Mistrial for RIAA's first file-sharing victory
Back in October of 2007, a federal jury ruled in favor of the RIAA and fined the defendant, Jammie Thomas, an outrageous $220,000.00 US for sharing 24 songs on a P2P network. Not surprisingly, Ms. Thomas filed an appeal. Her case was indirectly strengthened when a New York federal judge ruled that the RIAA could not strictly sue individuals under the "making available" claim -- the argument that merely making a file available to download constitutes subjects the user to copyright infringement and punitive penalties -- they would have to prove the person actually downloaded said files. Yesterday, a Minnesota federal judge declared a mistrial in the Jammie Thomas case, effectively setting the RIAA's court victory record back to zero.The basis of the mistrial were the jury instructions. Initially Judge Michael Davis instructed jurors that could find Thomas guilty of copyright infringement if copyrighted MP3s were made available via a peer-to-peer network, "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown."
In August, Judge Davis had a change of heart and called both sides back to court, requesting arguments over the "make available" claim. With yesterday's decision, Jude Davis ruled that the jury instructions were "erroneous, and that error substantially prejudiced Thomas' rights."
Although a mistrial was declared, the case was not dismissed with prejudice, meaning the RIAA can sue Thomas on the same grounds, assuming they can make the argument that actual distribution, and that Thomas was responsible for infringing downloads.
On page 41 of the 44 page ruling, Judge Davis also commented on the extraordinary punitive damages in this case:
"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 the one currently before this Court." We can only hope Congress listens.
The complete ruling can be downloaded here.
[via Tech Dirt]
digg_url = 'http://www.downloadsquad.com/2009/11/25/the-atari-classics-are-back-and-free-to-play-asteroids-lunar-l/';
Believe it or not, Atari have just released a bunch of old games on their own website. These aren't clones, these aren't even 'loving interpretations' -- these are the real thing, remade by Atari themselves. This comes as part of a re-launch for the Atari website which includes an online store.
I warn you, if you read on, this might turn into more than just a mere ten-minute time-waster.
...
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Roy said 7:14PM on 9-25-2008
SCORE for consumers!
Reply
DiRT said 8:50PM on 9-25-2008
As much as I want to say that it's a victory for consumers, why else would you have mp3s in a P2P application if not to distribute them? It's not like she was using Limewire to load them onto her Sansa.
Reply
blaszta said 10:29PM on 9-25-2008
@DiRT
I might sound naive, but in the real world not many people understand how actually P2P works.
She might only knows that she can use Limewire to download mp3s, but she doesn't know that by downloading she actually distributing it.
Reply
iampriteshdesai said 11:03PM on 9-25-2008
Does RIAAA work outside US?
In India?
Reply
Bobwilliams said 1:18AM on 9-26-2008
We always thought that the RIAA's first-ever filesharing trial victory against Jammie Thomas was a little suspect since the labels weren't required to prove that Thomas even had Kazaa installed on her machine or was the person using the account in question, and it looks like the court agrees -- it's just declared a mistrial and set aside the $222,000 judgment on the grounds that simply making copyrighted works available for download does not constitute copyright infringement. That's a huge decision -- the "making available" theory is the basis for most of the RIAA's legal arguments -- and it means that the RIAA will now have to prove the unauthorized transfer of each song it wants to collect damages on at the new trial. We'll see what effect this has in the broader sense -- we've got a feeling we're in for a slew of appellate decisions on both sides of the "making available" debate -- but for now it looks like the good guys are finally starting to score some points.
================
Bobwilliams
[url="http://www.drivenwide.com"]SMM[/url]
Reply
Mike said 8:35AM on 9-26-2008
Oh dear here it starts, lets not give the RIAA too much power!
My 2c, Mike - http://www.dignova.com
Reply
The Chained Lynx said 12:32PM on 9-26-2008
I applaud the mistrial for swinging the pendulum back toward the individual. So as to be absolute in clarity and culpability: I HAVE IN THE PAST, AM CURRENTLY WHILE TYPING THIS, AND WILL CONTINUE TO DOWNLOAD COPYRIGHTED MOVIES AND SONGS. Why would I admit to this? Because I have already purchased these copyrighted materials legally. My parents' basement, where I had stored a collection of old VHS cassettes like Die Hard and Spies Like Us, had water leaks and the movies and their paper cases sustained water damage and subsequent mold. I bought all of those movies, including the rights to make back-up copies for personal use. About 8 years ago I had dozens of music CDs stolen from my car while I was working as a pizza delivery driver. Did I file an insurance claim? No, because the hundreds of dollars I lost in those CDs did not go over the $500 deductible. I have other CDs and DVDs that simply have suffered from age, use, and exposure to the elements. The physical conveyance of the content has deteriorated, but as I said, I have legally paid for these songs and films when I bought them. That I would replace these CDs shouldn't be considered a crime- the criminal act was when they were stolen- unless the RIAA now considers the thief the copyright holder as he assumed possession. Later today I will try to complete downloading the Guns N Roses record Appetite for Destruction, because my MP3 player continues doesn't play magnetic cassettes, and my Sony Walkman is now old enough to vote in the upcoming elections. I am grateful for the filesharing networks like Frostwire and Limewire and Kazaa and the Torrent system, because I can restore my media library. I download songs and bands that I really liked when I was growing up, like from the Miami Vice Soundtrack, which I also bought. When I was 11. So Yes, I download copyrighted music. I have purchased usage rights in the past. The Media companies should consider that by replacing these files, which I already paid for, I now have retained more spending money which I could now spend on new titles. This McCarthyist File-Sharing Inquisition/Witchhunt against Thomas for 220,000$ is sickening, perverse, and a gross injustice. BMG Music Club sent out millions of CDs with cloaked install rootkit encoding to block ripping their CDs to computers- this malware is HACKING your computer to prevent you from making rightful copies. This issue is only going to become more polarized. These companies are not victims in the least, and tying nooses at the corporate headquarters for hanging the individual who buys a music CD or a DVD is a sure way to go bankrupt from all of us here in Sherwood Forest...
Thanks to everyone on the filesharing networks who helped me recover some of the movies and songs which I lost.
Reply
Obama is a Fascist said 2:28PM on 9-26-2008
Yeah baby, yeah!
Victory, for now.
Reply