|
Jammie Thomas gets new trial against RIAA
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 25 September, 2008
A federal judge has declared a mistrial in the case of Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman who was found guilty of sharing 24 songs via P2P app Kazaa saying he made an error that "substantially prejudiced" her rights.
Thomas' case was the first file sharing case to ever go to trial and after being found guilty she was ordered to pay $222,000 USD to the Big 4 record labels.
Judge Michael ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 00:20 |
Link to this message
|
|
OUTSTANDING!
I guess reason CAN penetrate a judge's skull.
Once in a while, anyway.
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
navi1199
Junior Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 00:38 |
Link to this message
|
it only worked cause that particular judge probably wasn't paid off by the RIAA.
|
|
DDR4life
Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 01:36 |
Link to this message
|
"Regardless of this narrow issue, a jury of her own peers unanimously found Ms. Thomas liable for copyright theft and for causing significant harm to the music community." - riaa spokesperson
What else was the jury supposed to do when given such confining and restricting guidelines? Seriously. The judge had basically said that the plaintiffs didn't need to prove their damages in court, just take the plaintiffs' word that they have suffered monetary losses.
Yeah, 'cause the riaa are soooooo trustworthy. I thought in America you were innocent until proven guilty. And, no, a blind judge rushing through a case and skewering American jurisprudence just to be done with the case only proves the judge's incompetence.
At least his eyes have been opened and he's seen the light. I wonder, has he found God? Or was it more like finding out that his kids had been downloading songs and decided that he didn't want them going through that ordeal?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2008 @ 01:38
|
|
1bonehead
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. September 2008 @ 03:17 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by mspurloc:
OUTSTANDING!
I guess reason CAN penetrate a judge's skull.
Once in a while, anyway.
What do you expect ? He/she is a lawyer too !
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
|
|
13thHouR
Suspended permanently
|
26. September 2008 @ 04:49 |
Link to this message
|
Wow who would have thought it, they actually have to prove that the files are indeed copy-write protected media.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2008 @ 04:53
|
Junior Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 05:40 |
Link to this message
|
|
How can "alleged acts" be illegal? Or BE anything? Did a judge really say complete nonsense?
|
Junior Member
2 product reviews
|
26. September 2008 @ 07:25 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by DDR4life:
Yeah, 'cause the riaa are soooooo trustworthy. I thought in America you were innocent until proven guilty. And, no, a blind judge rushing through a case and skewering American jurisprudence just to be done with the case only proves the judge's incompetence.
I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that. What the judge said is that even though it is a proven fact that a person is sharing music on a P2P network, in order to actually find that person guilty, it also needs to be proven that someone actually downloaded it as well.
Up until now, the general idea was that proof of sharing suffices to convict a person. In that sense, this new ruling is much better, transparant and 'fair' to both parties.
I can share 1.000 songs, but if nobody downloads them, how can I be found guilty of harming the music industry, right? That's the nuance being made by this judge now, and I think it's a very well-thought concept he came up with.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2008 @ 07:28
|
|
redux79
Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 09:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
This women has some fight in her, she's taking on the big 4 basically by herself. I just hope her family is doing alright during this ordeal. Bravo Jammie keep on fighting.
|
|
emugamer
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
26. September 2008 @ 12:28 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by DDR4life:
Yeah, 'cause the riaa are soooooo trustworthy. I thought in America you were innocent until proven guilty. And, no, a blind judge rushing through a case and skewering American jurisprudence just to be done with the case only proves the judge's incompetence.
I think it's a little bit more nuanced than that. What the judge said is that even though it is a proven fact that a person is sharing music on a P2P network, in order to actually find that person guilty, it also needs to be proven that someone actually downloaded it as well.
Up until now, the general idea was that proof of sharing suffices to convict a person. In that sense, this new ruling is much better, transparant and 'fair' to both parties.
I can share 1.000 songs, but if nobody downloads them, how can I be found guilty of harming the music industry, right? That's the nuance being made by this judge now, and I think it's a very well-thought concept he came up with.
If this goes through. I'd be interested to see how it affects a downloader or one who backs up a movie. Currently, copying a DVD without the intent of monetary gain is punishable by up to $5,000 or 5 years in prison (something like that....correct me if I'm wrong).
As the judge stated - "Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive."
Who doesn't think the FBI wanrings and penalties are oppressive?
And then how will it affect the laws on "illegal" downloading? If someone downloads a movie from a server using warez links, should he/she be subject to excessive fines and prison time if he/she did not share them?
If this change gets approved, then we may see some changes across the board.
|
|
duke8888
Junior Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 13:18 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by navi1199:
it only worked cause that particular judge probably wasn't paid off by the RIAA.
Your remark is so far out of this world. A federal judge taking a bribe from a record company! The judges go by the laws that are on the books and they have to decide how to interpret them.
|
Newbie
|
26. September 2008 @ 13:29 |
Link to this message
|
Just saw an update on Jammy Thomas's case. The judge has reversed the decision and canceled the award issued to the RIAA. Here's the story as I found it.
"The $222,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas for copyright infringement by P2P is no more. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the verdict (PDF), saying it was based on the faulty ?making available? theory of distribution. Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.
The decision means the RIAA now has zero wins at trial, Wired notes.
RIAA?s ?making available? theory would hold that someone has distributed copyright material merely by creating the potential for distribution. Under the RIAA?s theory, it need not show actual distribution. The judge soundly denied this legal reasoning:
If simply making a copyrighted work available to the public constituted a distribution, even if no member of the public ever accessed that work, copyright owners would be able to make an end run around the standards for assessing contributor copyright infringement.
And Judge Davis went further, ?implor[ing] Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases??
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs? claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.
Thumbs up from EFF:
EFF applauds Chief Judge Davis?s thorough rejection of the RIAA?s effort to rewrite copyright law and thereby avoid the trouble of actually proving any infringement has occurred. And we wholeheartedly endorse the court?s call to amend the Copyright Act?s oppressive damages provisions.
One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: ?distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.?"
So it looks like they're really on the run now, don't it. The only case I can see them finally winning is the guy who erased his hard drive against court orders and in that case it's his own fault because by doing so he made himself look guilty in not only the eyes of the RIAA, who thinks everybody is guilty no matter what, and in the eyes of the court for disobeying a court edict.
|
|
DVDdoug
Junior Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 14:05 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Originally posted by navi1199:
it only worked cause that particular judge probably wasn't paid off by the RIAA.
Your remark is so far out of this world. A federal judge taking a bribe from a record company! The judges go by the laws that are on the books and they have to decide how to interpret them.
True! There is, of course, corruption in every country. But, bribes are very rare in the U.S.A. It's not culturally or legally acceptable. If you try to bribe, or "tip" a low-level official or government employee (for example, at the Department Of Motor Vehicles), the official/employee would be shocked, and would probably warn you that you could be arrested! Your friends and neighbors would be shocked too... It's just not done. If you try to bribe a judge, you probably will be arrested.
When a government official is caught accepting a bribe, they loose their job, and they sometimes go to prison. Judges (and most government employees) are well paid, and federal judges have lifetime appointments. Only a dishonest fool will risk that for a bribe.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 26. September 2008 @ 14:20
|
|
Gnawnivek
Member
|
26. September 2008 @ 14:42 |
Link to this message
|
Errr i don't think it's very rare... The smart ones don't just accept bribes in broad light. Even if they do, they just twist the words... The whole political structure is based on bribes (anywhere, as long as there are human beings, hell, make that singular, man or woman). It really comes down to, the honest ones paying for the wants of the crooked ones. The government bailout is a perfect example...
|
|
stamp2k1
Newbie
|
26. September 2008 @ 18:02 |
Link to this message
|
Screwwwwww the RIAA!!!!!!!!! That's my 2 cents on the whole thing.
|
|
stamp2k1
Newbie
|
26. September 2008 @ 18:06 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by navi1199:
it only worked cause that particular judge probably wasn't paid off by the RIAA.
Your remark is so far out of this world. A federal judge taking a bribe from a record company! The judges go by the laws that are on the books and they have to decide how to interpret them.
True! There is, of course, corruption in every country. But, bribes are very rare in the U.S.A. It's not culturally or legally acceptable. If you try to bribe, or "tip" a low-level official or government employee (for example, at the Department Of Motor Vehicles), the official/employee would be shocked, and would probably warn you that you could be arrested! Your friends and neighbors would be shocked too... It's just not done. If you try to bribe a judge, you probably will be arrested.
When a government official is caught accepting a bribe, they loose their job, and they sometimes go to prison. Judges (and most government employees) are well paid, and federal judges have lifetime appointments. Only a dishonest fool will risk that for a bribe.
Ur kidding right?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
1bonehead
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
27. September 2008 @ 03:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
But will Ms Thomas have enough money for defense in a new trial ?
The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI.
The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above!
The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX.
|
