr" name, if she had not set up the software? And since no one else ha
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Informative)
I don't understand why the RIAA would drop the case -- sure, millions sounds better in a headline, but for most people, $54k is seen as a heck of a lot of money. The RIAA is likely hoping that parents will see $54k and be worried about what their kids are doing on the net. In that respect, it probably has an effect near to what a millions verdict would because a millions verdict is so outside the ken of middle-class Americans, that they may not even see it as real. $54k on the other hand has some meaning because it can be paid off over time via garnishment, which would really suck.
As for the shadowy conspiracy-theory-esque person bankrolling her case -- well that seems too silly for further sarcastic commentary.
Re:Total non-story (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not settling (Score:3, Informative)
It will set a precedent, but probably not a binding one. For it to even have a shot at being binding the next case would have to be heard in front of the same court, and even then it's not hard to wiggle away.
The reason? A precedent applies to the exact same set of circumstances. If I punch you in the nose and you sue me for $5,000, then I punch you in the nose again and you sue me again there's a precedent that the reward should be $5,000 (and let's assume it's heard by the same court and the precedent is binding). But your lawyer could easily argue that I punched you harder, or your nose was still tender from last time, or I'm a repeat nose-punching offender, or any other number of reasonable or inane excuses for why this set of circumstances isn't the same as the previous set of circumstances and thus the previous precedent does not apply.
$54,000 for X songs? But your honor, Miss. Newrespondant pirated X+1 songs! Clearly the reward should be $108,000. Hmm? Why not ($54000/X) * (X + 1)? Well clearly this is a much worse crime and we need to clamp down harder in order to deter the ever-increasing number of songs people are pirating!
Re:Not settling (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
A civil offense with no chance of causing physical harm is not a meaningful phrase. Contract disputes between two parties regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and they are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. Employment dispute cases include awards in the hundreds of thousands and are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
Re:Real Life Action RIAA Lawyer Doll Says ... (Score:1, Informative)
More like Lawyering is expensive.
If they can bully a person into paying them off they make a profit. If they can't and don't make a large damage sum they don't make a profit, and if the damages are not large enough it makes people think they can fight their overlords.
Re:Settlement (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Settlement (Score:2, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
A civil offense with no chance of causing physical harm is not a meaningful phrase. Contract disputes between two parties regularly run into the tens of millions of dollars, and they are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. Employment dispute cases include awards in the hundreds of thousands and are civil offenses with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone. If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
I love it when plausible-sounding but completely wrong posts are modded insightful on Slashdot.
In every jurisdiction I know of, speeding is a misdemeanor. Granted, it's a very low-level misdemeanor, so minor that most people who ask about criminal convictions specifically except moving violations. But it is still technically a crime. If you want to, you can plead "not guilty" to the charge and demand a jury trial. (But note: you will almost certainly lose). And as for not having any chance of causing harm, there is a broadly-accepted link between increased speed and increased incidence of accidents (as well as severity of accidents) (see, e.g., http://www.roadsafety.org.uk/information/publish/article_127.shtml [roadsafety.org.uk]). Now, just because somebody did a study doesn't mean it's necessarily so, but don't pretend like it doesn't exist.
Re:Settlement (Score:5, Informative)
Speeding is not criminal. It is an administrative infraction. Misdemeanor and felony (i.e. criminal) traffic violations are few and far between--mostly reckless endangerment and DUIs.
You are only partially correct... as is Zordak. It depends on the state. Even then, other circumstances apply. In New York, it is generally but not always a Traffic Infraction. In New York, you may also be cited with another Traffic Infraction which is also a misdemeanor (at the same time) such as Reckless Driving (which may simply be because you were speeding in heavy rain and for no other reason; thus making your speeding the cause of you getting a misdemeanor charge even if it is listed for a separate infraction - or may be because you were driving like an idiot). Thus, in NY, even a "Traffic Infraction" (Reckless Driving) can also be a misdemeanor at the same time, and may result in the misdemeanor charge when you did nothing but speed (under the wrong conditions, over a certain speed, or whatever criteria the officer chooses).
One more example, in Virginia, speeding 20mph over the limit is automatically also a Reckless Driving charge... and again... whether "basic" speeding is an infraction or a misdemeanor varies per state. And some states move it from an infraction to a misdemeanor if the speeding is in excess of a certain number even if it does not come with a Reckless Driving charge attached (ie: speeding 1-15 over is an infraction, while speeding 16+ over is a misdemeanor).
Speeding, that is, exceeding a posted limit set by political forces and not traffic surveys, is an administrative offense with no chance of causing physical harm to anyone.
Not always true. Many states spend months or years doing traffic surveys to set speed limits. On my street alone, one such survey resulted in the speed limit being changed to 25mph (from 30mph) - and then later after another such survey, being changed back to 30mph and having stop signs added - which apparently seems to be the solution for the problem they were analyzing.
SOME speed limits are set by political forces perhaps, like the 55mph ones on highways near big cities in certain states, or the maximum speed limits set for roads of a certain type in a certain jurisdiction (like the town next to me, where any road not county or state owned cannot have a speed limit over 35mph, or NYC where the maximum speed in the city is capped at 50mph or less as posted).
If people are driving at unsafe speeds, then the risk of injury to others may increase, depending on traffic conditions.
May? Sure, technically you are correct... but those deaths have occurred and are very real. With the amount of speeding related deaths out there, may increase (the risk of) becomes already has caused - a very real statistic - and the deaths and/or injuries involved are also very real.
With file sharing, unless the RIAA manages to buy some new laws, it never results in death (at least not in this country). But who knows? Maybe in a few years, the RIAA will have lobbied successfully to make music sharing a felony punishable by death... ;-)
Re:OK, I'm dense (Score:4, Informative)
RIAA is trying to set precedent for high awards. Their problem is that they may not reach that goal in either of these cases.
That is correct. And probably Judge Gertner in Tenenbaum will award significantly less than even the reduced award in Thomas. Judge Gertner appears to be very knowledgeable about constitutional law, and the US Supreme Court has set a rough guideline that punitive awards should rarely exceed 4 times actual damages (i.e. $1.40 per infringed recording) and almost never exceed 9 times actual damages (i.e. $3.05 per infringed recording).
Re:Total non-story (Score:3, Informative)
The attacks on Ray Beckerman are more than a little unfair, given his solid record over the years here on Slashdot. He's given a lot of free legal advice here over the years, and personally, I appreciate him. For the record, Blogspot.com is owned by Google, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that the ads are crammed in there by Google to help pay for the service. The insinuation here (and in other replies immediately following) that he simply posts here to drive people to an "ad-laden" site is more than unfair. I, for one, appreciate his updates on these very important cases. If you disagree with Ray's take on requests for extension, that's certainly your right (and I disagree with you, by the way; I think it's very significant in this case, given the circumstances).
Thank you. I appreciate that. The reality is that I make almost no money from advertising. I just spend so much time blogging and microblogging that I figure if I could make a few bucks to offset some of that time it would be helpful. Hasn't really worked out, however.
Re:Total non-story (Score:5, Informative)
There's a big difference between "He told me to do this" and "He gave me information and I decided to do this." Considering how tight-lipped the legal profession is (presumably due to fears over the blurry distinction between legal advice and legal knowledge) I'm very appreciative of Mr. Beckerman's efforts. Most lawyers wouldn't even bother.
Correct. As mentioned in my bio, what I do here is not legal advice. Legal advice is where someone tells me their situation, I ask some questions, and give them some advice. Here I just discuss legal topics and litigation events... i.e. report on what is going on. I wouldn't know how to give someone advice without first establishing a one-on-one relationship.
Re:Settlement (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on the jurisdiction. Stealing a paragraph from a 2002 Maine Supreme Court decision:
Nugent’s second point on appeal, that he had a right to a jury trial in
this speeding infraction case, is resolved by our ruling in State v. Anton, 463 A.2d
703 (Me. 1983). In Anton a right to a jury trial in a speeding infraction case was
asserted, based on the Maine Constitution. We held that (1) “traffic infraction
proceedings are not ‘criminal prosecutions’ for which the right to trial by jury is
guaranteed by article I, section 6 of the Maine Constitution,” id. at 708, and (2)
there is no civil jury trial right for traffic infraction proceedings afforded by
article I, section 20 of the Maine Constitution, id. at 708-09. The scholarly
review of the law undertaken by Justice Godfrey in Anton remains good law
today. There is no right to a jury trial in traffic infraction cases.