Overstock Cuts Off NY Affiliates Over NY's Amazon Sales Tax Law

Bad Day For The RIAA: Two High Profile Cases Go Against RIAA

from the judges-getting-things-right dept

Thu, May 15th 2008 12:59pm — Mike Masnick

Well, well, well. The RIAA is not having a particularly good week. In the Tanya Andersen case (where the RIAA sued an innocent person), the court has awarded Andersen $108,000 in legal fees from the RIAA. You may recall that the RIAA had protested having to pay legal fees, which the judge smacked down. Note that this is entirely separate from Andersen's racketeering case against the RIAA.

However, the much bigger news concerns the infamous Jammie Thomas case. As you'll recall, the RIAA won that case, even though it now admits that it said false things under oath. Much of that decision hinged on the fact that the court said that "making available" was infringement, which is the opposite of what many other courts have been saying. In fact, it turns out that it went against the binding precedent in a different case within the same circuit. The judge has now admitted that he may have committed a "manifest error of law" in his jury instructions, and it sounds like he's going to order a new trial.

This is a big deal. The RIAA has been holding up the Thomas case over and over again as proof that (a) "making available" is infringement and (b) that courts will award huge fines for those caught file sharing. If that decision gets tossed out (not even by an appeals court, but by the judge who ruled in the first place), it will suddenly make the RIAA's claims relating to that case disappear completely.

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

Filed Under: jammie thomas, legal fees, making available, riaa, tanya andersen
Companies: riaa

15 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

eleete, 15 May 2008 @ 1:27pm

WOW, Excellent
Maybe this will show a shift toward correcting the situation. Now if they could just squash that damn ProIP bill perhaps we can show the world we are in fact a sane country. Corporate greed is polluting our system and infiltrating others.

eleete
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lucretious, 15 May 2008 @ 2:01pm

Geez Mike, don't sound so depressed.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John (profile), 15 May 2008 @ 2:03pm

"Awarding" may not mean "won"
Even though the judge in this case awarded Andersen $108,000, it doesn't mean she's "won". After all, the RIAA will appeal the case (if only to lower the fine).
Then there's the matter of actually getting the RIAA to pay up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane, 15 May 2008 @ 3:09pm
  
  Re: "Awarding" may not mean "won"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gabriel Tane (profile), 15 May 2008 @ 3:13pm
  
  Re: "Awarding" may not mean "won"
  Sorry for the previous blank comment... finger slipped.
  
  Anyway... Not to mention the basic fact here: "Winning" this case simply shows that Tanya Anderson successfully proved her innocence. It does not address the legality or morality [sic] of the RIAA's tactics... let alone the legality of file sharing.
  
  When a judge awards huge punitive damages against the RIAA because if its tactics... that'll be a great day for freedom! or at least for the cause.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 19 May 2008 @ 2:53am
    
    Re: Re: "Awarding" may not mean "won"
    I agree, but the great thing about this is that it sets legal precedents. The RIAA will have a much harder time withholding fees for people it's incorrectly sued.
    
    The Jammie Thomas case is even better news - the original ruling was based on a clear misinterpretation of law, and now that this has been realised it's going to be extremely hard for the RIAA to win the new trial.
    
    The only problem with these cases is the length of time they are taking. While it's good that victories are being made and the RIAA keeps losing, I wonder how many people are seeing these cases and just going "to hell with that, I'll just pay" when the RIAA threat comes through their door. Both of these women have been through hell and probably serious financial debt to prove their points. Not everyone can do that.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 May 2008 @ 2:52pm

Owned
The fact that their only real 'triumph' is being overturned by the same judge and not even GOING to the appellate level just proves how grossly dishonest and STUPID the RIAA lawyers are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wasnt me, 15 May 2008 @ 2:53pm

at the risk of having said that about the st article conserning Tanya Andersen.

finaly the light at the end of the tunnel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast, 15 May 2008 @ 3:29pm

"said false things under oath"

That's perjury and contempt and should be treated as such - but let me guess, they'll get a pass..

But God help me if I did it against them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
judson, 15 May 2008 @ 4:10pm

Punative what?
If the RIAA can demand thousands for 15 songs why should they not have to pay on an equal scale ...... seems only appropriate!
And as Overcast stated, what about the lies? SHould more cases be reviewed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 15 May 2008 @ 4:27pm

The judge's decision in the Jammie Thomas case is great news.

Now who wants to start a countdown until the inevitable bill that criminalizes "making available" appears in Congress?

I give it one month from the date the Jammie Thomas verdict is overturned.

Come on, you KNOW that the entertainment industry isn't going to let the number one argument for suing file sharers just be taken away from them. When they can't win under current laws, they buy new ones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hypocrisy, 15 May 2008 @ 5:56pm

My Name is
Do as I say, not as I do.
I am above the law though you must submit.
My name is RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 May 2008 @ 9:04am

and so it goes.........................
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 May 2008 @ 2:42pm

Honestly, the RIAA needs to be dissolved permanently. Only thing they're serving to "protect" is their bank accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gene Cavanaugh, 17 May 2008 @ 7:33pm

RIAA problems
Why would you think the RIAA would stop claiming those things merely because the Judge ordered a new trial? Are you saying the RIAA has suddenly gotten a bad case of honesty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]