Jammie Thomas Refuses To Settle: This Is Probably A Bad Idea

from the she's-likely-to-lose dept

Wed, May 13th 2009 4:57am — Mike Masnick

Despite the judge in her case pushing hard for the RIAA and Jammie Thomas to come to some sort of settlement in their rather infamous lawsuit, it appears the sides have not come to any settlement, and a new trial will be heard. The case, famously, was the first in which the RIAA actually won, only to have that ruling quickly thrown out after the judge realized he made a "material misstatement of the law" to the jury in suggesting that merely "making files available" should count as copyright infringement (a point of disagreement in different courts right now). There were some other questions concerning certain "misstatements" by execs from the record labels, which could have misled the jury.

While it's good that the judge reconsidered based on the misstatement over "making available," this seems like a case where Thomas probably should have settled. It certainly appears that there is plenty of other evidence that she was, in fact, breaking copyright law. While I think the law is bad and the fines are ridiculous, her chances of winning in court remain slim. Handing the RIAA a case where it has so much evidence on its side doesn't help matters. It's likely that it will win again and will once again use the ruling to tout its ability to win in court. Perhaps the only redeeming factor of such an eventual court ruling is calling additional attention to the ridiculous damages that would be awarded.

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: file sharing, jammie thomas, settlement
Companies: riaa

29 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

John Duncan Yoyo, 13 May 2009 @ 5:22am

I think mike is wrong on this one
I heard the latest This Week in Law podcast which featured Jammie's lawyer. I think he may have the guns to take out the RIAA lawyers. This needs to get tested in a court somewhere because in every other case where the RIAA was vulnerable the RIAA has just folded early.

http://twit.tv/twil23
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish, 13 May 2009 @ 5:27am

Other than merely "making available," which is not infringement as of yet, what other evidence is there? I clicked on your "evidence" link and I'm not convinced. Let's assume that she did have and use a Kazaa account, what evidence does the RIAA have that anyone, without authorization, downloaded music from her?

Or are they going after her for the music she downloaded from Kazaa? That'd be interesting as the vast majority of people erroneously think that merely downing is not infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry, 13 May 2009 @ 7:15am
  
  Re:
  "the vast majority of people erroneously think that merely downing is not infringement."
  
  I do not think that is the case sure some people think that, but the majority of people think that it is okay to download and not upload because all cases (that I have heard about) brought forward have been for sharing files, so they will not get caught.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 7:32am
    
    Re: Re:
    IS downloading copyright infringement? That seems like saying that if you buy a folex watch you're guilty of counterfeiting.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 13 May 2009 @ 5:42am

sorry mike, no.
If you just "settle" it's basically giving press a way to stamp it as "you're guilty" while not benefiting both a: the other people who have been sued for the same things if they are not guilty and b: it doesn't get judges to look this over and say "hmm, maybe something's wrong in what's going on here". Really, copyright reform starts in the courthouse, and doesn't start through settlements.

If every riaa case was a settlement we'd have a serious gross injustice, and I tihnk you can remember how that worked out last time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Captain, My Captain, 13 May 2009 @ 6:00am

Don't...
Do not go quietly into the night...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 13 May 2009 @ 6:04am

Even if She looses
She could win in appeal, or set a precedent for a lower fine.
But hell she may win.
This would be one case where Jury Nullification would send a clear message to the RIAA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rekrul, 13 May 2009 @ 9:39am
  
  Re: Even if She looses
  Unfortunately, no jury in the US is allowed to know about Jury Nullification, and 99% of judges will outright lie to the jury and tell them that they MUST return a guilty verdict if the defendant is proven to be guilty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
terry, 13 May 2009 @ 6:28am

Wow, I've never seen five of five disagree with Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 6:43am

Since it's not my neck on the line (yet), I'd say fight!!!

Aye, me mateys!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wammer, 13 May 2009 @ 6:56am

RICO the RIAA
Just stop buying MPAA and RIAA controlled crap. Shop indie. Forget the jerk-off rappers. I can't believe they make so much money I don't hear anyone listening to that crap.
BUY indie and maybe the music acts will get a clue that getting a record deal is no deal anymore. You've seen the pablum they try to sell us.
Beyonce pumping us up to an upgrade. The bitches are whores and the rappers are pimps. They sell their bodies for money. Just because we don't touch them. We still have to pay for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: RICO the RIAA
  I bought three CDs last week, all by independent artists. That's three less for the RIAA.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Tgeigs, 13 May 2009 @ 7:15am
  
  Re: RICO the RIAA
  "Beyonce pumping us up to an upgrade"
  
  I have to say, I think the exact same thing whenever I see that damn commercial. In fact, I wish I could follow her around with a recording of that commercial and then play it everytime she talks about being an "artist" in some interview or whatever.
  
  There would be Tgeigs in the background with a video player, TV, and a stand, just like we all saw back in high school, playing that section of the commercial where it's a close up of an "upgrade" necklace in her whorish mouth, on loop, over and over and over again.
  
  Yeah, you're an artist. Just like Anna Nicole Smith.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 10:22am
  
  Re: RICO the RIAA
  Shop indie. Forget the jerk-off rappers. I can't believe they make so much money I don't hear anyone listening to that crap.
  
  Yes! Think of it this way: if Timberlake can put together a song and music video for Saturday Night Live within a week, it should really put it into perspective how easy this stuff is with the right tools.
  
  It's had over 900k views in 4 days. It's hilarious, but beneath the surface, I think he's parodying the industry.
  
  (It's called "Mother Lover", warning: NSFW)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The infamous Joe, 13 May 2009 @ 7:41pm
  
  Re: RICO the RIAA
  Forget the jerk-off rappers.
  
  You're missing the obvious/hilarious.
  
  Their lyrics are almost always about breaking the law in some fashion, and they cry because their copyrights are being infringed upon?
  
  Glorify murder, theft (the real kind), drugs, etc, but cry like a baby when their song is shared?
  
  Please.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shmengie, 13 May 2009 @ 7:14am

here's a bad example...
if i offer illegal drugs for sale, isn't that a crime, whether anyone buys them or not? so...

if jammie says, "here's some songs you get illegally, for free," isn't that a crime, whether anyone downloads them or not?

i'm just saying, is all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 7:38am
  
  Re: here's a bad example...
  Anti-drug laws are not the same as copyright laws.
  
  You may be trying to say something about morality, and how if it's wrong it's always wrong, but that opens up a whole different can of worms. (Like, why are drugs illegal? Who decides what's right and what's wrong? Is there any real MORAL backing to copyright?)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- shmongifie, 13 May 2009 @ 7:42am
  
  Re: here's a bad example...
  Drugs (at least, the ones you're talking about) are illegal by law.
  Music is legal.
  
  Drugs are a finite resource.
  Digital Music is an infinite resource.
  
  Selling illegal drugs is a felony.
  Offering copyrighted songs without license is merely "actionable via lawsuit".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: here's a bad example...
  ...after the judge realized he made a "material misstatement of the law" to the jury in suggesting that merely "making files available" should count as copyright infringement (a point of disagreement in different courts right now)...
  Seems to me like you don't bother to read, or if you do, don't comprehend and just make trollish comments.
  i'm just saying, is all.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bobby, 13 May 2009 @ 8:51am
  
  Re: here's a bad example...
  The only reason downloading is a crime is because of big money goons bribing our lawmakers. It was always legal to make a copy and give it away for free, because the companies thought the COST of doing so was negligibal. That allowed them their monoplolies. They said, sure we will let peopel lend their books, copy their books, copy their music and share it with their buds. back then you may only have 10 freidns, and had to spend 5 bucks to tape it. Now that people define friend differently(I mean I have 300 people as my friends in facebook. The pushed legislation to get thier copyright extended to where nothign will ever hit the public domain again. They diferentiated between digital formats and analog formats. They pushed to make it so copy machines won't copy books anymore and you get harassed at a kinko's if you want to print out a LEGAL digital copy you bought.
  
  I am a computer programmer. I am use to be a consultant. I knwo of three Fortune 100 companies that run software I created, You know what, I got paid, but once. I do nto get residuals. I have to work to earn my money. I do that by creating new products. Let them do the same. We need to go to 15 years ONLY for copyright. Then we will have a rich world of content in the public domain. people will still make their money, and it will force companies and creative "type" to come up with fresh content.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - backpackadam (profile), 13 May 2009 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: here's a bad example...
    I also agree with you. Except your terrible spelling makes me want to cry. Good post though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - backpackadam (profile), 13 May 2009 @ 9:12am
    
    Re: Re: here's a bad example...
    I also agree with you. Except your terrible spelling makes me want to cry. Good post though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Easily Amused, 15 May 2009 @ 8:54am
      
      Re: Re: Re: here's a bad example...
      Double clicking webform buttons makes puppies cry.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 8:17am

You never want to go into court when someone is trying to make you an example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 8:24am
  
  Re:
  If you've done something wrong.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 8:59am

Bobby, I would agree with you, I have no problem with copyright going to 15 years. Problem is, most people here would still violate that and see absolutely nothing wrong with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Beckerman (profile), 13 May 2009 @ 1:34pm

Strange headline
Rather a strange headline. Why did you say "Jammie Thomas refuses to settle", as opposed to "RIAA refuses to settle"? Or better yet a neutral headline?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 13 May 2009 @ 8:44pm
  
  Re: Strange headline
  Actually, the following is a fair and neutral headline:
  
  Settlement talks unsuccessful in Capitol Records v. Thomas; trial scheduled for June 15th
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 13 May 2009 @ 11:12pm
  
  Re: Strange headline
  Rather a strange headline. Why did you say "Jammie Thomas refuses to settle", as opposed to "RIAA refuses to settle"? Or better yet a neutral headline?
  
  Because Thomas came out and said that she would not settle. Thus I think it's fair to suggest that she was the sticking point.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]