digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Thomas to appeal RIAA's $222,000 file-sharing verdict

arstechnica.com — Jammie Thomas has decided to appeal last week's verdict that she willfully infringed on the recording industry's copyrights. Her appeal is expected to focus on the question of whether making a file available for download on a P2P network is "distribution" as defined by the Copyright Act.

Who dugg this? Made popular Oct 8, 2007

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.

163 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • FatHed, on 10/10/2007, -3/+68"She shared those files on Kazaa."

    Making available is not distribution, the RIAA cannot prove anyone other than themselves actually copied the files from her. I think it's important that she appeals, otherwise a dangerous precedent that extends copyright law will be set.
  • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+37Personally, I think she's screwed. They caught her.

    I also think $9,000+ per song is outrageous. Especially considering she wasn't the original person to rip and share the files.

    I could see that sort of punishment for the person who actually ripped the CD and was the first to share them, but she was just passing the buck. $222,000 for 24 songs? Give me a break.
  • Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+28Your missing the point, appeals aren't questions of fact, but rather the law to be applied. The question isn't whether she shared the files - that was already decided by the jury and won't be reversed. She is asking on a ruling on the interpretation of "distribution" under the copyright act. If the court of appeals rules that just "making available" is not distribution, she will go back to the trial court and the RIAA will have to show people downloaded the files. It is a winnable appeal in theory, but I have no clue what the precedent is in the 8th circuit.
  • amfantasy, on 10/10/2007, -9/+36***** THE RIAA MPAA CRIA
  • misterhat, on 10/10/2007, -2/+26I know some people expressed interest in setting up a paypal account to pay for settlement/appeal, so here it is.

    www.freejammie.com

    I know, I know, I'm linkjacking and I could/should submit it, but I have like, 2 friends on digg and my submission would never get off the ground. This is much more effective way and I've seen some interest from some digg comments that I've read.
  • norman619, on 10/10/2007, -13/+29She shared those files on Kazaa. This pretty much means she is guilty. I don't see how she will win an appeal. I'm guessing this will end even worse for her. This is a case where she should negotiate a lower settlement with the RIAA. I'm betting the RIAA will be less accommodating after this.
  • alricsca, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13I am surprised her lawyer is not appealing based on the false and inaccurate statements made by government experts. Their expert did not seem to comprehend how NAT worked and made an incriminating statement saying that she had to be responsible because the IP on their system matched the IP assigned to her. He actually said that had it been a NAT connection and not her own computer it would be a 192 address. Any expert knows that 192 addresses do not route. It might say that if she configured her system wrong but you will get no results back when you made such a request. A properly configured P2P client will only expose your external IP which is assigned to your router and never reveal inside IP or routing information. Even if it somehow did, it would not mean her computer was the machine that supplied that information or that she was the one sitting at whatever computer did it. What is worse, at that time even more than now it was possible to spoof a mac addressees and jump on a local LAN with a hacked cable modem. None of these issues seemed to have been seriously raised. Then there is the fact that at the time many people did not even know that Kazza shared a folder automatically, it just did so. I want you all to think about this. If I left my door open unknowingly and someone walks in and takes someone else's stuff am I responsible? For that matter even if I opened my door, why am I responsible for someone else's actions? I have to questiont the laws basic premise on that one. Does it mean I am guilty if I do not roll up my car windows and someone take my CDs?
  • ahawks, on 10/10/2007, -4/+15Let's look at this in another way.

    I'm not asserting anything here, just asking questions, and I don't really know the answers.

    Is it prostitution if you just stand on the corner offering sex? Do you have to actually pick up a customer or is intent enough?

    What about drugs? That's been very thoroughly thought out. Obviously posession is one thing, but what is the "intent to distribute"?
  • p0tent1al, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9From the Article

    "The hope is that the RIAA "would actually have to prove a file was shared and by someone other than their own licensed agent (read MediaSentry),"

    I think there is actually a battle to be fought here on this point. In any case, I hope she wins.
  • DashingLeech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I'm not sure about the 8th circuit, but in Canada that was already ruled in BMG Canada vs John Doe a few years back. A positive act to advertise or send a file is required to make it distribution. Passively making your files available on a network is no more distribution than putting a photocopier in a library is (words of the judge). It's certainly a valid legal theory. Leaving your CDs laying out on your front lawn isn't distribution either, even if somebody walks along and takes them. For more details: http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/en/2004/2004fc488/20 ...
  • fani, on 10/10/2007, -5/+13Why didn't you use the reply button for norman619's comment ?
  • Frozenpython, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'm still wondering how they came up with that large of a number for the lawsuit? Does it have something to do with the number of files that she shared over time?
  • mtekk, on 10/13/2007, -0/+6if she had a smart lawyer (err. good lawyer that is) she would have won the case in the beginning, not needing the appeal.
  • Jtheletter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Actually the whole reason why this appeal is happening is BECAUSE in the eyes of the law it is NOT clear whether "making available" is the same as "distribution". In fact the judge in the original trial had initially said he would instruct the jury that making available is not distribution, then later changed his mind. The fact that he could change his mind and go either way shows that the law is not 100% clear on this point.
    Your example of a man setting up a stand to sell bootleg merchandise is not applicable because in that case there is intent to distribute. With Kazaa it is possible to have files available for sharing without intent, some people just don't understand how to set it up right. Now while that may be dangerously stupid on their part, to use software they don't understand, there is a significant percentage of the population that operates software they don't fully understand. And it is not illegal (yet) to operate software without fully comprehending all its options. However given the legal wrangling involving file sharing software I would not be surprised if sometime soon such a law is attempted to be passed stating exactly that for software that can allow copyright infringement.
  • Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5She's going to appeal? Who would have imagined that!
  • schoate09, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
  • TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5How can anyone verify that the money does indeed go to her?
  • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7In the eyes of the law governing this case making a file available for download is "distribution." The argument is similar to a man setting up a stand where he is selling bootleg merchandise. It is unimportant whether or not anyone buys them, it is important that he was trying to sell them. Since statutory damages apply, the amount that the record label was damaged is rather unimportant.
  • Tenoq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4She's not 'complaining', nuffty. The RIAA is complaining and she's defending her actions. :p
  • Eeqmcsq, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think a more accurate analogy would be that a man with a stand has one CD. People who want a copy bring their own CD burners and make a copy for themselves. Should this be considered "distribution"?
  • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Her appeal can set an even more dangerous precedent. As it is, the area is still fluid. Maybe it's infringement, maybe it's not. The ruling on the appeal could set up anyone who can be shown to have been on a P2P with files available to be shared.
    I imagine the argument would be something like:
    "If I made 1 copy of a CD, I have not infringed on a copyright, but If I take that copy and set it on a table under a sign that says 'Take one. Free.' I would have violated the copyright and damaged the plaintiff in such an instance."
    For good or bad, the case should make the statute more clear.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6What does she ***** expect, downloading from Kazaa with her regular username and no defenses, and then she had the idiocy to deny the settlement. I think the RIAA are retarded but she's even more retarded for getting herself in this position. No sympathy. The thumbs down button is to the right.
  • Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I love the legal scholars on Digg. Give us your logic on how this case violates the 8th amendment.
  • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Said 'infringer' would have to posses a time machine to have any influence in this case.
  • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The amount is ridiculous. It's one of those "set an example" things for everyone else who is considering not taking the settlement.
  • dafragsta, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yep, there's a whole heap of people out there looking to manifest their angst for the RIAA in some way. Cutting them out of the revenue stream by paying $10 for the Radiohead album or going to see Prince live and getting his album for free are all great ways to tell them "***** off, we don't need you. You're deprecated and a drag on society." in no uncertain terms.
  • bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Her best case, would be to claim diplomatic immunity. Last I checked she was native American, living on a reservation. Unless, the tribe recognizes what she did as a "crime" the tribe could tell the RIAA to go piss up a flag pole. Oh but that would be too much like logic wouldn't it?
  • manbergur, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3somthing like 30,000 dollars a song.. sounds reasonable eh?
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4They don't get it. You are not entitled to own music. If you don't like what they chargem then don't buy it. But don't also think you can have it.

    I don't think that a Porsche should be $90,000 either. It doesn't cost NEARLY that much to make one. So I won't buy one. But I also know that means I don't get to HAVE one.
  • dd12101, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I hope she wins, and then slowly the music industry will die and real artists will arise. No more canned acts like britney spears and the like. Today's music industry simply finds someone with the right look(doesn't matter if they can sing/play/write) and then they run them through the marketing and make up machines, filter their voice through a multi million dollar studio and voila they have another cash stream. Ever wonder why most contempary musicians don't sound worth a damn in person, or why so many of them lip sync? They are all fakes,,,,,
  • ahpro, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Can she not just become a celebrity, do a tonne of interviews and then get her money back through that?
  • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's hard to apply the same logic of a limited supply item (an individual service or a substance) as to an (almost) infinitely available piece of code.
    I understand that that is likely your point.
  • vulapine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It's based on the current law/statute that sets damages on copyright infringement for music.
  • PA42, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3It should be an interesting argument at the appeals court then. I view my example to be so analogous to the current situation that I saw it as settled law. This appeal should set some nice deciding precedent in the 8th circuit.
  • Treshnell, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3She should ask to see the source code.
  • N3M3515, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For all who are downloading music "illegally" go and get Peer Guardian. If you have already received the dreaded letter, a way to get out of a law suit is to claim you have no knowledge of it, and respond by saying that you have open wifi access and it may have been the neighbors or a passer by. They have to prove it came from your computer, this punches a huge hole in their case.
  • signal15, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It would be in the RIAA's interest to pay someone to "infringe" and then lose their court case. Hmmm....
  • actorboy, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Calling ***** on your post. They offered her a settlement prior to going to court. It would have saved both parties a lot of time and money. She pushed it into court and as a result faces more fines. The $222,000 judgment came from the jury Thomas wanted to decide the case.
  • N3M3515, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think the funniest part of the article is this caption "the prospect of paying for another trial and spending another week in Duluth, MN, can't be very attractive." Yeap that pretty much sums it up, Duluth sucks.
  • alricsca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Okay, I will assume you are serious, why would that make the government's use of the false NAT argument any less valid reason to appeal. Her user name is one element showing she might have done this, but the NAT argument established use of a location and system owned by her? For example, let us say you lived in a dorm with a wireless network and your user name was used to post an inflammatory remark on a forum. Using their NAT argument I could say that it had to done from the computer in your room and since you are the only person that had access to the room and system it was highly likely you. That seems much more valid, than saying someone in the dorm at that time used your user name to post inflammatory remark. More importantly, in the case of your exact argument, Kazaa supports duplicate user names so without this they have no real proof it was her. Even if it did support unique user name password combos, who is to say she created that user name and password just because she frequently use such a user name? I will give you that it seems likely but let me ask you this, if i wanted to hide the fact I was using N3M3515 network connection to upload songs to Kazaa, wouldn't it make sense I would log on with that user name.
  • allenmwnc1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Hypothetically speaking of course.
  • Makisupa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There won't be a new jury. It's an appeals court. It doesn't try facts.
  • ThinkBox, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Its tough, b/c her case really waasn't too strong....

    I'm going to bet that she plans to pay the fine, just that she is trying to tie it up in appeals for a long time. Meanwhile she invests in the Canadian Dollar, and then by the time this gets out of court she can pay the fine because of inflation and the fall of the Dollar.

    Well If she had a smart lawyer (that's what I'd DO!)

    :P
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Her best option is not to appeal the decision, but the amount. If she tries to play hardball, a judge may not be as lenient when it comes to reducing the amount. But if she appeals just the amount, basically apologizes and finally admits to what she did, the award could come down significantly. Maybe by more than 90%.
  • Mitchl, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Pay for what? An appeal to a crappy case?

    Dudes- save your money and give it to the Gates foundation to work on 3rd world hunger or disease. Give it to the ACLU or some group that does capital murder defenses.

    She should have settled this long ago. Her (and the EFF's ) stupidity in taking this weak ass case forward has only made the RIAA stronger and would more so in appeal.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ummm, you ***** idiot...you have it backwards...It is the HUGE sales of the Britney Spears type singers that bankroll the alternative acts.
  • alricsca, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Are you serious? They mean her user name not her password. I could be GWBush if I wanted to.
  • inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2the jury decided that amount. bascially they could give between $750 and $150000 to the plantiff per infringement so the jury chose about 9000. I still don't know why they chose that amount though.
  • themoosejuice, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'd just leave the country. Come get me
  • bmatherlyjr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You are correct, I was thinking Sovereign immunity and stated diplomatic immunity. This law covers "civil" law as long as the crime committed was not one against the one of the constitutional laws which "copyright" doesn't fall under yet. Hence, why the lobbyist have been pushing so hard to make it a constitutional amendment to seal this legal loophole. Of course as you stated before the only way this would be a plausible defense is if the tribe didn't wave their rights.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 163 discussions

  • 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.