RSSRIAA appeals mistrial in Jammie Thomas case
By Tim Conneally | Published October 16, 2008, 11:11 AM
Capitol v. Thomas, the infamous copyright infringement case against a Minnesota woman who made copyrighted material available on Kazaa five years ago, ended in a $222,000 victory for the RIAA...that was thrown out.
A few weeks ago, the district court Judge who presided over the Thomas case retracted the verdict and declared the case a mistrial on the grounds that the jury had been falsely instructed about the culpability of those simply "making files available", where no evidence showed that any downloads had taken place.
Judge Michael Davis declared that a new trial was necessary because Jury Instruction No. 15 (which said that making a copyright sound recording available to others on a peer-to-peer network) was "manifestly erroneous."
The Recording Industry Association of America (representing the plaintiffs) has petitioned Davis saying, "Either now, or after a full retrial, the September 24 Order will be appealed...The 'making-available' question at issue in the September 24 Order was and is a pure question of law. It presents no questions of fact, but is based entirely on the meaning of a federal statute, as interpreted by various courts, executive agencies, and Congress. It is not an issue left to judicial discretion."
The group's statement continues, "As the case currently stands, the Court, parties, and a jury will have to prepare and participate in a second trial on the Defendant's liability and damages. The trial will require substantial resources, as every witness except the defendant will be traveling from out of state. And if the Eighth Circuit affirms the Court's September 24 Order, the parties will simply proceed with that second trial, having eliminated the most substantial issue that either side would have for later appeal. However, if the Eighth Circuit reverses the Court's September 24 Order, there will be no need for a second trial."
As I've said before, but lost in translation to most dummy's here. She oughta be in Gitmao getting some behavior modification.
Better still, with a name like this she's gotta be a coon, send her to Abu Ghraib for some a heat warming experience.
As the Tool says, she is guilty "that she dared write an hypothesis, "In this instance, for example, she'd written a thesis in college on Napster regarding P2P. It's pretty clear she *knew* what she was doing, and that the intent was to share".
Intent is now proven, kill the B**ch.
Score: 0
|I say that unless they (the MPIAA) can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt with physical evidence, that named people downloaded named files thanks to this person, then they have no case. Show me where a physical person with a name and address got a free copy of the movie thanks to her and then you can fine me for the COST OF THAT one copy, multiplied by number of people you can prove got free copies thanks to her. There would also be a one broad fine for all copies distributed of between 1000 - 2000 dollars, and a 6 month jail term as maximum penalty. this bulls*** of fining a lady 220,000 for movies she never distributed with any reasonable proof is simply illegal. You have to PROVE guilt in this country, not prove intent of guilt.
Score: 0
|Show me where a physical person with a name and address got a free copy of the movie
this bulls*** of fining a lady 220,000 for movies
*laughing*
This troll couldn't even be assed to read the fracking article!
Hey, Eunuch-man, try actually reading the article next time.
Pure. Comic. Genius.
Score: 0
|oh that was a good laugh.
Score: 0
|Tarded Muppett,
Do you ever go back and read your tirades? The reason i cum here once or twice a week is simply to read your "asinine" comments.
Do you have a nice thing to say about anything/anybody?.
Somewhat sad, you really are quite miserable, is this 'cos the trailer is about to be repo'd?, No I think not, this is your nature, you'll be sneering at your puppies whilst setting fire to them on your deathbed.
Had to have a chuckle {snide though it may have been) during the week, your banter with Zaine, and his "Alt's", he accused you of being an Obama supporter, do you not see the irony ya dummy? You, and he are closer than you realise!
Gezez, you are more right than the author of "Mein Kampf", ya make Donny Rumsfeld & d*** Cheney et al look like Samaritans (read ya Bible dummy).
Anyway, H&H chambered to .465 over & under 'll do the job.
Anyway, time to sign off stupid, one of lifes' little irony's, I have units to purchase in NYC.
Thank you very much for the entertainment.
Ah, what a HOOT!!!
Score: 0
|Do you have a nice thing to say about anything/anybody?.
*laughing*
What the hell do you think this is, cheerleading squad?
Should I make posts after everyone I agree with, saying, "Yeah! Right on! You Rock!"
Yeah...that wouldn't be the least bit annoying.
Glad I could entertain you. Sad that this amounts to what entertains you. One would think someone with your flamboyant writing skills could find something to write about in the local "lifestyle" section...(Any more flamboyant and the letters would be wearing pink tutu's, doing the flamenco, and practicing the YMCA for the Thursday show at the Cabaret)
Score: 0
|Judge Michael Davis now the RIAA/MPAA is very mad at you!!
Score: 0
|The 'making-available' question at issue in the September 24 Order was and is a pure question of law. It presents no questions of fact, but is based entirely on the meaning of a federal statute, as interpreted by various courts, executive agencies, and Congress. It is not an issue left to judicial discretion."
I would think that "making available", or at least using it as grounds for a claim of infringement, would depend entirely on the knowledge of the user. If it could, for instance, be proven that the user knew, beyond all doubt, that the program in use was open to infringement, and that putting files in a certain directory meant that anyone could grab them, they *might* have a case.
In this instance, for example, she'd written a thesis in college on Napster regarding P2P. It's pretty clear she *knew* what she was doing, and that the intent was to share.
In an ideal world, this still would not be enough to fine someone the full amounts, however. Such a finding (Intent vs. Actual proof of distribution) should carry a much lower penalty.
$220,000 for non-profiting infringement is a "Tad Steep™", IMO...
Score: 0
|"...would depend entirely on the knowledge of the user..."
negligence is a common litigation vector for these situations.
I agree that the penalty seems unrealistic and not based on logical rationale.
Score: 0
|100% agreed. Nicely said.
Score: 0
|defendant if she looses should file bankruptcy and let the RIAA waste so much of its shrinking resources. In todays economy, it is quite easy to bounce back from a bankruptcy filing in 2 years or less.
Score: 0
|