RIAA wins case in Minnesota?

Originally Posted by Wired.com

DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first file-sharing case to go before a jury.

Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to $222,000 in penalties.

They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith and others.

After the verdict was read, Thomas and her attorney left the courthouse without comment. The jurors also declined to talk to reporters.

The verdict, coming after two days of testimony and about five hours of deliberations, was a mixed victory for the RIAA, which has brought more than 20,000 lawsuits in the last four years as part of its zero-tolerance policy against pirating. The outcome is likely to embolden the RIAA, which began targeting individuals in lawsuits after concluding the legal system could not keep pace with the ever growing number of file-sharing sites and services.

"This is what can happen if you don't settle," RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse. "I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial."

Still, it's unlikely the RIAA's courtroom victory will translate into a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits -- the majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are pending -- the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the hearts of music swappers.

According to BigChampagne, an online measuring service, the number of peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals.

At the time, BigChampagne says, there were about 3.8 million file sharers trading over the internet at a given moment. Now, the group has measured a record 9 million users trading at the same time. Roughly 70 percent of trading involves digital music, according to BigChampagne.

The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry.

In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed Thomas' share folder.

Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry.

Thomas, 30, maintained that she was not the Kazaa user "Tereastarr," whose files were detected by RIAA's investigators. Her attorney speculated to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, zombie, drone and other attacks.

The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 -- the evening in question -- did not become evidence in the case.

According to testimony, Thomas replaced her hard drive weeks after RIAA investigators accessed her share file and discovered 1,702 files. The industry sued on just 24 of those files.

Now I don't know why but I've been following this story since it first hit and I'm absolutely shocked that the RIAA won. Was the jury just stupid or what?! She should totally appeal for a reversal because 10K a song is just ridiculous.

How ya doing, buddy?

Nothing gets the public on your side like making a single mother of two pay two hundred thousand dollars for stealing twelve dollars of material.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

You know. Stealing is wrong. I understand this point.

What I don't understand is how the RIAA is going to survive just suing people into the ground. It creates nothing but bad press for the industry as a whole. I can guarantee you a lot more people have looked into independent music that isn't under the branches of the top record labels. I know I have.

Besides, when's the last time anyone has heard anything new and decent on the radio anyways? Most of the radio stations might play one or two new songs total in any given month, and the rest is just early 90s alternative like Pearl Jam and Nirvana. RIAA needs to slow down with the piracy nonsense (since OBVIOUSLY suing people hasn't slowed down piracy, infact it has only increased), and work on rebuilding the image of the music industry as a whole.

PS. I'm an iTunes downloader, not a file-sharer. Last thing RIAA should look into doing is making iTunes go away by getting greedy and demanding more money for the music.

Originally Posted by Slash

Now I don't know why but I've been following this story since it first hit and I'm absolutely shocked that the RIAA won. Was the jury just stupid or what?! She should totally appeal for a reversal because 10K a song is just ridiculous.

Wasn't there a case the RIAA won where they got like $3 a song, which equated to the price of a CD single for each song? :P

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Slash

Now I don't know why but I've been following this story since it first hit and I'm absolutely shocked that the RIAA won. Was the jury just stupid or what?! She should totally appeal for a reversal because 10K a song is just ridiculous.

It's mostly because her defense was assinine, if an earlier article on Wired is accurate:

Quote:

DULUTH, Minnesota -- Moments before jurors began deliberating the nation' first Recording Industry Association pirating trial, the association's attorney told panelists Thursday morning that the defendant's case was riddled with "misdirection, red herrings and smoke and mirrors."

The RIAA says 30-year-old Jammie Thomas shared some 1,700 files on the Kazaa network on Feb. 21, 2005, using the username Tereastarr, the same name she uses for her e-mail, while shopping online, to access her personal computer, and even on the dating service Match.com. The RIAA is suing on just 24 downloads, which was originally 26 when the case started here Tuesday.

Jurors can award penalties of up to $150,000 per violation.

Brian Toder (right), Thomas' defense attorney, told jurors during his closing argument that, despite overwhelming evidence against Thomas, the industry cannot establish "this actual human being was behind the keyboard."

"There are, clearly, alternate explanations. We don't know what those alternate explanations are," Toder said. He alluded to theories of zombies, crackers, drones and spoofs. He said his client was "not the person marauding as Tereastarr."

"All we know is that Jammie Thomas didn't do it," Toder said.

Evidence against Thomas included her internet protocol address matching the address where the files were shared, as well as her Charter Communications' cable modem MAC address. A wireless intrusion was also ruled out, because the private internet protocol address of that router would have been present in the Kazaa traffic.

Richard Gabriel (left), the RIAA's attorney, told panelists that Thomas, when she took the stand, never broached the topic that somebody else may have been the culprit.

"She didn't try to point to anybody because she did it," Gabriel said in his closing remarks. Minutes before, he said "All fingers point at Jammie Thomas in this case, ladies and gentleman."

Jury instructions are here (.pdf). And here's the 30-question verdict form (.pdf) the jury will fill out. If they find Thomas liable, the jurors will have to decide how much to award the recording companies for each copyright infringement, and record the amount on this form.

Stay tuned for a verdict. THREAT LEVEL invites readers to predict the trial's outcome.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

If this is indeed true, talk about someone that should have settled. Takes one idiot to ruin it for everyone else, eh?

I was speaking idiomatically.

the Defense Attorney kinda screwed it up for her. Before he had a really really good case, but the second you mention Zombies its kinda like stickin your fist up your ass.

Cause if I remember right, he mentioned things about her using Kazaa to store music (I still don't understand who in their right mind would use Kazaa...but still, when you use a wireless router doesn't the IP come up at 192.whatev.whatev.whatev cause cable modems put out a single IP

Most amazing jew boots

That said though Slash, you are still responsible for securing your own router and connection.

FELIPE NO

To true. I still really do not believe the RIAA should have won that case and that the jury was on crack.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I think the RIAA should have won that case given the law. The fact that that was considered a reasonable fee for damage is what's absurd. Hopefully this will give someone cause to look a bit more carefully at copyright infringement law.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

This will just make it easier to settle any pending lawsuits with other people. As the article stated, they can reference the case and say "you can fight the law, but the law will win, always". Truth of the matter is, it will take just take one damming judgment against the RIAA to really do some damage, something they will no double regret when their accountants figure they spent more money on litigation then they could have developing a product that people would actually want to spend money to consume. One would think they would have learned from how the US government (and others) have failed in the "War on Drugs". If people really want to do something, they will do it regardless how illegal it is; you can't force them into it.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

What I would like to see is how these records are being obtained though. Since the RIAA has no authoritative clout, how do they just get the right to scan computers? And under what criteria do they get the computers they choose to investigate?

If the RIAA ever came and knocked on my door, and said "Hi, can we look at the files on your computer?", even though I don't even have any like 2 or 3 perhaps 'illegal' songs (and even that could be debated since I don't know if the bands in question are produced on major labels), I'd be like, not without a couple of court dates first.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

They don't need to "scan" your computer. The people they find are using peer-to-peer filesharing programs that show what files you have to anyone that wants to look. They only catch idiots, really.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by SuperNova

What I don't understand is how the RIAA is going to survive just suing people into the ground. It creates nothing but bad press for the industry as a whole.

The problem is something of a paradox. If a bad set of beef that has some dangerous amount of e.coli goes out on the market, it stops people from eating hamburgers for a while. But does it kill the entire industry? Of course not - people go right back to consuming.

Its even tougher with media since its a very specific thing. If you want Metallica, you have to deal with the Elektra label, and so on and so forth. Independent labels are nice and dandy - but they don't carry anything heard on the radio past 91.1 on your dial.

Originally Posted by knkwzrd

They only catch idiots, really.

As it should be. While I think that file sharing is stupid as a general principal, you really do have to be fucking stupid to get caught by the RIAA. After all, someone has to really stick out against everyone else on the internet in the entire world.

I was speaking idiomatically.

She should have used emule and just kept her share folder empty. Yeah i know..that defeats the whole purpose of p2p..but better to be paranoid and out of jail than sharing everything like this women obviously did.

Not saying emule is foolproof..but she used KAZAA?! I didn't even know that was still around. Ive never heard of someone getting pinched by the RIAA on emule.

Of course if youre REALLY paranoid..there is always TOR, Privoxy and PGP

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Or buy the music you want to buy.

Like I said people, stealing is still stealing. iTunes is great, and I don't mind paying 99 cents a single. But again doesn't mean I support the RIAA or frivolous lawsuits either.

FELIPE NO

People still use Kazaa? Ever since I found out about torrents and rapidshare files I haven't touched one of those p2p programs ever since.

While the RIAA certainly does have the law on its back, you'd think that their tactics in dealing with these people (tactics that in my mind at least amounts to financial terror tactics) would galvanize the jury to nullify. But I guess some people are simply okay with allowing these kinds of terror tactics to continue.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by SuperNova

What I don't understand is how the RIAA is going to survive just suing people into the ground. It creates nothing but bad press for the industry as a whole. I can guarantee you a lot more people have looked into independent music that isn't under the branches of the top record labels. I know I have.

They're not, that's the funny part. The RIAA is bleeding millions prosecuting all these cases. Their settlements aren't making up the difference, and they generate scads of negative publicity in the process. In fact, they won't see any money from this case either, since that woman is going to have to immediately file for bankruptcy.

Her fault for hiring the stupidest lawyer in the world, though. As I heard it, they even had her MAC address logged, which combined with the IP address is as good as leaving your fingerprints all over the scene of a crime. Someone would have to be directly framing her to have spoofed both numbers. The amount she's being ordered to pay is way outrageous, but she totally deserved to lose the case.

A defense attorney who deserves his law degree would have shot the RIAA out of the water by forcing them to provide proof of damages. The music industry hasn't actually been able to say how much damage has been done by file-sharing, and they go out of their way to white-wash that fact. No damages, no case.

So really, there was plenty of stupid to pass around.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Not to mention the Defense Attorney said others who could have downloaded were Zombies and Crackers.

ZOMBIES AND CRACKERS!?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Monkey King

The RIAA is bleeding millions prosecuting all these cases.

I don't think you're bleeding anything - least of all money - if you're the chief fiscal force behind recorded media in the entire world. They probably have enough money to start a small nation - so throwing it towards what they view as their own best interests is exactly what they should do.

As for "negative publicity", thats a really stupid "internet" line of reasoning. Even the most staunch, stupid middle schooler knows file sharing is illegal. Of course the RIAA is going to do this, since they're in the right.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

I think what he means it that the RIAA is spending millions to watch people, get all their information and stuff like that, then to prosecute and whatnot as well

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Slash

I think what he means it that the RIAA is spending millions to watch people, get all their information and stuff like that, then to prosecute and whatnot as well

Thats still not wasting any type of money. They're attempting to save their own ass by prosecuting people who are breaking the law. Besides, every CD bought every day puts money in their pockets. I don't see any of this making them broke at any point in the future.

I was speaking idiomatically.

While it is most certainly within the RIAA's rights to sue people for infringing on their copyrights and denying them their very hard earned money, why are they targeting everyday users and not say, the groups that rip and release the pirated music or shut down the servers that host the pirated music? Because as far as I'm concerned in my opinion the RIAA isn't making itself look any better by targeting these everyday people with these lawsuits with these 6 digit figure settlements (that for most of the people targeted in the lawsuits probably can't afford anyways) in an attempt to basically scare and intimidate the rest of the populace into submission.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

While it is most certainly within the RIAA's rights to sue people for infringing on their copyrights and denying them their very hard earned money, why are they targeting everyday users and not say, the groups that rip and release the pirated music or shut down the servers that host the pirated music?

Because a great deal of these servers are overseas, where the RIAA has limited if any jursidiction over copyright laws. Since they can't shut down material that is hosted in another country, they can certainly shut down the end users (provided they're American).

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Yggdrasil

People still use Kazaa? Ever since I found out about torrents and rapidshare files I haven't touched one of those p2p programs ever since.

Heh.
I know someone who solely uses Kazaa to download all of his music, illegal progs, and movies. I think he's an idiot but he loves to use it.

The funniest part is that he keeps downloaded virus-infected .exes that are masked as mp3s.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by LeHah

Thats still not wasting any type of money. They're attempting to save their own ass by prosecuting people who are breaking the law. Besides, every CD bought every day puts money in their pockets. I don't see any of this making them broke at any point in the future.

The thing is, it's not really clear that they actually are losing any money due to file-sharing. The RIAA themselves have yet to definitively prove that they're losing any more revenue to Kazaa users than they would from the old CD and cassette tape swapping of the past - the small change piracy that really doesn't matter in the long run.

So the question really is, why are they bothering? If they're not preventing any real revenue loss, and this is costing them so much money, they'd be better off just leaving well enough alone. Millions might not make or break a big company like Sony, but I bet there's some stockholders who'd like to have that in their pockets nonetheless.

It really comes across as the music industry allocating part of their capital for the sole purpose of being colossal dicks, just because they can. Legal right notwithstanding, there's something that seriously needs addressing when you have massive companies going out and completely destroying random middle class families with punitive fines over something that barely affects the companies in the first place.

Nobody should just get away with breaking the law, but this shit with music execs masturbating furiously as they slam yet another family with a $5000settlement claim needs to stop. Any legal system that awards $9250 per song is a broken system.

Jam it back in, in the dark.