RIAA Loses $222K Verdict 342
jriding writes "The $222,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas for copyright infringement by P2P is no more. US District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the verdict, saying it was based on the faulty 'making available' theory of distribution."
Good for her (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
It'll be interesting to see if the verdict reversal gets the same amount of mainstream media coverage. It's one thing to see this in the tech media. It's another thing when it's in Time, Newsweek, and all the major newspapers.
Re:Good for her (Score:4, Insightful)
I suppose it will appear in those media which are not members of the RIAA or owned by members of the RIAA. Maybe some Canadian press will cover the reversal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would the Canadian media cover an event that has little effect up here? There's more important things to cover like two elections (US and Canadia) and not to forget the 'next great depression'.
Timing (Score:4, Insightful)
I too would like a lot of media attention but let's be realistic. With all that is happening now, they will bury news of it to where you will be forced to hunt for it. It's important news, but it will not get much public attention. In this respect, the RIAA is lucky because the timing is good for them. They may have lost a battle but the war will still continue.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
Our copyright and patent system is broken. It's been abused, and stretched to the point of breaking by greedy big media trying to prop up flagging business models rather than innovate and change with progress. We need to reform our copyright and patent systems, destroy the media conglomerates, and then worry about trying to curb piracy. I have a feeling however that they'll find once copyright has been reduced back to what it was originally intended, and media companies are once again innovating instead of trying to enforce, that piracy won't be much of a problem at all.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding. Your math is pretty bad here.
First, you say most pirates cost the distribution companies a couple hundred dollars a year (let's pick $200). I'll even ignore the "worst" offenders.
Then you say that all the pirates put together cost the media companies maybe a hundred thousand dollars. Here's the problem. My math says:
~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $200 a year, that's $200,000,000 a year.
So, who is the bigger criminal you ask? The pirates that all told cost the media companies at least 200 million dollars, or the media companies that cost everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars?
See, use math and these arguments are much less "obvious" than you make out.
P.S. I am NOT a fan of the RIAA, and would like to see them lose these court cases, but making them out to be bigger crooks than those who steal from the companies they represent is not reasonable. I will agree that the RIAA is organized crime, however, and therefore should be subject to racketeering laws.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot attribute any financial loss at all to the pirates. It's simply a theoretical loss.
If all pirates would never buy a single thing they pirated, and I realize this is an assumption, their net cost to the content distributors would be $0.
For more information, see this helpful drawing:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For more information, see this helpful drawing:
http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg [tinypic.com]
I didn't understand the diagram until I sat down and re-drew it with cars instead of stars.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
Many people pirate, that's true. And it does cause the recording companies to loose out on potential revenue.
What's fucked up though is that a pirate who illegally downloads 10 songs has created a potential revenue loss of about $15 bucks to the record companies. But the record companies want to sue that individual for $15,000. The punishment does not fit the crime.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Informative)
"What's fucked up though is that a pirate who illegally downloads 10 songs has created a potential revenue loss of about $15 bucks to the record companies. But the record companies want to sue that individual for $15,000. The punishment does not fit the crime."
The record companies are generally suing folks (including Ms. Thomas) for distributing -- or, at the least, making them available for distribution.
You're 100% correct that Jammie downloaded relatively few songs -- but that's not the issue. When she downloaded them, they were placed into her share directory (possibly without her knowledge) where they were available to others.
We don't do favors by repeating the notion that people are being sued for "downloading." The record companies are generally dishonest; let's not fight that with more dishonesty. If I run over your cat with my car, I might take some heat for killing the cat; it would be incorrect to state that I got in trouble just for driving a car.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're 100% correct that Jammie downloaded relatively few songs -- but that's not the issue. When she downloaded them, they were placed into her share directory (possibly without her knowledge) where they were available to others.
And as the judge has now ruled, making them available does not infringe on the copyright. If someone downloads them without authorization from the copyright holder, that would be an infringement.
Now, if the copyright holder tells me to go out and download some files to serve as a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You might be unintentionally putting words in my mouth. I profess to no knowledge or even a wild guess as to how many outbound bytes those songs in her share directory... I was simply clarifying that the copyright owners and authorities tend to go after copiers and distributors. I've heard the opinion that downloading is fixing to a permanent medium, but I personally don't buy it. Copyright law focuses on reproduction and distribution... I don't believe there are any statutes related to possession of pirate
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They're companies, motivated purely by profit, and they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.
That'd be great, if they were actually pursuing people based on actual 'piracy'. They're not. They're pursuing people out of the fear that they might not pay them money. If you'd like some interesting reading, look up the movie industry's view on VHS sales of movies back in the early 80s. You'll find that they were against it, claiming casual copying would destroy peoples' interest in going to the theater. Go back to roughly the year 2000, you'll see Eisner criticizing Apple's "Rip, Mix, and Burn" camp
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
I am really tired of this kind of math. The premise is bogus, copyright infringement does not cost anyone anything. It is a loss of potential gain. In order to estimate the damage from piracy to the economy you need to estimate the amount of lost sales. This is difficult to estimate and most likely one or two order of magnitude smaller than the headline figure announced by the industry. It is not even proven that this "lost sale" exist as it has been proven that the most prolific downloader also buy more "legal" music than others. It may very well be that there is no lost sales but an increase.
Declining revenue in the recording industry is an entirely different matter and no one has proven the cause and effect.
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Insightful)
Your math is terrible. First, you assume that there are 1 million pirates, and that every "pirate" (Arrrr) would be a paying customer if they weren't "pirating" (what about those that borrow CDs and DVDs? Oh noes, the horror!!!)
With math matching yours for accuracy, I deduce a real loss of around $1 due to this "piracy".
Now, the real pirates, on the other hand, are those manufacturing illegal copies of the items in question and selling them to others, resulting in real lost sales, as someone paid X for the illegal product. Even here the assumption that they lost whatever their stated price is ludicrous, as they only lost whatever the illegal content's sale price, as there is no correlation whatsoever that the buyer would have paid more (with the assumption that the sold item sold for less than the asking price - not always the case - see sales of imported anime or HD DVDs....)
Re:Good for her (Score:5, Interesting)
Lets assume that 75% of the cases are settled out of court (I've no idea how many have actually gone to trial of the 28000). This gives us 21000 settlements, and 7000 trials. Lets also assume that it costs on average 20000 to hire a defense lawyer (and that's probably at the low end). Based on these numbers we come to the following totals:
Cost to the public to settle cases: 27,233,010 (not including infrastructure costs)
Cost to the public to prosecute cases: 21,785,820 (once again not including infrastructure costs)
Total taxes wasted: 49,018,830
Cost to defend against RIAA lawsuits: 140,000,000
Cost to settle against RIAA lawsuits (based on $3000 settlement): 63,000,000
Total cost to public and accused: 252,018,830
In addition each of these cases must of necessity displace other cases that could be utilizing the courts time. I don't know about you, but I consider it a bigger crime for a company to waste 49 million dollars of the publics tax money, than that same company to lose 200 million to people subverting it's dying business model, not to mention costing people 203 million to defend themselves (or settle), a great many of which will be innocent people.
It's all fake losses though. (Score:4, Interesting)
The existence of piracy does not magically give me an extra $200 a year that I could have spent on music or movies. I have the same amount of money I did last year (or less, with the wild inflation), so the MAFIAA would get roughly the same amount of money from me whether or not I could pirate things.
Via piracy I can never view every single movie ever made, or every song ever produced, which means that if I happen to see a few movies this year that I couldn't have afforded otherwise, it will *not* cut into the amount of money I'll spend next year on music and movies.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And yet anyone, absolutely anyone, is completely free to sell their work under any system they like. If it's a flagging business model then there's nothing stopping people from using a different one. But you appear to be advocating eliminating one particular business model so that a different one has
Re:Good for her (Score:4, Insightful)
Business models that are artificially enforced by the laws of the land are not business models. They're fascism. You're entitled to any business model you want... you should NOT be entitled to use taxpayer money and deprivation of citizens rights to build a business model.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As the judge who wrote the original decision put it...
What they did is wrong but the punishment should fit the crime.
Let the flood gates be opened (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Were there other judgements? I thought this was the first.
Re:Let the flood gates be opened (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Let the flood gates be opened (Score:4, Informative)
A whole new trial is what I get from RTFA.
From the judgement:
Re:Let the flood gates be opened (Score:4, Interesting)
I caught that too. Since that was in the commentary and not part of the actual ruling, I don't think that's binding at all for the next trial. It certainly isn't binding on any other case.
Several other courts have addressed the issue and IIRC the vast majority ruled that Media Sentry downloads don't count since they were authorized by the copyright holder.
As far as the next trial goes, I imagine this will get settled. The jury members' post-trial comments were very much in favor of the RIAA, and Jammie's Lawyer wasn't very effective as a trial attorney from what I read in the coverage.
A new trial would mean that she has to pay her attorney for more work, and she had to cancel her expert witness because of financial difficulty the last go round.
For the RIAA, they have the statement in favor of using MediaSentry downloads as evidence. They have a big jury verdict in their favor in the minds of most (assuming this doesn't get the same kind of media coverage as the big award). They aren't going to get much money out of Jammie (blood from a turnip). It seems like it's in their interests to settle this one as well. The potential for losing the next trial should be enough to scare them into being reasonable.
I bet this turns into a settlement, and that Jammie has a non-disclosure clause for the amount. I'm kind of surprised that didn't happen before this ruling anyhow.
Re:Let the flood gates be opened (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: [blogspot.com] "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In order to distribute, one must send the file, as opposed to (according to most of us, and apparently this judge) merely make it available for fetching.
I'd imagine that if MediaSentry got the file from her, they fetched it (via the file being made available by P2P).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And if I buy a bootleg DVD, I fetch it from the shelf. Doesn't matter.
Every file transfer has a sender and a receiver. The sender is (probably, though I suppose we'll see what the courts ultimately say) engaged in distribution, no matter whether the protpcol model was "pull" or "push".
The more interesting question would be whether, by requesting a copy, an agent of the copyright holder implicitely "approves" the distribution on the copyright holder's behalf. I don't see why that would be the case.
As I've
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is (sometimes) entrapment if the police do it. It's not entrapment if people who are not the police nor working on behalf of the police do it.
Re:Let the flood gates be opened (Score:5, Informative)
Re:FUCK artists (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Paying major media companies != Paying artists
2. Going after individual infringers != Throwing out lawsuits at random in the hope of settlements and the occasional success
No, FUCK the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
How dare the RIAA go after individual infringers, even though it's what Slashdotters said they should do back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit.
It's all about how you go after them. Jaywalking is illegal. So to stop it, would you mind if we shove a camera up your ass to record where you walk and a set of electrodes on your balls to we can zap you if you look like you might be heading away from the crosswalk?
I deserve to have people's work for free because I can. Artists are my personal slaves.
Actually, it's the RIAA that feels that way. Here, read this bit from Steve Albini. [negativland.com] Scroll down to the math part.
Once you're done, read this. [wikipedia.org]
You're an industry shill so I know you won't get the point, but there is a point to be made. It's the RIAA that are fucking over the artists you claim to care so desperately about - not the pirates. For every penny lost to piracy the record execs walk away with truckloads of cash. All in the name of "protecting the artist".
Total bullshit, and you know it.
Re:No, FUCK the RIAA (Score:4, Interesting)
They're filing lawsuits against copyright infringers
No they're not. Someone "making available" hasn't done anything wrong. Or maybe you're too fucking clueless to understand Judge Michael Davis' conclusion. If I leave a TV on my patio and it gets stolen, am I partially responsible for the theft since I made my TV easily available?
Guess what, bucko. I'm not. And the judge agrees.
My favorite aspect of pro-piracy Slashdotters
Feel free to re-read my post and see where I'm pro piracy. You won't find anything saying that because I'm not.
What I am is pro due process. And I'm against an industry trying to gain police powers to prop up their broken business model. If you need senators to make laws saying that you have to buy a buggy whip with the purchase of every new car - then it might be your product you're trying to sell that's the problem.
Nobody needs the RIAA anymore. In the digital age they're a dinosaur.
IF THE RIAA IS FUCKING OVER ARTISTS, HOW IS YOU PIRATING THEIR MUSIC GOING TO HELP THEM?
I'm not funding the people who are using that money to fuck them over. I don't pirate - I just simply don't buy any music. That's my solution.
It's the least I can do for them. Also totally legal.
You use morality plays like "the RIAA is evil and screws over artists" to distract people from what you're doing. Period.
Ignoring the "you're an evul pirate OMG" part of your post, let's turn the tables a bit.
Defend what the RIAA is doing. If they're the good guys, tell me why you think so. Go ahead and refute that article from Mr. Albini. Don't just lay on with the ad hominem - refute my thesis. Poke holes in my argument.
"The RIAA are a useless dinosaur sitting on top of the music industry sucking up money, stifling personal freedom and established fair use with frivolous and lawsuits and lobbying for orwellian laws to prop up their broken business model, crushing both the artist and consumer alike in a grab for cash to continue their own existence."
Good luck.
Signed,
Summer Glau
Today is nice (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Today is nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Ugh... 2 words: President Cheney.
Re:Today is nice (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Today is nice (Score:5, Funny)
Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...
Yet another reason Bill Richardson would have been a better choice than Biden... But hey it's not the first time Chris Rock and I have seen eye to eye. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes me glad he once said, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." *shiver*
Re:Today is nice (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, there's this little thing called 'accountability' that a certain current United States President likes to harp on a lot of the time (when it supports what he wants).
Honestly, I think that a pretty large proportion of our presidents should have left office at the end of a hangman's noose, and none that I can think of deserve that end more so than Bush Jr.
You might make a hero of him. (Score:4, Interesting)
mpeaching him now would cause a close examination of all of his unconstitutional policies, and get a lot of them thrown out, or at least dragged out into the light so future presidents won't be able to use them.
Careful. You might just find that a lot of people would like what was found and that your side would be invariably painted as anti-American. What would happen is, the Nixon effect. Nixon was never really popular until after he was booted from Office. But, once all the stuff that he and Kissinger did became public, a lot of people who are big into national security and winning suddenly found that Nixon was their man after all. He was rehabilated into a "great statesmen", and now he's looked at as a good Cold Warrior. I mean, by the time a lot of the Nixon revelations came out, to some extent, many Democrats would take a look at Carter and say, Nixon would have done something, a perception that helped propel Reagan into the White House. Remember that in early Reagan years they used to actually talk about how he would chat with Nixon and Henry the K in matters of cold war brinkmanship.
To move that to today, let's say it came out that Bush had the CIA crawling all over New Orleans immediate post Katrina and was assasinating looters, but there was some operational weather problem that wrecked the plan, or that, he had secretly invaded Pakistan and Iran and had actually sabotaged the industrial capacity of any number of nations that were believed to be hiding Bin Laden, he would lock down the center-right base for sure. I mean, if Cheney's secret conversation revealed that Bush saw the coming peak oil, went through a phase of trying to secretly re-open talks with Saddam, but was rebuffed, and -then-, he invaded because Saddam did some covert anti-American thing... then, a lot of people would see the war in an entirely more positive light.
Similarly, if there did emerge some conspiracy that the struggles of the US financial system were part of a set of financial moves of the US against China or the world, then, Bush comes out ahead, again. Even if he's just paranoid and writing all this stuff down, along with Cheney, Bush comes out ahead.
I mean, the biggest asset Democrats have on Bush right now is that, they've painted him as stupid. But, if Bush is actually documented to be intelligent but evil, then, a lot more people are going to like him and you'll make a saint out of him.
Another go? (Score:2)
Well, doesn't this mean they get a second try? I mean, throwing it out is awesome, but it could still happen again, now that they know all that they do.
RIAA Looses $222K Verdict (Score:5, Funny)
Read literally, I suppose this means a $222K verdict is roaming the countryside, looking for someone to ... adopt it?
Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict (Score:5, Funny)
Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict (Score:5, Funny)
the editing is very pour.
FTFY
Re: (Score:2)
I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor.
Yeah, I hope the editor that made the error loses there ass over it.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.
Which begs the question: Irregardless of wether your disinterested in this verdict, do you tow the line on copywrite law in general?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now reverse the charges (Score:4, Interesting)
and get them for attorney's fees and mental anguish.
Technically . . . (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technically . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the fact that the law wasn't designed with the situation in mind does not mean they can ignore it since there's no other law on the topic. So if she's found guilty again she will likely face the same "penalty" scheme that she had previously. Hence why he asks Congress to amend the law and is simply characterizing the judgment, not throwing it out. There's nothing truly unconstitutional about the law, it's just not being used against the targets that the writers had in mind when the law was written.
Re:Technically . . . (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the fact that the law wasn't designed with the situation in mind does not mean they can ignore it since there's no other law on the topic.
If it's a jury trial, they certainly can ignore the law if they choose [wikipedia.org].
Re:Technically . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Act was intended to penalize "competitor's" who engaged in the infringement where income was earned on the enterprise, not so much a consumer who is actually getting nothing in the process
That's funny, because I thought the DMCA specifically put in ridiculous sums of money where consumers were doing the pirating. They might have justified it by saying that it was for use with corporations, but the way I read it leaves little doubt in my mind that they wanted it used against consumers as well.
Re:Technically . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Possibly, but the primary goal of the DMCA was to target companies or individuals who produce tools to assist consumers in copyright violations, not the copyright-violators themselves.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
it's just not being used against the targets that the writers had in mind when the law was written.
When MAFIAA agents wrote that bill and lobbied to get it signed, they damn well intended it to be used to ruin the lives of anyone who would later cross their paths, irrespective of any profit motives other than their own.
The law is irresponsibly unfair and unjust, quite possibly even to the wealthiest and most criminal of piracy enterprises.
Re:Technically . . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The leading case on the constitutionality of damages is BMW v. Gore. You can read it here [cornell.edu] if you're interested.
Out of that case came three guideposts that the Supreme Court uses to assess whether or not damages are constitutional.
1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct
2. The portion of the damages that are compensatory
3. Statutory punitive damages/penalties that could be imposed
So, that the statute allows such damages only satisfies one of the three guideposts. However, punitive damages in this case vastly outstripped the compensatory damages. I remember reading it in an article when the verdict was announced, but the punitive:compensatory damages were, what, on the order of 9000:1? The court has said, in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, that damages that were only 100:1 punitive:compensatory were "grossly excessive."
The only issue to be resolved, at this point, is how reprehensible the court finds the defendant's conduct.
It seems to me that, if this question of damages managed to get before the US Supreme Court, it'd be thrown out as unconstitutional in a hurry.
But I'm just a law student offering my armchair lawyer analysis. Take the above with a grain of salt.
There very well may be (Score:3, Insightful)
You may recall the 8th amendment, which states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The part we are interested here in is the "nor excessive fine imposed." It would seem to many that the extremely high statutory fines in copyright infringement cases are indeed excessive. They are vastly out of proportion with the harm caused by the crime. When you are, literally, facing fines higher for copying a song than you would for shoplifting
Re:Technically . . . (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Duh! (Score:5, Funny)
Those pesky pirates stole our verdict using P2P!
Call me cynical (Score:4, Interesting)
And Judge Davis went further, "implor[ing] Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases..."
How many people want to guess that "Copyright reform" turns draconian?
If your first name is "Jammy" (Score:3, Funny)
Then you still lose.
more links (Score:2)
so what does this mean for the other **AA cases on the go? whilst its good news for Jammy, having legal weight behind the concept that "making available" is flawed no doubt helps everybody else as well.
am I right?
the main link is already dead (for me) but you can see more here..
http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=Jammy+Thomas&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi [google.co.uk]
Mediasentry issues (Score:5, Interesting)
One point brought up in the articles is that it's possible the MediaSentry downloads are unauthorized copies, which seems to be necessary since if the RIAA authorizes the copy, then technically they're not infringing copyright and hence have to basis for a lawsuit.
However, if the copies by MediaSentry are not authorized, then by not prosecuting MediaSentry for illicit downloads, aren't they undermining their own case by not going after every case of infringement?
Just idle thoughts...
Re: (Score:2)
One point brought up in the articles is that it's possible the MediaSentry downloads are unauthorized copies, which seems to be necessary since if the RIAA authorizes the copy, then technically they're not infringing copyright and hence have to basis for a lawsuit.
Whether or not MediaSentry was authorized to download the file is irrelevant. Mitch Bainwol himself could be doing the downloading, it's still illegal for Jammy Thomas to do the (alleged) uploading.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Charge her $24 (Score:5, Insightful)
If she's charged at the market rate of $0.99 per song, she'll owe the music companies $24.00 plus tax.
Let her pay it and be done over with.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally lawsuits like that should have a fine that is worse than just buying the item. Otherwise people would infringe on copyrights all the time, since the worse fine would be equal to paying to begin with.
In this case, I think the maximum fine should be what she would have gotten for actually stealing the songs. Like from a brick and mortar store.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You have forgotten the punitive damages for violating the rights of the copyright holders.
Fine, make it $240 :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
She "stole" $20 worth of stuff. Fines of even 3 times the actual damages have been found to be excessive (like Exxon's fine for the spill). So she should pay a significant fine of three to four times the value of the items, which would still be less than $100.
Not So Fast (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What is "strict proof"? Many people are convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, think Hans Reiser where they really had no proof she was even dead. The standard in civil cases (which this is) is even lower. Criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in civil cases is "based on a preponderance of the evidence".
Hating the RIAA does not work (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, historically they have just used the loss of profit in their figures for pirated musics.
"We've had x loss this quarter! There is no explanation other than that people must be pirating music and causing us financial harm! Nevermind the shit music we produce and the media attention from the lawsuit we just filed against a dead person..."
WRONG. (Score:4, Informative)
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/not-for-publica.html
Still, Judge Davis' decision does not derail the RIAA's case against Thomas on retrial or any other pending or future case. Davis ruled that the downloads from Thomas' open share folder that RIAA investigators made, 24 in all, "can form the basis of an infringment claim."
Or how about http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/25/jammie_thomas_again/ [theregister.co.uk]
The judge in Jammie Thomas' challenge to her landmark $220,000 fine for sharing music over KaZaa has declared a mistrial, forcing yet another court case.
I don't expect Joe Blo's blog to get this right, but I do expect ZDNet and Slashdot to.
From TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
AFAIK (IANAL) a mistrial means that the same evidence and INTENT is used in the prosecution of the defendant. such as:
"Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution." (Direct from TFA)
But it is interesting to note that:
"The decision means the RIAA now has zero wins at trial, Wired notes." (from TFA)
So far, it seems that the RIAA is nothing more than a paper tiger, and there is much ado about the nothing that is the reporting of all this hoopla.
I do seem to remember (can't cite the examples at the moment) some headlines concerning individuals being brought to trial that had unbeliveable judgements levied at them for "copyright infringement", but no ACTUAL culpability against the plaintiff.
RIAA books (Score:2, Interesting)
$222K is NOTHING (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, Hooray for the small guy!
But losing small court battles for six-figure judgments is really nothing for these guys. What they got in exchange was thousands of newspaper articles and blogs talking about people being sued for file sharing. The FUD Factory worked! You can't buy that kind of press. Anything under a million is a bargain.
Re:$222K is NOTHING (Score:4, Informative)
-the RIAA has gone after ~40,000 people
-it's gotten around 25,000 default judgments
-it's collected almost nothing on the default judgments
-it's gotten around 10,000 settlements at an average of $3000, for a total of $30 million
-it's spent around $100 million.
An opinion from one of our own (Score:3, Informative)
Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here [blogspot.com]
Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here [blogspot.com][blogspot.com] Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.
Thank you, dkleinsc. Yes, as Cmdr Taco wryly observed, the tide is turning.
Now what we need is for more people to fight rather than settle, more lawyers to join this worthy cause, and for people to exploit the rich panoply of defenses that are available to them, such as the fact that the RIAA can't collect statutory damages at all if the recording was not registered with the Copyright Office by the time the defendant began file-sharing [blogspot.com].
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Informative)
Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.
It's in the first fucking paragraph of the article!
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.
It's in the first fucking paragraph of the article!
There's an article?
Re:So What's Next? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Those are the only articles I know of.
Re:So What's Next? (Score:4, Funny)
Definitely.
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Insightful)
But you can't blame the RIAA for the judge's mistake. Since they can't bring back the original jury, legally, this is like the original case never happened. I hope RIAA will be on the hook for the defendant's lawyer fees for both trials if they lose this case.
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:So What's Next? (Score:5, Interesting)
"Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution"
Even if they do prove distribution, the claims of damages per track should be fought. It's as if the people involved don't understand how file availability works with torrent p2p sharing.
If someone downloads 5 tracks and seeds each to 1:1 ratio, what they've sent out on the net has only replaced copies (in pieces and blocks) that they got instead of someone else. In that case the net increase in copies going to others is ZERO making the damages only the lost-sale revenue for the downloader. At 1:1 seeding ratio, no additional copies go to others as compared with what existing seeding on the net would have provided had the downloader not transfered the files in and out. The lost revenue is certainly no higher than the cost of the same tracks on iTMS or another commercial source. It could be argued that the track value is even lower since a portion of the iTMS price covers bandwidth cost so that amount in not lost profits.
It is only when seeding above 1:1 ratio that a downloader/uploader has actually done something to result in an increased number of copies going to others online over what would have occurred had they not participated. For the entire group of peers, each contributes to distribution by their seeding ratio minus one to allow for availability being reduced by what went to them instead of others.
It is not reasonable to hold a particular peer responsible for the seeding action of others.
This discussion also illustrates why torrents die off if people fail to seed adequately.
Cases of higher damages should be reserved for cases where material not otherwise available is leaked onto the net in violation of a license or NDA that applies, or material an uploader bought under license violates the license and then distributes a measurable number of copies on the net.
Re:woo! (Score:5, Informative)
Not so much; they will try her again, but they have to prove actual distribution. Note that the judge also lowered the bar for actual distribution, in a sense. Our pet theory of MediaSentry acting as an agent of the RIAA, and therefore doesn't constitute distribution, was also explicitly discarded:
âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â
Re: (Score:2)
CAN (Score:3, Interesting)
The word is CAN constitute, not DOES constitute. This is what the next trial will most likely be about.
Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to jail. What might still win the case is that mediasentry is NOT a cop.
Even if mediasentry is allowed to perform the actions of a sworn in police officer, they would still have to proof there method of detection is accurate.
Further more, if it counts as distribution, so what? They got proof you uploaded it to one person.
Re: (Score:2)
> Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to
> jail.
Irrelevant. Selling illegal drugs is a crime regardless of who you sell them to. Distributing music is only a tort (no crime involved here) if you do so without the permission of the copyright owner. How could giving a copy to the copyright owner be said to have been done without said owner's permission? And even if it could how could doing so damage them?
For that matter did MediaSentry ever produce proof
Re: (Score:2)
Is MediaSentry a licensed private investigator in the state(s) involved at the time of the infraction?
If not, they may not be a wholly unbiased witness.
Re:woo! (Score:4, Informative)
Of course they are biased: they are the plaintiff's witness. That is irrelevant. However,
Minnesota does require that private investigators have state licenses. If MediaSentry was indeed acting as a private investigator and was not licensed it is probable that none of their testimony or evidence is admissable at all. Unfortunately this was not brought up at the first trial and so the judge may not allow it to be brought up at the second.
Re: (Score:2)
IANA Lawyer, but I think there still might be a case to be made against MediaSentry for entrapment. On the other hand, that seems to be a much more difficult case to make. [wikipedia.org]