Search
RIAA wins first lawsuit case |
The verdict is in on the first file-sharing case to go to a jury. The defendant, a 30-year-old single mother named Jammie Thomas, was found guilty of copyright infringement and damages totaling $222,000 were awarded to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the group representing the record companies. While Thomas’ attorney tried to convince the members of the jury that she was not the Kazaa user “Tereastarr” that was logged as downloading 22 songs from such bands as Aerosmith, Journey and Green Day in the end the 12 members found that there was sufficient evidence to incriminate Thomas since the computer she owned was used to download the songs in question. The verdict works out to a staggering $9,250 that Thomas now owes the RIAA for each song illegally downloaded.
“This is what can happen if you don’t settle,” RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the Minnesotra courthouse on Thursday after the case had wrapped. “I think we have sent a message we are willing to go to trial.”
The jurors could have awarded the RIAA far more, up to a maximum of $3.6 million in damages or as little as $18,000. The precedents established by the Thomas case now means that the RIAA does not need to prove that the person that owned the computer had the file sharing account which was used to download the songs or that even physical evidence needs to be brought to trial. Instead all that seems to be necessary are the logs which show the IP address of the user which downloaded the content, leaving the possibility open that a computer vulnerable to outside control of a hacker can be used as a cover.
  |
RELATED ARTICLES:
YouTube and Google Face More Copyright Challenges
Google remains confident in YouTube copyright lawsuit
Viacom sues YouTube, Google for copyright infringement
Intempo Rebel records FM radio songs, flips the bird to the RIAA
This case’s appeal is going to put a busted ostrich egg in the face of both the judge AND the RIAA. The instructions were clearly outside of the scope of the law, and on top of that, the RIAA never actually proved that DAMAGES occurred. Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” In the real world, if you make a copy of a CD for someone else, you’re infringing, but if someone makes a copy of a copyrighted item that you, the library, or a rental chain like Blockbuster lends or rents to them, THEY have committed the infringement. There is no feasible way to defeat this analogy. The actual copyright violation occurs not because of the (potentially accidental) availability of the file, but rather because the downloader, copier, or ripper willingly and intentionally chose to make a duplication of the file that would not fall under a fair use exemption.
The jury has essentially made you liable for infringement if your friend borrows a CD from you and decides to rip it without your knowledge or consent before returning it.
I would expect Blockbuster to file an amicus brief for the appeal, because if this ruling is allowed to stand, Blockbuster is “making available” a TON of copyrighted media, and they commit copyright infringement with every rental that chooses to duplicate the rented item. They made it available, after all.
The utter stupidity of the instructions is easily found when the implications of those instructions are applied to all situations that would fall under the wording of those instructions, and that’s why this is going to be one hell of an EASY appeal.
What kind of justice is this? This is surely a case of “excessive punishment”. A drunk driver that is a public hazard endangering others lives does not face this kind of punishment. Don’t the record companies gouge us enough already? The artist gets less than 50 cents an album and we pay $15 for it? The artists are as big a suckers as we are for agreeing to these prices. I would much rather give the artist five bucks and be able to download it without funding the record companies legal fund.
If there is a fair settlement I don’t see how the fine can exceed the amount of the number of downloads since there is not proof that this has affected record sales. The number of record sales would definatly increase if the price was lowered. Downloads are free so naturally there will be more than if they cost $15.
I hope these predators don’t collect a dime of this settlement. Perhaps O.J. can give this mom some tips on how to keep her money (if she has any).
“Also, why has no one argued that the DOWNLOADER is responsible for infringement rather than the person “making available?” ” –Angry Offender
With peer-to-peer file sharing (utilized by Kazaa) there isn’t a bright disntinct between client and server (or to use your terms — betweeen a downloader and the person making available the copyrighted material), as each participant or peer in the network lends some of its memory and processing resources to enable the exchange of files (or other data) been participants. In other words, each participant can operate as a client by downloading files from other participants or as a server by providing files (or a portion of files) to other participants upon request.
In this case, from what I have read, Jammie Thomas was accused of distributing over 1700 songs (as part of the peer-to-peer network), but ultimately found to have committed copyright infringement by downloading (and playing) 24 songs.