First RIAA Lawsuit To Face A Jury
from the so-how-will-a-jury-of-your-peers-feel? dept
The RIAA didn't want it to come to this, but one of its lawsuits accusing someone of sharing unauthorized content is about to go to a jury trial. As Ray Beckerman notes, it's not a particularly good trial for the RIAA (which partly explains their desire to avoid the whole jury thing). There's no evidence that the defendant infringed copyrights, and the supposed expert witness the RIAA is expected to call has been thoroughly debunked as an expert. Of course, juries can be very tough to predict, and you can bet that the RIAA will appeal to the emotional angle of "stolen" music. If it's worked on politicians, perhaps they'll find a gullible jury as well.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Do they have Gene Hackman on their team?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians don't care
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yay, the circus is in town!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fully Informed Jury Act
It is the right of the jury to judge not only the facts of the case, but the law itself.
this was/is one of the primary reasons we have the right to trial by jury of our peers here in the U.S.
the jury can acquit even if the prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the law" was broken. if the jury thinks the law itself is unfair or wrong, then they can acquit.
in fact, the jury can completely disregard the judges "instructions" should they so choose. a jury can acquit if they don't like the color of your shoes. it's that simple, really. it's also one of the reasons why judges and lawyers (mostly prosecutors, but occasionally defense) will absolutely freak out if you mention the rights of a jury to any potential jurors.
Fully Informed Jury Assoc.
http://www.fija.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/juries.htm
http://nowscape. com/fija/fija_us.htm
stay informed. know your rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neither Side Looking Forward
1. Juries are unpredictable- any prospective jurors that hate the RIAA will be weeded out and not be on the jury
2. The defense expert will end up slightly debunked as the RIAA expert will be some level of debunked
3. Since this is a civil trial the evidence does not have to meet the high "beyond a reasonable doubt" standards of a criminal trial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
Criminal trials are ALWAYS to a jury unless the defendant waives the right to a jury trial (and that waiver can sometimes by refused) and the level of evidence required for a verdict against the defendant is "beyond a reasonable doubt".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
Too True! Most people try their damndest (sp?) to GET OUT of jury duty... I think you hit the nail on the head that more people would try like hell to get ON this jury!
Who among us HAS NEVER downloaded even one 'illegal file' or shared a program with a friend? The ability to freely share a part of your life is the best part of the internet. If music makes you happy, and you feel that you want to share that happiness with like-minded people, is that so bad?
Granted, sharing with two million people might get you noticed. In that case it might not be the best thing to do, but I still feel that file sharing isn't the big boogey-man that the $$AA has made it out to be.
I'll be watching this trial closely as well. Should be interesting...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a bit off topic
it is the right of a jury to not only judge the facts of a case, but the very law itself.
even if a prosecutor has proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the law" has been broken - the jury can acquit if they feel that the law itself is unjust or unfair or unconstitutional.
the jury can ignore the "instructions" of the judge should they so choose. they jury can acquit if they don't like the color of your shoes. it's that simple, really. the jury is the final say in the courtroom - not, as tv would have you believe, the judge.
Fully Informed Jury Assoc.
http://www.fija.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/juries.htm
http://www.jerry esmith.com/index.php/40
okay, so I'm kind of veering off topic, but nonetheless -
stay informed. know your rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither Side Looking Forward
In a civil court, the evidence need only support the plaintiff by a "preponderance", not beyond a reasonable doubt.
And debunked isn't quite right either; each side can only reject so many prospective jurors, so this can't happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Work on a jury as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting.
I'll be following this one closely. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What on earth are you talking about? The Supreme Court has consistently rejected the argument that campaign contributions are a form of free speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Neither Side Looking Forward by Tim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Preponderance of the Evidence
1) Do the RIAA cartel companies own the copyrights in question?
2) Did defendant, an actual real live person, download and distribute those songs?
One thing I liked in the judge's motion to deny summary adjudication was the suggestion that the parties meet and confer. Here, in California, case management and settlement conferences are mandatory for complex civil litigation. The judges really don't want to see you in their courtroom, arguing every little detail. The ones that don't settle are usually the result of "irreconcilable differences."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doesn't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Doesn't matter
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE:#24 and trying again ...
it is the right of a jury to not only judge the facts of a case, but the very law itself.
even if a prosecutor has proven beyond reasonable doubt that "the law" has been broken - the jury can acquit if they feel that the law itself is unjust or unfair or unconstitutional. NO MATTER WHAT THE JUDGE "INSTRUCTS."
the jury can ignore the "instructions" of the judge should they so choose. they jury can acquit if they don't like the color of your shoes. it's that simple, really. the jury is the final say in the courtroom.
Fully Informed Jury Assoc.
http://www.fija.org/
http://emporium.turnpike.net/P/ProRev/juries.htm
http://www.jerry esmith.com/index.php/40
okay, so I'm kind of veering off topic, but nonetheless -
stay informed. know your rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Questions to prospective jurors
Mr/Ms prospective juror, have you ever illegally downloaded music from the Internet? Have you ever copied a song or album using tape or a CD-R, and given it to a friend? Has anyone ever given you a copy of music?
Hmmmmm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
you dont give people enough credit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, gang, but it's wrong
In any file share, there must be both an 'upload' and a 'download' otherwise nothing has happened. P2P software is specifically designed to accept ALL 'upload' requests, universally, by automated instead of manual initiation, among a group of files specifically tagged as uploadable. When configured this way by the defendant, she has tacitly agreed to upload any tagged file on demand to anyone.
I'm sorry gang - I've written allot of checks to BMI, ASCAP and SESAC for broadcast rights and can come up with my own reasons why I think it's a rip-off. None-the-less, when a work is the copyrighted property of an author, who holds and maintains the sole priviledge of licensing its distribution, file-sharing copyrighted works is a form of theft in which both the 'uploader' and 'downloader' are complicit.
If you were J.K. Rawling, the owner of "Harry Potter", and you discovered that your work was being electronically shared without your permission, you would sue, too. She had no obligation to sit down at a desk and develop a popular series over the course of years and give it away for nothing, unless she wants to. She would still be on Britain's welfare dole. Instead, her work has created countless thousands of jobs around the world in its distribution because of its sure and certain real value we give it as consumers and we do NOT have the right to enjoy it by stealing it. Period. Anything else is meaningless semantics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Counter suits??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]