RSSJudge sets aside RIAA win in Jammie Thomas case
By Angela Gunn | Published September 25, 2008, 8:21 AM
The Minnesota woman who lost the only RIAA copyright-infringement case to go to trial thus far had her verdict set aside Wednesday by the judge who originally oversaw the case.
District Court judge Michael Davis took the remarkable step of vacating the verdict reached on Capitol v. Thomas in his very own courtroom. The judge's 44-page decision is based on his conclusion that he did give the jury improper instruction as to whether the law disallows making files available for distribution, as Ms. Thomas allegedly did when she saved songs in a folder that was visible to peer-to-peer networks.
Plaintiffs representing the Recording Industry Association of America claimed that dropping the 24 contested tracks into a folder on her computer was exactly the same as actively distributing them. By that theory, therefore, RIAA's investigators had no need to prove that anyone ever downloaded those tracks from her. Judge Davis originally agreed and told the jury -- which last October found Ms. Thomas guilty and fined her $9,250 per track -- not to worry that the RIAA didn't prove that downloading occurred.
But after the trial, as both sides prepared to re-join in the appeals process the battle they've been fighting since April 2006, Judge Davis had more time to consider the case law. In May he made it known that he believed he may have committed a manifest error of law and was thinking of granting a new trial. That's what happened on Wednesday.
Since the trial phase now begins again, Judge Davis didn't rule on the hefty liability and statutory damages penalties from the last trial, but he did have some strong words for Congress about the state of the Copyright Act when it comes to peer-to-peer network cases such as this one, where the defendant clearly had no wish to turn a profit or build a business based on her purloined tracks:
"The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases such as this...The Court does not condone Thomas's actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother's acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market." Davis was referring there to Lowry's Reports Inc v. Legg Mason, one of the cases the RIAA cited to make their play for large statutory damages.
The RIAA was quoted in some reports as saying the decision was "not unexpected," but this song may be all too familiar to them by now. Courts in Arizona and Massachusetts have previously disputed the association's claim that making tracks available is the same as distributing them. A New York court, on the other hand, has sided with the RIAA's take on the matter.
Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Corynne McSherry, in a post to the EFF's Deeplinks blog, said that the Foundation "applauds Chief Judge Davis's thorough rejection of the RIAA's effort to rewrite copyright law and thereby avoid the trouble of actually proving any infringement has occurred. And we wholeheartedly endorse the court's call to amend the Copyright Act's oppressive damages provisions." The EFF was one of the organizations that briefed Judge Davis after he expressed his original concerns about his jury instructions.
RIAA is fighting a loosing battle. Yes, they can win several of these "Jammie Thomas" cases but in the long run people learned to disrespect RIAA and their "copyright protection" practices.
Results speak for themselves. Viewer audience of Video Music Award this year hit the lowest records, CD sales are also down... I guess RIAA hasn't learned from Metallica experience that sueing those who earn you profits is not a very good business proposition.
Score: 0
|This is as bad as AOL calling the kettle black. I refer to their pirate radio, Shoutcast but the RIAA is afraid to go after big guns. The defendant is the sacrificial lamb here, lets see the RIAA go after the traders den or pirate bay or limewire. don't shoot the chickens for the fox is in the roost, know what i mean?
Score: 0
|no this just means this judge has not been bought yet, or wnt reelected or something.
Score: 0
|A good judicial decision.
Score: 0
|A sensible decision. Guilty until proven innocent is never acceptable.
Score: 0
|If "Guilty until proven innocent is never acceptable" then does that mean that pretrial incarceration, which by its very nature implies guilt is also unacceptable?
The whole idea of pretrial incarceration is based on one of two premises: [1] that the defendant is a risk of taking flight from prosecution (implying that the defendant is guilty as sin and is going to run to avoid being tried for their crime) or [2] That the defendant is guilty and just is waiting for the trial to prove it (also falls under guilty until PROVEN innocent)
I have long been against pretrial incarceration as it slaps the very "innocent until proven guilty" in the face as a joke, a useless phrase thrown around to make it look like people actually have rights that they do not.
Score: 0
|where the defendant clearly had no wish to turn a profit or build a business based on her purloined tracks:
This is exactly what Copyright Law was never intended to cover. It needs serious remedy to bring that law into the 21st Century.
Score: 0
|Yeah, and after they accomplish this, we can fix patent law, the economy, healthcare and then peace!
I don't see much happening on this for a while, at least until the RIAA admits they are wrong...but good to know the legal system is not behind the riaa
Also can we please get rid of those ridiculous ads right before a movie starts with Humphrey Bogart, I mean come on, WHO thought that was a good idea...
Score: 0
|As someone else implied in another thread (Database Ben, I believe), it's obvious many people seem to be under the impression that congress can only focus on one issue at a time, that scheduled meetings mean nothing and that nothing can get done between those meetings.
I wonder if people are aware that outside of their corporate 1 meeting per day, shackles exists a world where people can discuss and make progress on several different areas of concern in what could amount to a matter of hours?
Score: 0
|Eh, I was trying to make a joke, it didn't come out funny, though.
It did sound hiliarious in my head, but then again maybe I am not funny :/
Score: 0
|Actually, my first instinct was to laugh, but I re-read it and thought you might be *not* trying to be funny.
So much for 2nd guessing myself. ;)
Score: 0
|So I have this right.. you believe that a congressman can take money from more the one Lobbiest at a time???? Or just from one industry??
I would bet money that if you locked these congress people in a room and interviewed them about P2P they would not be able to provide good answers to the questions. (Oh course you need to get past the lawyer BS and they are good at it..)
Score: 0
|Learn 2 read.
Thank you.
Score: 0
|what a fiasco
Score: 0
|