As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions
from the can't-stop-the-lying dept
This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
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: constitutional, copyright, file sharing, fine, jammie thomas, lawsuit, music, settlement
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Isn't that the entire argument though?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
slander
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: slander
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Reasonable doubt
It should go back to court, and the fines thrown out until a re-trial. The case should have been presented a lot better, and the judge made a rash decision without knowing more information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17149032/Defendants-Motion-for-New-Trial-and-Remittitur
I have not as yet had the opportunity to read plaintiff's submittal, i.e., its own motion and its response to defendant's motion.
If the defendant had even an ounce of sense, which her actions to date suggest she is missing even this nominal amount, she would settle this case and get on with her life. Apparently, the opportunity to tilt at windmills without having to pay lawyer bills is much too tempting for her to pass by.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow
RT
www.anonymize.tk
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Must be proven
While I understand your point, and agree with your later paragraph about a redo on the trial, this idea doesnt stand up in court. In court, you have to PROVE beyond a reasonable doubt that something occurred. You cant prove something DIDNT, you cant prove a negative. In this case, the prosecution must PROVE that she shared these songs. They did not. They only proved, with any certainty, that she shared 24 songs with their own investigators, not with anyone else. Also, its not necessarily true that file sharing programs are ONLY used for sharing music and movies. Yes, they do a lot, but not JUST for that, there are other uses, since they share files of any kind. That alone raises a reasonable doubt. And even then, thats not enough, since the tool isnt illegal by itself (shouldnt be that is, but these judges and juries are ignorant idiots who dont understand the tech and rule incorrectly). If that were so, then guns would be de facto illegal, since the main purpose (but not the ONLY purpose, just mostly) of a gun is to kill something.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Note to self: Lobby once more for "civics" to be added as a mandatory part of the curriculum in high school.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Isn't that the entire argument though?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wow
Next idea, please.
Hail Xenu (and Seth)!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right!
Correct! Now, remind us all again why these people are being tried in criminal trials for infringement, which is a civil matter?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right!
Note to self: First note to self was on the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tor_(anonymity_network)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darknet_( file_sharing)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_P2P
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freenet
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I disagree almost 100%. While I certainly was among those who suggested she made a huge mistake in moving forward with this trial, and believed she absolutely should have settled before the case went anywhere, I absolutely disagree that she should settle now.
At this point, she has absolutely nothing to lose in fighting the constitutionality of the statutory rates. Why settle now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
However, as long as this suit proceeds in the courts the plaintiff will continue to have her private life disrupted into the indefinite future. By way of but one example, new trial awarded? Great, more depositions in Brainerd and significant time spent away from home while sitting in a Minneapolis courtroom, only this time 1700+ copyrights will be asserted versus the limited 24.
The appeals process takes place over a long period of time, during which her life will continue on "hold".
Mine is just a practical observation and not a legal one.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Right!
Just an idea for the future.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right!
Then why are there FBI warnings on movies that state very clearly CRIMINAL penalties for infringement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Right!
Even the most basic of courses in civics would explain this distinction.
This is no different than Mr. Masnick calling for basic courses in economics.
Both should be taught as an integral part of a secondary education curriculum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Right!
Thank you! I was only trying to point out the duplicitous nature of these trials. They are SUPPOSED to be civil cases, yet they get splashed around the media by the RIAA and everyone as if it is a CRIMINAL case. Nothing is EVER said of the CIVIL nature of the INFRINGEMENT (not crime). They only talk about how this woman is accused of the "crime" of making available/copying/sharing. So it gets equated with stealing, which is NOT the same thing under the law and has a different legal standing and penalties. Now you can all tell me how wrong I am (I'm not).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Right!
CIVIL penalties are sought against individuals accused of non-commercial copyright violations, i.e., not for profit infringement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
but it doesnt
CIVIL penalties are sought against individuals accused of non-commercial copyright violations, i.e., not for profit infringement."
That would be a good explanation, if the statute differentiated between them. As it is, its just infringement, which is a civil matter. Infringement of copyright was NEVER intended to be used against individuals, it was ALWAYS a matter of commercial exploitation (and things like public performance, counterfeit, selling copies, etc).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lies and more Lies and God Damn Lies
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Antigua, Again.
So you go on a trip to one of the islands, and you pay a hundred dollars cash for a perpetual server account. Given the rate at which electronics are getting cheaper, you ought to be able to buy a perpetual server account for about three year's purchase, so your hundred dollars ought to buy a thousand gigabytes per month or thereabouts, the equivalent of maybe ten home broadband connections. A hundred dollars, paid in cash and in person, is essentially untraceable-- if you claim you gave the money to a cocktail waitress in the course of a night's drinking, no one can prove you didn't. For your hundred dollars, you get a piece of paper with a URL, a user-id, and a password on it, probably using the scratch-off system like a lottery ticket. Snailmail it to yourself, or to a good friend, back in the U.S. You then give sub-accounts to all your friends. When things become cheap enough, they cease to have paper trails. If a hundred dollars isn't cheap enough, wait a year, and it'll be fifty dollars... then twenty-five... then twelve, then six...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Pieterszoon_Hein
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Mor gan
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: slander
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The internet is for...
[ link to this | view in thread ]