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?

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

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

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

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

ZOMBIES AND CRACKERS!?

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

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 was speaking idiomatically.

So now heres something I'm wondering. Since Radiohead is basically offering their CD and music for your own price and people are downloading without paying anything...is it stealing?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Actually I think from what I've read Radiohead told their label to go fuck themselves and is doing this on their own and I think 4 other groups are following

FELIPE NO