Suspected PayPal Hackers Seek Deal To Stay Out Of Prison
2 Men Arrested After Teen Was Run Over For His iPad
Jury awards RIAA $220,000 victory
RIAA defendant number THX1139 Jammie Thomas has been handed a verdict in a federal jury trial which could see her coughing up $220,000 in cash for sharing a grand total of 24 songs.
The verdict rests on the RIAA claim that "making available", the simple-to-prove act of creating search-able filenames on a filesharing network, is in itself proof of piracy. So, does this mean that the RIAA's longstanding battle to solidify its "making available" claims is valid, and other cases with similar arguments are a done deal? Not necessarily says attorney Ray Beckerman, "There is no basis in the law for the theory; sooner or later -- when appeals finally start filtering through the system -- the courts will put the kabash on it."
Ms. Thomas' case isn't a unique one. In recent years the RIAA has sued over 20,000 people in the United States, one of the few places in the world which allows recording industry lawyers to pierce the veil of privacy without the substantial burden of evidence proving wrongdoing.
The court awarded the RIAA over $9000 per song shared in compensation for losses, a stiff penalty by any measure, but far below the statutory maximum of $150,000 per song. "A verdict of $222,000.00, for infringement of 24 song files worth a total of $23.76?" says Beckerman, adding, "All the business people who make a living from the vibrancy, democracy, and freedom of expression which is the internet, need to get behind the RIAA's victims; if they do not, the world in which they hope to thrive and prosper will disappear rapidly."
Comments
10
Subscribe to commentsGardiner WestboundOct 5th 2007 3:16PM
Does anybody know the outcome of the criminal case involving a teacher convicted of having pornography on her classroom computer? The last I heard the "expert" police detective's testimony had been thoroughly discredited.
Grant RobertsonOct 5th 2007 3:27PM
You're referring to Julie Amero.. Last word from CT was, she was granted a motion for a new trial and the DA hasn't filed to actually have the new trial.. essentially rendering her case a dead issue. I wrote about this here:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/06/06/julie-amero-granted-motion-for-new-trial-off-the-hook/
iamhoffOct 5th 2007 3:48PM
It sounds like the key to this conviction (which is total BS, IMO) was the fact that she made the files available for sharing. Downloading = bad, but allowing for upload = worse.
Christina WarrenOct 5th 2007 4:11PM
And the RIAA lobby (and that's what they are - a lobby) strikes again! GRR
@ iamhoff -- exactly, because the simple act of downloading copyrighted material is not illegal, at least not in a way that is enforceable, but distributing material you do not own is.
I'm not surprised that a federal jury ruled in favor of the RIAA (as appalling as I find that verdict), I AM surprised they bought into the argument that the songs were worth ~$9,000 in losses to the music industry. Unless the RIAA can show direct trail of how many individuals actually downloaded those songs from the defendant, I would think (and I'm no lawyer - though I have read quite a bit on US copyright law because if/when I do go to law school, I want to focus on entertainment or technology law) the award would be overturned pretty quickly on appeal.
I think this whole thing is going to end up heading to the Supreme Court. I can only hope that when that finally happens, we have a less anti-consumer administration and that one of the current conservative justices who tends to favor big business over individual rights is replaced.
Maxwell HouseOct 5th 2007 4:26PM
Check for typos when writing articles ("...pierce the veil of privacy without a the substantial burden..."). Can anyone find Waldo these days?
PeterOct 5th 2007 6:21PM
Christina - "because the simple act of downloading copyrighted material is not illegal, at least not in a way that is enforceable, but distributing material you do not own is."
That's because many defendants have successfully used the "I didn't realize it was copyrighted" or "I didn't realize it was illegal, I just thought it was a good deal." defense. So now they are going after the distributors. Much like with drugs, they go after the providers, not the end users.
Christina WarrenOct 5th 2007 11:07PM
Peter - absolutely, I understand that -- and there is precedent in other areas (as you said, drugs -- but possession of narcotics can land you in jail, I was thinking more like buying stolen stuff that you didn't know was stolen or buying clearly marked pirated software, but not getting arrested or served with a civil lawsuit) -- I was just saying that they have more legal recourse to go after "distribution" rather than mere possession. But the "I didn't know I had it" defense is used in both cases, and it does not work for people they are accusing of sharing files (see the number of parents, grandparents, etc. who have been served when you know damn well Grandma doesn't know what a MP3 is, but inconsiderate grandchild had no problem downloading stuff on her computer). In some cases, the RIAA has dropped the charges, but in most of them - they still try to (in my opinion) extort money from people in the form of settlements for what seems to be the magic number of $3000.
mgOct 6th 2007 5:16PM
If anyone destroys my life for sharing 12 songs i will destroy THEIR life, even if it costs me my life. That's what i recommend everyone ;)
Anarchist606Oct 11th 2007 4:29AM
If you think this is wrong, you can donate to her fighting fund here:
http://www.freejammie.com/
JohnOct 8th 2007 9:13AM
That's a ridiculous sum of money. People should avoid Kazaa and similar p2p services like the plague! The only way to share files with others legally is with PRIVATE peer to peers apps, such as GigaTribe: http://www.gigatribe.com