RIAA May Have A Pretty Strong Case
from the some-evidence-is-sticking dept
Lots of folks are paying plenty of attention to the first RIAA lawsuit to go to a jury trial. Initially the reports were that the defendant's case was strong, and the RIAA didn't have very much evidence. In fact, the RIAA's star technical witness has been debunked before, and it appears that many of his claims were once again debunked in the court room. However, even with such weak technical evidence, I have to agree with Tim Lee that this sounds like the RIAA has a pretty strong case, based on the combination of the IP address and the username in Kazaa. It's the identical username that the woman uses for many, many different online accounts -- making it tough to believe that someone else happened to be using that same username from an IP address assigned to her account. It also seems highly questionable that the woman would claim she never had Kazaa with that kind of evidence. There are still some legal questions here -- including whether or not the court will instruct the jury that simply making content available is copyright infringement. However, it's disappointing that this is the case that's going to trial, because it certainly looks like the RIAA has stronger evidence than usual in this particular case. Despite what some people think my position is on the issue of unauthorized sharing, I absolutely do not condone it (nor partake in unauthorized sharing). I think the laws covering this type of thing tend to do more damage than good to the very industry it's supposed to help -- but that doesn't mean people should be free to ignore them. I also think the RIAA is making a dumb business decision with these lawsuits and that it often accuses people without much real evidence. However, even with the flimsy technical evidence, the combination of other factors certainly makes this look like a much stronger case from the RIAA's side. That's unfortunate, because if the RIAA does win, more people will assume it legitimizes their lawsuit strategy and even supports their other cases where the evidence is a lot weaker. Perhaps I'm missing something, but it's difficult to see how this case was a good one to fight the RIAA on.
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
If she loses, hopefully they will pay her fines.
I had thought that this woman may be the Rosa Parks of filesharing, but now she seems more like Tawana Brawley.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plausible denial
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Circumstancial?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
user ID
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's an interesting one
I'm not saying that should be a reason for this woman to be found not guilty if she indeed is, just that a decision like that is likely to hurt alot of people, and make people bow to the pressure of paying-off early all the more.
Oh, and you're definately right Mike, this is a VERY dumb business decision for a company not just in the space to make a quick buck by taking people to court. Considering they require an on-going stream of revenue.
Although you could argue that this kind of behaviour is sustainable. As long as people break copyright, they will be able to suck money out of this strategy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071003-defendants-counsel-hammers-away-at-pirac y-picture-painted-by-riaa.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ignorance is no excuse unless you host a wireless
Exploiting the publics and a judge's ignorance of technology is no excuse for litigation-as-a-profit strategy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
While this may not be a good case to prove that the RIAA depends heavily on weak evidence this could be a good case to prove that owning a large digital music collection does not automatically mean that they illegaly downloaded it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For me the most interesting part about this trial was the testimony of the record company exec, who admitted that these lost suits are costing way more money than they generate. Seems like the only people that really benefit from these suits are the RIAA's lawyers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Apparently, as in Napster, on services where the majority of use is infringing, it is, in fact a violation of copyright.
Sorry to burst your bubble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
too much evidence should just admit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love to share!
While I understand your stance on the law, I must side with Aquinas on this one and say that an unjust law is no law at all. I have absolutely no problems file-sharing. Hell, I encourage it publicly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re #9
She has hundreds of CDs.
Any and up to all files on her machine could be legitimately ripped.
Also, remember that little fair use law?
As long as you bought a CD, it still is not illegal to have a back up copy. So if you only download songs from CDs you bought, you are not copyright infringing. At least that is STILL my understanding, after asking very specifically about it and others agreeing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil or Criminal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A lot of people say he should have been convicted. Of course I am not comparing the deeds of murder to file sharing or this case, but you don't need ultimate proof to be convicted.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kazaa simply uses your Windows Username
I suspect Kazaa just uses the Windows username of the account that installed it.
So, here's the possible scenario:
1) Thomas used the same username on her computer as on the other online accounts. Windows asks for a username, even if you don't use a password or require a login. I think the default for a Windows machine is to simply boot to the desktop without requiring a login, but there is still a windows account running.
2) She rips CDs she owns to her computer
3) Someone else, perhaps the ex-boyfriend she mentioned having used her computer, installs Kazaa. Most home users don't create multiple accounts on their machines for each family member. They just use a single, shared account.
4) Kazaa, during the install, automatically picks the username of the Windows account it is installed with as the "...@kazaa" string.
5) Kazaa begins sharing the mp3 files on the computer.
As Kazaa does not actually *ask* for a username when installed, I don't think it's compelling to say she "used the same account on Kazaa"
All they can prove is that computer running under that username shared some files. They still can't connect the computer running under that username to the actual person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kazaa simply uses your Windows Username
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Laws
A lot of this probably stems from different laws being applied in different places (I for one am in Canada and the laws are a bit more relaxed here, though I'm still not entirely certain where the boundaries are).
Does anyone out there know of a good site for breaking down the "do's and dont's" of tech law as it applies to file sharing and different regions?
I recall I saw something like this related to sex laws by age and region, but nothing definitive for copyright/file sharing laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA Defense
If this is civil rather than criminal (I think it is) I don't like the defense's chances. The defense needs to drop the 'a hacker did it' and focus on 'can you PROVE that SHE shared THOSE songs - if they can't don't convict'.
I also agree with Mike's position - the RIAA is making awful business decisions, but they are for the most part on the right side of the letter of the law (if not always in thier tactics their contentions). The best way to get the RIAA to change isn't to defy them legally, it is to vote with your pocketbook.
This was an awful case to bring to trial to make a statement against the RIAA. It is going to set a bad precedent and the RIAA wouldn't be there if they didn't think they would win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if she had thousands of cd's ripped to her system if there's no proof that these were being shared then I don't understand how they have a good case here? Yes, I know that people have been convicted on much less circumstantial evidence, I'm just curious if the RIAA is even trying to list items that are supposedly infringing or are they just basing this on the ability to infringe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil Disobedience?
Well, maybe not "free to", but... If the law is wrong, and nobody violates it, how will it ever get changed? Do you think reasoned argument will prevail in Congress over the RIAA campaign contributions?
There's bigger issues here than this or that business model. Traditionally the public owns creative works, the creator has a limited distribution monopoly. Now a lot of pressure is being brought to make creative works the property of a corporation in perpetuity, and whether that idea succeeds or fails will have a huge impact on the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Civil Disobedience?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The jury heard the case and will determine one thing. If they think after considering what they have heard, did this woman violate copyright laws? If so, she is in trouble. Of course, the jury could pull a Nullification if they decide that the law is just bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
further evidence required
First, she owns 100s of CDs she has a legal right to rip. (say one is Peter Frampton: Frampton Comes Alive)
She has KAZAA loaded, which is legal.
I own the LP Peter Frampton: Frampton Comes Alive. I have no means of playing it any longer but I do have the legal right to hold a backup.
I find Peter Frampton: Frampton Comes Alive using KAZAA and download it from the defendant.
No law has been broken. The defendant merely assisted me in making my legal backup.
I am unclear as to the specifics of this case. If it is individual content, than the riaa must prove in court that the defendant has a music file on her computer that she does not possess the CD, LP, cassett, 8track or other media allowing her the legal right to to backup. (if a list of possible songs were available I am certain someone would mail her a legal copy for trial purposes).
Or is the case regarding sharing. Which will be much more difficult as it requires proving ACTION and INTENT.
The riaa must prove more than the intent to make the music files available to people who do NOT have a legal right to download them. (if is not illegal to INTEND to run a stop sign so long as you do not take action. The ACTION of running a stop sign is illegal).
The must prove that the files WERE downloaded by individuals who do not have not acquired the rights to them.
I believe the court should require the riaa to compile a list of all individuals who downloaded songs from the defendants account, bring those individuals into court, and prove that they did not have legal right to a backup copy.
If 500 or 1000 people arrived in court as witnesses, carrying a CD, LP, cassette or 8track and state that they downloaded a backup with KAZAA, from the defendants account or any other, but you have the legal right to do so it because it is on the CD, LP etc. which you have in your hand.
Alternatively imagine the defendants case if 10,000 people took a photo of themselves holding an LP etc, and wrote a sworn letter that they downloaded a legal backup with KAZAA and mailed it to the defendant. If the riaa could find documentation that proves Imagine the defendants case if 10,000 people took a photo of themselves holding an LP etc, and wrote a sworn letter that they downloaded a legal backup with KAZAA and mailed it to the defendant. How many people who downloaded the defendants files would the riaa have to find documentation on and prove in court to offset this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: further evidence required
That is it.
It doesn't need to be conclusive, it doesn't even need to prove that she actually uploaded anything. THis is a civil case and the judge has stated that simply sharing copyrighted content on Kazaa (where the majority of use is infringing) *is* infringement.
Bottom Line: They've pretty much shown that Kazaa was installed, that no-one else accessed her system, and that the files in question were shared, regardless of intent.
She's going to lose this one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Criminal vs civil law
With a criminal case you need to prove things beyond a reasonable doubt and if this was a criminal case then the evidence provided most likely wouldn't be enough to convict. However, in a civil case it is simply decided based on a balance of probabilities. i.e. Which side is more likely "right". The O.J. case is a perfect example of this. In his criminal trial he was found not guilty because the defense succeeded in raising reasonable doubt and that's all they needed to do. However, in the subsequent civil case he lost because the burden of proof isn't as strict.
In a civil case, if the plaintiff convinces the jury that the defendant most likely did it, that's good enough. Reasonable doubt doesn't matter. In this particular case I still wouldn't call it a slam dunk for the RIAA but their chances are looking pretty good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Exactly.
It is something else when the authorities behind that song hold you to a gunpoint as punishment (figuratively speaking).
People need to understand that attacking the RIAA is the not same as supporting/encouraging piracy. Like Mike, I do not believe anyone should take material (digital or not) that does not belong to them. However, the punishment should be in the neighborhood of $500 per case, not $250,000. We're talking about copying music here, not stealing government secrets. The RIAA's "wonderful" $3000 settlement is ridiculous, especially for someone still in school and struggling with bills as it is.
My speeding ticket from years ago was $114. I deserved it! My actions could lead to someone's death (including my own). So, how is it that endangering the lives of those around me costs $114, but pirating (not "stealing") music costs $3000? The RIAA is quite corrupt in this respect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Exactly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, but if you lend a friend a cd and they make a copy without your knowledge, and then give back the cd, what then? It seems like that would certainly be "making available to be copied."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
GUILTY- $222,000 penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: GUILTY- $222,000 penalty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not really, you could give someone your CD for them to listen to. With file sharing, they have to copy it in order to listen to it. With the CD, there is no need for a copy. Intent is a very important point when it comes to the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Unless you call buffering copying.
Which is something I don't believe they have shown in this case. Did this person intend for these files to be in a shared folder? And if so, did they intend for the files to be copied rather than listened to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This does a few things, one is that it avoids any appeal. Another is that it does send a message. Seems like a win-win to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scary
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would think that having an account with KAZAA could show intent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To argue that the law should be obeyed because it is the law is an amoral stance. It's unfortunate when people take the amoral road but I suppose it's an easy way out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may be amoral to you, but maybe they consider your stance amoral?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes. Or hack it. Or something. I didn't suggest that breaking a law is a replacement to working to overturn it. I'm simply saying that to claim "If a law exists it should be obeyed." is an amoral view.
"Breaking the law is all well and good"
Then I don't understand your point. You seem to be saying contradictory things.
"but do you really feel like paying $220K?"
No, but that means what? If you are saying "Jammie, don't do it because it could cause you a lot of grief.", that is one thing. But Mike isn't saying this. He is saying he doesn't "condone" it. This means he believes what she did was morally wrong. He even said he doesn't do it himself. Not because it is dangerous (which is a valid argument) but because it is law.
"It may be amoral to you, but maybe they consider your stance amoral?"
So? "They"(?) are entitled to an opinion. In fact, I'd like to hear it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#45, 46
Absolutely. Some laws are downright wrong. In which case, fight to change them as best you can - BUT while it is still law; obey the law.
This may not always be the case in extreme circumstance but in day to day legal issues there are rarely laws that need to be broken morally.
I realize as someone who *may* have pirated *some* things in my time this is hypocritical, but then I would also not be overly surprised to face consequences.
...Thought $200K + does seem rather ridiculous. I would think there would be some form of formula for calculating damages that the plaintiff would have to demonstrate before allowing such a figure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]