digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

RIAA Ruling: Good News or Bad?

legalblogwatch.typepad.com — The decision this week by a federal judge in Minnesota to order a new trial in the recording industry's case against Jammie Thomas was seen by many as a victory for users of peer-to-peer networks. But was it? Thomas remains the only defendant sued by the Recording Industry Association of America to take her case to trial, resulting in a jury verdic

Who dugg this? Made popular Sep 27, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

30 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • 007brendan, on 09/27/2008, -1/+17Does anyone else find it strange that a judge is able to tell the jury when they can and can't declare someone guilty, and then reneg on his own interpretation? I thought it was up to the jury to interpret the law for themselves; isn't that the whole point of a jury?
  • inactive, on 09/27/2008, -0/+16He doesn't decide when the jury can decide on culpability.

    His duty is to inform the jury of the law and he informed them wrong. The accusation included making available for distribution. Just copying the music is extremely hard to prove and can only result in a tiny little fine, the royalty for a single copy. We're talking about cents.

    The judge instructed the jury that he was guilty of the charges if the RIAA's lawyers successfuly demonstrated that he had made it available for download. But making available for download is not the same as illegal distibution.

    You could advertise the sell of an illegal weapon. As long as you don't sell it, you can't be guilty of distributing an illegal weapon.
  • lmf49, on 09/27/2008, -3/+12***** THE R - I DOUBLE A
    ***** THE M - P - DOUBLE A
    ***** THE SUITS BEHIND THE BSA
    AND ***** EM ALL FOR THE DMCA

    http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=SnLB8wysMbY
  • Frozo, on 09/27/2008, -2/+7"perfectly reasonable"?

    $222,000 for a handful of songs? The punishment does NOT fit the crime = NOT reasonable.
  • Aeric, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4Do you?
  • SoonerRoadie, on 09/27/2008, -0/+4This wasn't even a mistrial; the article is wrong. A mistrial is when you end a trial prematurely before a verdict is reached. Here a verdict was reached but was vacated sua sponte by the judge.
  • HonoredMule, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3I think he meant perfectly reasonable justification for declaring a mistrial (the over-stiff penalties).
  • nofate2029, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3It baffles me how the RIAA is still resorting to such low tactics in order to get their point across. Instead of doing something constructive like actually getting together with P2P programs and websites who deal with the retail of music and adapting to the change of technology...they'd rather decide to sue a woman in middle America.

    RIAA, this message goes out to you: The winds of change are coming, so get with it or fall.
  • SoonerRoadie, on 09/27/2008, -0/+3But you also have to consider that generally criminal laws include attempted violation of the statute as a separate offense. Here the judge sets out in his ruling that for purposes of civil copyright infringement there is no exclusive right of attempted distribution that can be violated; you have to actually distribute.

    Another thing to note is that, according to the judge, distribution to an investigator can count as actual distribution. It's likely that the result will come out the same, if the plaintiff's allegations of the defendant's distribution to MediaSentry are correct.
  • locojones, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Actually neither one of you are right. The Judge declared a mistrial because he felt he issued the wrong jury instruction. The remaining discussions in his opinion (which are really irrelevant and will only serve to allow the RIAA to file a change of judge motion because of prejudice) reveal his "opinion" that the jury's verdict was excessive when, according to the actual copyright statute, it was well within the bounds set forth by Congress.
  • Nerys, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Personally I do not consider file sharing a crime. Personally I BUY my content. I buy DVD's I buy CD's and I rip them. I prefer this path. I have even gone out of my way above and beyond to "buy" cd's for music I found via download (any idea how hard it is to find a chinese music cd? or a Thai Music CD? when you can not read the characters :-) hehe On some sites I had to use the source code to figure out what buttons to click and what data to put in some fields so I could fill out the purchase forms)

    Either way I do not consider file sharing to be a crime. TO ME file sharing is no different than you turning on the radio or the tv and hitting "record" on whatever recording device you have.

    The end result is PRECISELY the same with only "convenience" changing between the two methods.

    SO NO I do not think file sharing (WITHOUT profit) should be illegal.
  • anachronaut, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2Based on his posts in this topic, I also initially assumed that he was some kind of **AA paid shill, but if you go back and look at his history (what there is of it), he's just a standard, run-of-the-mill troll who's neither witty nor creative. Far from it, in fact -- he's consistently inept and pathetically ham-fisted in his trolling attempts, much like a little kid who's just heard of this "trolling" thing on the Internet and decides to have a go at it.

    In short, there's no compelling reason to NOT block this idiot and forget that he exists.
  • insllvn, on 09/27/2008, -0/+2@masaks: Not. Piracy is a civil, not criminal, matter. I know, I know, the law is hard, just try to remember that when being a smart ass it helps to actually be smart. Ass.
  • SoonerRoadie, on 09/27/2008, -1/+3Actually, you're wrong as well, the judge never declared a mistrial. The judge vacated the verdict. A mistrial can only be declared is only before a verdict is reached.

    But you are right that the reason for vacating the verdict was because of an error of law in Jury Instruction No. 15. He held that the law requires actual distribution, and that it could not be determined if the jury's verdict was based on actual distribution or "making available" so there must be a new trial.
  • Azerael, on 09/27/2008, -1/+2How much do they pay you every time you post that? Or are you truly incapable of independent thought?
  • buddamus, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1I hope they were good songs, I could never live down the same of being caught downloading Brittany Spears
  • 007brendan, on 09/27/2008, -2/+3I just read part of the judge's statement on torrentfreak:
    http://torrentfreak.com/riaas-week-of-hell-080927/
    and he basically declared a mistrial because the awarded amounts were too high -- $222,000. So basically, hey, you're guilty... wait, not that guilty. I think every juror in that case should be shot.
  • locojones, on 09/27/2008, -1/+2The RIAA really could care less about this Judge's ruling. All he said was the "making available" instruction was an error, but even the Judge conceded that the RIAA could still pursue their case based on actual distribution violations with evidence obtained by their investigators. That's actually an easier case to prove, and the RIAA will prevail at the new trial.
  • mozingeaux, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1That was a great song. Thanks. I wish there was a real video to it. Even if they lack in rapping talent they write lyrics very well and were spot-on with their message. Well-done!
  • locojones, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Did you even read the article Garjon? Here, let me quote the relevant part to you:

    ""Distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution," the judge wrote."
  • Nerys, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Juries can be "screwed" as easily as a defendant can be screwed. They were hosed with bad information from both sides. Bad plantiffs and a bad defendant attorney and both a judge and jury that were both decieved and uneducated on the matter at hand.

    IE a bad trial all around. Some of the things at that trial "I" could have defended against more effectively and I am just some nobody in Eastern PA.

    IE the entire case was a "sham" in the extreme. Hopefully the second time around some EDUCATION will occur.
  • Nerys, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1Only if the ENTIRE FILE was sent to Media Sentry. if they only got a "piece of it" ie a chunk its going to be a lot harder.

    Also how do you PROVE that the copy media sentry has is a copy of a file from her computer? It would be entertaining to see them PROVE that.
  • heystoopid, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1So the judge has more common sense then the dumb easily led astray local community members that comprised the jury from that county who entered the trial with numerous self handicapping prejudices and was able to see through the litany of lies ,fiction , half truths and all other crap that was allegedly called evidence on the RIAA side of the fence that the jury chose to deliberately ignore , he be an extremely rare individual indeed unlike another legal travesty that took place in Tulia , Texas not all that long ago.

    Also very unlike the usual White Wash(Jeffrey) style like the not very bright legal theory only man who should have known far better but was far too lazy to do his own basic research , that screwed up the first trans national NFTA wikileaks DMCA case absolutely that is par for the course in the normal injustice system .

    Very strange indeed .
  • magus_melchior, on 09/27/2008, -0/+1The good news is that Jammie Thomas no longer faces a six-figure fine for infringement.

    The bad news is that she'll probably make that up in legal fees for the retrial, especially if the Capitol counsel decides to draw it out like SCO.
  • inactive, on 09/28/2008, -0/+1They don't need to prove that, they just need to prove her ip sent their ip the file. Which is very easy. It's what the case is built on.
  • aeschynanthus, on 09/27/2008, -0/+0Both phrases mean the same as they're idioms. Languagelog has had many posts about it.
    http://www.google.fi/search?hl=en&q=%22could+care+ ...
  • pizzaguy01, on 09/27/2008, -2/+2P2P is for cheep asses who cant pay a 5 bucks for a cd

    burried
  • Garjon, on 09/27/2008, -0/+0Except, they cant. They have to prove someone _other then their investigators_ downloaded it. Their investigators are authorized to download it.
  • Pandalemon, on 09/27/2008, -2/+1It's "Couldn't care less". To say that they could care less implies they actually do care rather than not at all.
  • deepleet, on 09/27/2008, -3/+2No thanks.

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.