DOJ Doesn't Believe $80,000 Per Song Unconstitutional Or Oppressive

from the tell-that-to-Jammie dept

While this probably isn't a huge surprise, given the fact that the Justice Department is stocked with former lawyers for the entertainment industry (and because it's filed similar briefs before), but it's still worth noting that the Justice Department has filed a brief in the Jammie Thomas lawsuit, in support of the constitutionality of the $1.92 million fine (and, no, none of the former RIAA lawyers are signatories to the brief, though you have to imagine their "expertise" was consulted). The reasoning is quite troubling and appears to include some serious revisionist history.

First, what's stunning is that the brief claims the awards are perfectly constitutional because it is not "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense [or] obviously unreasonable." Really? It seems that an awful lot of people find the idea of being forced to hand over $80,000 per song without any evidence that it was ever actually shared by anyone is severe and oppressive to the point that it's disproportionate to the offense and quite obviously unreasonable. I mean, this is a woman who wanted to listen to her favorite bands, and she now has to pay nearly $2 million. How can anyone claim that's not "severe and oppressive" in relation to the actual "harm" done?

Second, the brief claims that the damages should be much more than the $1.29 price per song found on iTunes, because it "ignores the potential multiplying effect of peer-to-peer file-sharing." Except, if that were the case, shouldn't the plaintiffs been required to show that these songs were actually shared? And should Thomas also be liable for the actions of anyone else she shared the songs with? That seems to go quite beyond what the law states.

Third, and perhaps most troubling, is the Justice Department's sneaky little claim that the statutory rates are obviously fair for file sharing, because they were put in place in 1999, with the explicit statement from Congress that these numbers were there because of internet file sharing. That sounds good, but ignores the fact that this little change in the law was pushed almost entirely by entertainment industry lobbyists (the same folks who now run the Justice Department!) to protect their dying business model, rather than through any empirical evidence. The real original purpose of statutory rates had nothing to do with punishing personal, non-commercial use, but were very much about dealing with commercial harm.

It's a neat, but immensely troubling, trick by the entertainment industry. Sneak through bizarre and totally unsupported legislation through a Congress that's never met a stronger copyright law it didn't love, using your high paid lobbyists. Then, get those same lobbyists appointed to the Justice Department to defend it against Constitutional challenges. Regulatory capture at its finest.

49 Comments | Leave a Comment..

As Jammie Thomas Seeks New Trial, RIAA Claims (Incorrectly) That She Distributed 1,700 Songs To Millions

from the can't-stop-the-lying dept

This will come as a surprise to just about no one, but Jammie Thomas' lawyers have pointed out that the $1.92 million verdict against her is excessive, and is asking the judge to either throw out the award, lower it to the statutory minimum or grant a new trial. That was pretty much expected. What's odd, however, is the note at the very bottom of that article, concerning the filing that the RIAA made to the court. The RIAA keeps insisting that it just wants to settle the case, but if that's true, it seems weird to then attack Thomas in court again, but that's what the filing seems to do. It suggests that Thomas (despite this whole process) must still be sharing songs and that the court needs to issue an injunction barring her from doing so. While we've said that there appears to be ample evidence that Thomas used file sharing programs (and that she shouldn't have let this case go to trial), it would be quite surprising if anyone had any evidence that she was still doing this. As far as I know, the RIAA has not presented any such evidence at all. Demanding an injunction, then, seems quite strange.

On top of that, the RIAA appears to falsely claim (or the AP reporter misquoted the RIAA) that Thomas "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others through the file-sharing system Kazaa." That may be true, but it certainly was not shown in court at all. The RIAA only named 24 songs she was charged with sharing, and then did not present any evidence that she actually shared any of them with anyone other than the RIAA's own investigators. The claim that she "distributed more than 1,700 songs to millions of others" was not proven at all, and in fact this entire new trial was because the judge originally made the mistake of assuming "making available" meant distribution. It does not. For the RIAA to misstate this point is really quite odd.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Decides To Appeal Constitutionality Of $1.92 Million Damages Award

from the and-away-we-go... dept

As we speculated earlier this week, given the silence from the Jammie Thomas camp since the $1.92 million verdict against her, we assumed she was gearing up for an appeal -- and that's now been confirmed. Thomas' lawyer has announced that Thomas has decided to appeal, questioning the constitutionality of the statutory damages awarded, which was the obvious attack point. It will be interesting to see who gets involved in actually managing the appeal.

28 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Not Willing To Settle Yet... Acccording To The RIAA

from the bizarre dept

How badly do you think the RIAA wants Jammie Thomas to settle? Since the verdict came down, the organization has done everything it possibly can to distance itself from the $1.92 million verdict against her for file sharing. While willing to play up the ruling itself the organization seems to recognize that the insanity of the $1.92 million doesn't do it any favors. Even the musicians whose music was part of the case are embarrassed by the amount. In an ideal world, the RIAA would love to settle the lawsuit for some lower amount so it can run around touting the "risks" of file sharing without having people laugh outloud when hearing that someone had to pay $1.92 million for potentially sharing 24 songs that could be bought for $1 each.

So, you get a slightly bizarre situation, where it's the RIAA proactively reaching out to Thomas to try to settle the lawsuit -- but so far Thomas apparently isn't interested. I've been saying that I thought she would settle, but the longer this goes on, the more I wonder if she's actually planning to fight on. If so, this could certainly represent a case to examine the statutory rates associated with copyright violations. The verdict seems so out of proportion with the supposed "crime" that it's difficult to see it pass the laugh test. However, there's a halfway decent chance that a court punts on the issue, saying (as the Supreme Court did in the Eldred case) that such questions are up to Congress, rather than the courts. Of course, if the case is to move forward, it would help to have lawyers who have had more than a few weeks to study up on the issues, and who didn't make public pronouncements that were distractions rather than anything related to the actual case.

48 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Claims Jammie Thomas Jury Is A Representative Sample Of Views On File Sharing

from the wow,-that's-chutzpah dept

After the Jammie Thomas verdict came down, I predicted that the RIAA would "gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages." Within hours, I was attacked by a former entertainment industry lawyer with a long screed claiming that no one from the RIAA misinterpreted or gloated about it at the trial. Except, of course, I wasn't talking about what they said as they walked out of the courtroom. I was talking about what would happen afterwards... like a few days later on the RIAA blog. That's when the RIAA tried to claim that the Jammie Thomas jury provides a representative sample of "music industry outsiders" whose verdict disproves the theories of certain "pundits" who believe the digital economy should be a "new wild west" where "the rule of law" is not obeyed.

Talk about misrepresenting.

First of all, I don't know of many "pundits" who think that the digital economy should be a new wild west at all. I think that many of them are actually just focused on preserving individual rights against a constant landgrab by an industry whose history has shown it to not be above removing right after right after right from people. The RIAA and its supporters have taken content out of the public domain, making a government go back on a bargain it struck with content creators, much to the detriment of society, but very much to the benefit of a few record label execs and their lobbyists and lawyers. That's stealing from the public. It's taking a bargain and changing the terms. People don't want a wild west. They want the culture we were promised, and they want their individual freedoms.

Furthermore, calling the very specific nature of the Jammie Thomas trial a referendum on file sharing is ridiculous. Her case had a very specific set of circumstances unlike many others -- and even we (a "reliable critic" according to the RIAA) felt that she never should have gone to trial, as the evidence against her seemed strong. On top of that, this "sample" involved RIAA lawyers who had years to prepare the case against some rookie lawyers who were brought on the case just weeks earlier with little preparation at all, and who, frankly, did a terrible job, seemingly more focused on other issues than the key points in the case.

The Jammie Thomas trial was not a referendum on "the rule of law" or on "file sharing" or on the future of music business models. It was a referendum on Jammie Thomas, who presented herself as an incredibly questionable witness with a fair amount of circumstantial evidence that she broke the law and then tried to avoid taking responsibility for her actions. If the RIAA wants to believe that the people are behind its self-destructive campaign of suing people, more power to it, but putting its head in the sand hasn't worked for the last decade, and I doubt it'll start working now.

45 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Richard Marx, One Of The Artists Jammie Thomas Supposedly Shared, Blasts Verdict, Apologizes

from the want-no-part-of-this dept

And the backlash from the Jammie Thomas verdict continues... First there was Moby blasting the RIAA, but he's been a long term RIAA critic. Now, however, singer Richard Marx has come out against the ruling. This is interesting for a variety of reasons. Marx isn't exactly known as a "counter culture" type who would fight back against the RIAA (and, in fact, says he's against unauthorized file sharing). But, more importantly, one of his songs is included in the 24 songs that Thomas was on trial for sharing. For that, he now feels really bad:

As a longtime professional songwriter, I have always objected to the practice of illegal downloading of music. I have also always, however, been sympathetic to the average music fan, who has been consistently financially abused by the greedy actions of major labels. These labels, until recently, were responsible for the distribution of the majority of recorded music, and instead of nurturing the industry and doing their best to provide the highest quality of music to the fans, they predominantly chose to ream the consumer and fill their pockets.

So now we have a "judgment" in a case of illegal downloading, and it seems to me, especially in these extremely volatile economic times, that holding Ms. Thomas-Rasset accountable for the continuing daily actions of hundreds of thousands of people is, at best, misguided and at worst, farcical. Her accountability itself is not in question, but this show of force posing as judicial come-uppance is clearly abusive. Ms. Thomas-Rasset, I think you got a raw deal, and I'm ashamed to have my name associated with this issue.

Once again, even the artists that the RIAA is supposedly "supporting" are angry about the RIAA's own actions.

40 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Moby Says 'Disband The RIAA' For Winning $1.92 Million From Jammie Thomas

from the representing-the-artists?!? dept

As a whole bunch of you have sent in, the musician Moby has put up a blog post where he suggests the RIAA should be disbanded for its $1.92 million win over Jammie Thomas. While (unfortunately) he gets a few of the facts wrong (they didn't sue her for $2 million, but it's what the jury chose -- though it is accurate that the RIAA has clearly suggested it has no problem with the statutory rates for infringement in the past), his overall point is sound. It's ridiculous that the RIAA thinks this is the proper strategy:

argh. what utter nonsense. this is how the record companies want to protect themselves? suing suburban moms for listening to music? charging $80,000 per song?

punishing people for listening to music is exactly the wrong way to protect the music business. maybe the record companies have adopted the 'it's better to be feared than respected' approach to dealing with music fans. i don't know, but 'it's better to be feared than respected' doesn't seem like such a sustainable business model when it comes to consumer choice. how about a new model of 'it's better to be loved for helping artists make good records and giving consumers great records at reasonable prices'?

i'm so sorry that any music fan anywhere is ever made to feel bad for making the effort to listen to music.

the riaa needs to be disbanded.

This isn't new territory for Moby. Way back in 2003, he got angry after finding out that some of his songs were being used by the RIAA to sue people, and stated: "I'm tempted to go onto Kazaa and download some of my own music, just to see if the RIAA would sue me for having mp3's of my own songs on my hard-drive."

Still, we're seeing more and more artists react poorly to the RIAA, who still claims to represent them. Why is it that our politicians still buy that clearly incorrect story?

42 Comments | Leave a Comment..

And Of Course: RIAA Mouthpieces Defend $1.92 Million Judgment

from the time-to-pull-back-the-attack-dogs dept

It's been interesting to see the aftermath of the Jammie Thomas $1.92 million ruling, as it appears that even the RIAA is recognizing that such an insanely large award gives them something of a black-eye and has the possibility of creating a bit of a backlash. However, apparently they forgot to send out that message to all of their usual attack dogs. In an AP article discussing the ruling and the $1.92 million number with a variety of different people, the RIAA tried to distance itself from the number, specifically stating, "That was not our number, that was what 12 regular folks rendered." Uh, yeah, except that the RIAA has long used the statutory numbers in their arguments about the "risks" of file sharing.

Tom Sydnor, from the Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF), a loud and proud supporter of stronger copyright at every turn (and who is well funded by the RIAA labels), apparently missed the memo on playing down the number. He told the reporter that it was a perfectly reasonable number.

"Legally acquiring a license to give copies of a song to potentially millions of Kazaa users might well have cost $80,000 per song,"

Except... that's not even close to accurate. The record labels presented no proof that she gave the song to millions of users, and seem to totally ignore the fact that these songs were available from tons of other sources (either legally or illegally) for prices between nothing and $1. To claim that the record labels would literally consider an option to license a single user putting a song into a shared folder at $80,000 is simply ridiculous.

But, of course, it shows the mentality of those paid for by the RIAA. These are the same people who accuse Larry Lessig of being a communist by taking a few statements totally out of context, and then accuse universities of supporting terrorism by not violating students' privacy and handing over their details to the RIAA.

So, if the RIAA is really serious about playing down the size of the jury award, it might want to rein in Sydnor before he says much more. If you're looking for someone to get out a message by appearing as a caricature of the evil record labels, I don't think you could find any organization better than PFF. But, that's probably not what the RIAA needs right now, unless it really wants to give the folks on the fence even more reason to leap over to the side who recognizes just how much the labels have twisted, stretched and abused copyright law over the years, totally at odds with its constitutional prescription of promoting the progress of science. Defending a $1.92 million award to the record labels for 24 songs in a shared folder, with no evidence that a single one was actually shared, is not promoting the progress. It's promoting massive greed and regulatory capture at the expense of society.

136 Comments | Leave a Comment..

The Constitutional Problems With The Award In The Jammie Thomas Case

from the seems-a-wee-bit-excessive,-no? dept

Like many others, when I first heard about the $1.9 million the jury awarded the record labels from Jammie Thomas in her trial, my initial question was how that could possibly be constitutional and not excessive. However, given the immediate talk of settlements, I figured that question is unlikely to be asked in a courtroom. The EFF, however, has taken a look at the specific constitutional issues and how any appeal might be organized. There are two specific potential problems. First, the award is clearly designed to be punitive, rather than remunerative:

First, the Supreme Court has made it clear that "grossly excessive" punitive damage awards (e.g., $2 million award against BMW for selling a repainted BMW as "new") violate the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution. In evaluating whether an award "grossly excessive," courts evaluate three criteria: 1) the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's actions, 2) the disparity between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive award, and 3) the similarity or difference between the punitive award and civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable situations. Does a $1.92 million award for sharing 24 songs cross the line into "grossly excessive"? And do these Due Process limitations apply differently to statutory damages than to punitive damages? These are questions that the court will have to decide if the issue is raised by Ms. Thomas-Rasset's attorneys.

The second issue questions whether the court has the right to try to use Jammie Thomas as an examples to warn off others (something the RIAA has been pushing for throughout this entire show-trial of a case):

Second, recent Supreme Court rulings suggest that a jury may not award statutory damages for the express or implicit purpose of deterring other infringers who are not parties in the case before the court. In other words, the award should be aimed at deterring this defendant, not giving the plaintiff a windfall in order to send a message to others who might be tempted to infringe. It's hard to know without having been in the courtroom, but if the record industry lawyers urged the jury to "send a message" to the millions of other American file-sharers out there, they may have crossed the constitutional line.

Interesting stuff, should Thomas decide to push forward. The downside, however, is that for whatever reason, to date the Supreme Court seems to throw normal precedent out the window when it comes to copyright law. I was just reading a long study (more on that later) of how a series of recent Supreme Court rulings on copyright seem to simply ignore precedent and simply accept the myth of copyright's importance over all else.

66 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Ordered To Pay $1.92 Million

from the bad-bad-idea dept

Last month, we noted that it was a really bad idea for Jammie Thomas not to settle her lawsuit with the recording industry. There was simply way too much evidence for a jury not to convict her. The trial itself was, again as expected, something of a circus, rather than anything interesting or compelling. So, it should come as no surprise that, yet again, Thomas has been found guilty. But what is surprising is that the the jury chose to fine her $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song. That's $1.7 million more than the original trial. $80,000 per song! Still, it was a really bad idea for Thomas to go through with this suit as there was way too much evidence linking her to the music (and too many problems with her own testimony). Now the RIAA is handed a gift. A verdict that it can gloat about and misrepresent to its own advantages. What might be interesting is whether (for all the RIAA gloating) this ruling has a similar impact as The Pirate Bay victory had in Sweden -- galvanizing people to support the Pirate Party. Somehow, the story isn't quite as compelling though.

104 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Jammie Thomas Refuses To Settle: This Is Probably A Bad Idea

from the she's-likely-to-lose dept

Despite the judge in her case pushing hard for the RIAA and Jammie Thomas to come to some sort of settlement in their rather infamous lawsuit, it appears the sides have not come to any settlement, and a new trial will be heard. The case, famously, was the first in which the RIAA actually won, only to have that ruling quickly thrown out after the judge realized he made a "material misstatement of the law" to the jury in suggesting that merely "making files available" should count as copyright infringement (a point of disagreement in different courts right now). There were some other questions concerning certain "misstatements" by execs from the record labels, which could have misled the jury.

While it's good that the judge reconsidered based on the misstatement over "making available," this seems like a case where Thomas probably should have settled. It certainly appears that there is plenty of other evidence that she was, in fact, breaking copyright law. While I think the law is bad and the fines are ridiculous, her chances of winning in court remain slim. Handing the RIAA a case where it has so much evidence on its side doesn't help matters. It's likely that it will win again and will once again use the ruling to tout its ability to win in court. Perhaps the only redeeming factor of such an eventual court ruling is calling additional attention to the ridiculous damages that would be awarded.

29 Comments | Leave a Comment..

No Surprise Here: PFF Blasts Jammie Thomas Judge For His Mistrial Call

from the shocking dept

We've written plenty of times about the so-called "think tank" the Progress & Freedom Foundation. The group, which has called itself a "free market" think tank appears to be anything but free market when it comes to intellectual property issues. For years, it's been a huge supporter of increasingly strengthening gov't granted monopolies, often resorting to highly questionable arguments, such as suggesting that fair use harms innovation and that the DMCA shouldn't be changed because that would be gov't meddling in the free market -- ignoring, of course, that the DMCA itself is actually meddling in the free market. For years, the face of PFF's twisted claims on copyright was Patrick Ross, who then moved on to become a lobbyist for the entertainment industry (basically cementing what he was already doing at PFF with a more direct relationship). We thought it would be difficult to find someone who could twist arguments quite as much as Ross did, but PFF surprised us and went one step further.

It hired Tom Sydnor, who made quite a splash by writing one of the most ridiculous attack dog papers we've seen, taking a bunch of Larry Lessig comments completely out of context to accuse him of being a communist sympathizer. It was pure McCarthyism. The worst was when a variety of others pointed out Sydnor's out of context comments and put them back in context -- and Sydnor still stood by the paper, refusing to admit he took a single comment out of context. The truth was that it was difficult to find a single comment that was accurately portrayed.

Based on this, I tend to be immediately extra skeptical of anything that comes out of PFF (Adam Thierer's work is usually good, but that seems the exception). Sydnor's latest is an attack on the judge in the Jammie Thomas trial for declaring a mistrial in her case for wrongly instructing the jury that simply making a file available should be considered infringement. As the judge realized (correctly, in our opinion, and the opinion of plenty of legal experts) this was a "manifest error of law." For copyright infringement to occur a copy needs to be made. Simply making something available is not making an infringing copy. In typical Sydnor fashion, not only does he claim that the judge was wrong, he makes the judge out to be totally off the reservation in making such a ruling, claiming that the judge "misread or disobeyed precedents, federal treaties, scholarly reviews and the three branches of government."

Sydnor, of course, conveniently ignores pretty much everything on the other side, including precedents, scholarly reviews and the three branches of government (not international treaties for the most part, since the relevant ones have all been written by the legacy industry -- so indeed, they agree with Sydnor's assessment, but that's hardly compelling). The fact is that there have been folks who have weighed in on both sides, and there have been widespread legal rulings on both sides of the "making available" issue, as well as scholarly reviews. In fact, William Patry, a much more widely recognized and respected copyright expert than Sydnor, has written extensively on the issue, and seems to disagree with what Sydnor repeatedly claims is "inarguable."

More importantly, the recent trend has been quite clear: most of the courts recently taking up the issue have realized how little sense it is to accuse someone of copyright infringement when no copy has been shown to have been made. There are some exceptions, certainly, but most of the cases these days seem to be going against Sydnor's interpretation, which hardly makes it "inarguable" or as crazy as the paper makes out. Sydnor's decision to take some comments out of context, and then ignore the weight of the arguments on the other side, in order to paint the judge in this case as some sort of clueless rogue, is, tragically, fitting with PFF's reputation for throwing truth, reason and logic out the window in order to support the entertainment industry's position at all costs.

7 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RIAA Appeals Mistrial Ruling In The Jammie Thomas Trial

from the i-object! dept

The RIAA seems so positively offended that its "making available" theory keeps getting rejected by courts that it's willing to object to just about anything. As you probably know, the RIAA's only "win" in a full trial was declared a mistrial, after the judge realized he had made a "manifest error of law" in incorrectly instructing the jury that simply making a file available in a shared folder was the equivalent of "distribution" under copyright law. The judge then ordered a new trial.

It probably shouldn't come as a surprise that the RIAA is appealing this decision, asking an appeals court to overturn the mistrial ruling and let the original ruling stand. While it may not be a surprise that the RIAA would be upset at the ruling, filing an appeal on a mistrial ruling is highly unusual. Normally, appeals are focused on actual rulings, not a decision that a trial was a mistrial. It seems like a long shot that the appeals court would agree to review the mistrial ruling.

14 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge Declares Mistrial In RIAA's Only Court Victory

from the jammie-thomas-gets-a-second-chance dept

The RIAA's only court victory in its years-long legal battle against individuals who engage in unauthorized file sharing has been declared a mistrial, and the $222,000 fine against Jammie Thomas has been thrown out. Jammie Thomas may now face a new trial, but this time, the jury will be instructed that the record labels need to have shown actual infringement -- and that simply making files available is not infringement. This is a pretty huge loss for the RIAA, who had been running around like crazy using the Thomas verdict to (a) claim that the courts recognize that "making available" is infringement and (b) that this case somehow proves that file sharers will get huge fines. Yet, now the RIAA is back to having no actual court victories against file sharers, and its "making available = infringement" argument is once again rejected.

Perhaps equally as interesting, in declaring the mistrial, Judge Davis also called upon Congress to change the ridiculous fines that can be levied on file sharers, noting that they seem to be way, way out of proportion to the seriousness of the act:

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. . . . While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Judge In Jammie Thomas Trial Seems Likely To Declare A Mistrial

from the appeals-on-the-way dept

In the ongoing saga of the Jammie Thomas trial, where the RIAA tried to get its first serious victory in court against an alleged file sharer, things may be looking a bit grim for the RIAA's argument. While it initially gloated after winning the case, the judge later admitted that he may have made a "manifest error of law" in saying that the RIAA did not need to prove actual infringement -- but that showing Thomas had "made available" content was good enough. While both the MPAA and the RIAA tried to explain why actual proof of infringement shouldn't be necessary because it's just too difficult (the gist of their arguments), it appears that the judge is not at all persuaded by their arguments and seems quite likely to declare a mistrial.

In the hearing today, the RIAA's lawyer basically argued the same point: that because it's too difficult to obtain evidence, evidence shouldn't be necessary. The judge responded by pointing out that if Congress really intended for that to be the case, then it would have written the law to make it clear that "making available" was infringement. Since it did not, it seemed likely that Congress did not intend for the law to be read as the RIAA wants it to be read (have no fear, of course, because as we speak you can rest assured that RIAA/MPAA lobbyists are working to get the law changed on this point).

Of course, whoever loses this ruling will appeal, this case is far from over. It will go through a series of appeals to determine whether or not the whole "making available" aspect is distribution, and then even after that's settled there are numerous other points that Thomas is likely to appeal (assuming the case is still going). What I don't understand is why Thomas and her lawyer haven't also appealed over the fact that the RIAA later admitted that a key witness lied on the stand concerning a key point over the legality of making personal copies of music you bought. That would seem to also be an important point.

26 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Bad Day For The RIAA: Two High Profile Cases Go Against RIAA

from the judges-getting-things-right dept

Well, well, well. The RIAA is not having a particularly good week. In the Tanya Andersen case (where the RIAA sued an innocent person), the court has awarded Andersen $108,000 in legal fees from the RIAA. You may recall that the RIAA had protested having to pay legal fees, which the judge smacked down. Note that this is entirely separate from Andersen's racketeering case against the RIAA.

However, the much bigger news concerns the infamous Jammie Thomas case. As you'll recall, the RIAA won that case, even though it now admits that it said false things under oath. Much of that decision hinged on the fact that the court said that "making available" was infringement, which is the opposite of what many other courts have been saying. In fact, it turns out that it went against the binding precedent in a different case within the same circuit. The judge has now admitted that he may have committed a "manifest error of law" in his jury instructions, and it sounds like he's going to order a new trial.

This is a big deal. The RIAA has been holding up the Thomas case over and over again as proof that (a) "making available" is infringement and (b) that courts will award huge fines for those caught file sharing. If that decision gets tossed out (not even by an appeals court, but by the judge who ruled in the first place), it will suddenly make the RIAA's claims relating to that case disappear completely.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Should RIAA Win Against Jammie Thomas Be Tossed After RIAA Admits It Misspoke On The Stand?

from the one-would-think... dept

Well, well, well. This morning when we pointed out that the RIAA's responses to the whole Howell affair were rather lacking, we missed an important point. In the NPR debate between the RIAA's Cary Sherman and the Washington Post's Marc Fisher, while Sherman may have had the stronger case (this one time!), he did make one interesting statement that could have much wider implications. When pushed on the Howell case, rather than admitting he was wrong, Fisher moved on to a different situation: the infamously incorrect statements by Sony BMG exec Jennifer Pariser, who said on the stand, in response to a question about whether it was okay to make a personal backup copy from a CD, that saying so was "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" As we (and many others) pointed out at the time, this statement is blatantly false.

When Fisher brought it up, Sherman responded by saying:

"The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial. I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

This actually is somewhat believable, as the industry does believe that downloading a single copy is the equivalent of "stealing just one copy," (even if that's questionable in itself). However, Sherman also claims "other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred."

It's not clear who those other reporters and bloggers are, but it's a bit surprising that they would then choose not to write about it. After all, it was a recording industry exec admitting she had made false statements under oath -- and those false statements were part of the case that helped Jammie Thomas lose her lawsuit. That has folks like Ray Beckerman wondering if the RIAA had notified the judge that Pariser had misspoke. Considering that we never heard the judge tell the jury to ignore those statements, at the very least, it would appear that the jury was never told that Pariser misspoke -- which certainly would suggest that Thomas has grounds to call into question that original ruling against her.

80 Comments | Leave a Comment..