Judge Reject's Woman's Request For A Jury Trial; Orders Her To Pay RIAA

from the vexatious-indeed dept

Mon, Oct 27th 2008 5:14pm — Mike Masnick

Ignoring numerous other court rulings concerning whether or not "making available" is copyright infringement, a judge has rejected a woman's request for a jury trial in her file sharing lawsuit, and ordered her to pay the $7,400 fine already set. This was the case we had just discussed last week, where the woman claimed that the RIAA only had evidence that she had shared six songs, even though she admitted to making 37 songs available. There was already an agreement in place that the fine would be $200/song, so the real question was whether it should be $7,400 or $1,200. The woman argued that, in light of the Jammie Thomas mistrial and other rulings, the RIAA needed to show actual infringement, rather than just that the files were made available. Unfortunately, this judge rejected that argument and ordered her to pay the full $7,400.

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: making available, riaa, whitney harper
Companies: riaa

14 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Poster, 27 Oct 2008 @ 5:38pm

Lame move.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nitrodist, 27 Oct 2008 @ 5:47pm

6th amendment
Isn't this a violation of the 6th amendment to the Constitution? Or does that right only apply to criminal proceedings?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DittoBox, 27 Oct 2008 @ 6:22pm
  
  Re: 6th amendment
  As noted in the article you link to that is for federal, criminal court cases. This is a civil case.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bill of Rights, 27 Oct 2008 @ 7:36pm
  
  Re: 6th amendment
  Applies to criminal charges only.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gyffes, 27 Oct 2008 @ 7:46pm

RIAA
Obviously, this means that, when dealing with the jackbooted thugs from the RIAA (as opposed to those from TSA or the MPAA or...), you must NEVER EVER ACCEPT THE DEAL.

Repeat after me: Rule number one? NEVER SETTLE! Fight the bastards to the end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The **AA Machine, 27 Oct 2008 @ 8:08pm

This group is so %^#*! greedy they will sue anybody for any reason, with little to no evidence and get away with it. They are trying to "protect" an old outdated business model. They're just throwing their money around just to sue there customers and make more money, although in this case they got 7,400$ they must have paid more then that in lawyers fees. If these cases would stop making the "press/tv" and stop getting free advertising that "we'll sue you, its stealing" it might slow the machine down a bit.
This whole **aa sucks, they're still filthy rich, but they may have to settle for a high end BMW then a Bentley, might not be so bad if some of these settlements actually went to artists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2008 @ 8:28pm

FUCK THE RIAA!

Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2008 @ 9:44pm

The Constitution is no longer in effect. El Diablo bush a Fascist Dictator, and the Anti-Christ used it to wipe his ass with and flushed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 27 Oct 2008 @ 9:45pm

The Constitution is no longer in effect. El Diablo bush a Fascist Dictator, and the Anti-Christ used it to wipe his ass with and flushed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Miataman, 27 Oct 2008 @ 11:43pm
  
  Re:
  The RIAA has been playing these tricks long before Bush.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Enorme Nuez, 28 Oct 2008 @ 10:23am

RIAA
The RIAA are nothing more than a lobbyist group. They are not there to protect the rights of the artists, just the recording companies that have imploding under their massive egos. The "major" recording companies had years to get onboard the tech-train; it's not the Internet just popped up one day. They want to keep their system in place so they maximize their profits while ripping off the artist who created the source of their revenue and most of all the consumer.

The RIAA can eat a d*ck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pissed, 28 Oct 2008 @ 11:10am

Grow UP
Anonymous, Grow up!!!! I am sick of you left wingers blaming everything on Bush. I almost hope Bin Laden, oooops I mean Obama wins so that idiots like you get what you deserve. Yes, you should pay for your music, This I want it, I am going to take it mentality is so juvenile. No wonder everyone want Free, Free, gimme, gimme. and who cares where it comes from.. We are fat and lazy and you should take care of us because it's not our fault that the rich people worked hard, we just want so give it to us.....

F**K OFF !!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve, 29 Oct 2008 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: Grow UP
  Getting cranky waiting for the Whaaaaaambulance to pick you up on the 4th
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
flesh99, 28 Oct 2008 @ 11:52am

Agreement in place
IANAL

The post is not quite accurate or at the very least misleading. The judge rejected vacating his summary judgment. There is a already a verdict entered. This is not something that is without precedent. It is also grounds for an appeal which TFA says the lawyer is planning. The judge doesn't have to vacate his already entered judgment although it may have been the best course of action for the defendant for him to do so.

This will play out on appeal. All we have here is one judge not vacating a verdict. It happens all the time. What matters here is not the judge in this case but the appeal. Nothing to even really get up in arms about other than a lazy judge who didn't want to re-try a case he'd already decided on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]