RIAA loses mistrial appeal
A federal judge has denied the Recording Industry Association of America's request for an appeal of an earlier decision to grant a retrial in its copyright infringement case against Jammie Thomas.
Earlier this year a jury found that the Minnesota woman had violated copyright laws by illegally sharing more than 1,700 songs. The jury ordered the woman, Jammie Thomas, 30, to pay $220,000 to six of the top music labels.
But a few weeks after the verdict was handed down, U.S. District Judge Michael Davis threw out the verdict on the grounds that he originally misguided the jury by indicating that simply the act of making a copyrighted song available for sharing amounts to infringement. A new trial has been rescheduled for March.
In an attempt to avoid another trial, the RIAA appealed the judge's decision to declare a mistrial. But now it looks like the RIAA's latest attempt to gain a conviction for copyright infringement has been thwarted.
This case has been closely watched because Thomas is the only individual charged with copyright infringement by the RIAA who has taken her case to trial. Since 2003, many of the 26,000 persons sued by the industry association have simply settled the cases out of court by agreeing to pay a few thousand dollars. But Thomas, who has been accused of sharing music via a peer-to-peer service, Kazaa, has always maintained her innocence.
On the surface, the importance of the outcome of the Thomas case is somewhat diminished since the RIAA announced a couple of weeks ago that it is taking a different strategy to combating the sharing of illegal copyrighted music.
Instead of suing individual users, the industry association plans to work with Internet service providers. Under this new arrangement, users that the RIAA suspects of illegally sharing music will be asked to stop their activity. If the activity persists after three warnings, ISPs will then cut off broadband service.
So far, the RIAA hasn't disclosed details about how the new process will work, which has made some consumer advocates wary.
Even though the RIAA has revised its strategy toward copyright infringers, the legal questions raised in the Thomas case are very important and remain relevant to how the RIAA plans to battle copyright infringement in the future.
The main legal question yet to be answered is how to determine whether copyright laws have been violated in the digital age.
Judge Davis threw out the verdict in the case because he argued that "actual" distribution of copyrighted music must be proven for the law to be violated. Therefore, the RIAA had to prove that users downloaded the music that Thomas was making available through the peer-to-peer service. Simply making the content available is not a violation of copyright, under this reasoning.
But the RIAA has said that proving that songs have been downloaded from services like Kazaa is nearly impossible. As a result, the RIAA has long argued that making digital music available for others to download illegally is an infringement on copyright.
Over the years, judges have disagreed on this reasoning, and as a result, they have written different opinions on this issue. As a result, it's very likely that the legal issue of what constitutes copyright infringement will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. Regardless of how the case is decided in March, it's likely that the losing side will appeal. And after the case makes its way through the federal appellate courts, it will likely end up in the highest court of the land.
Marguerite Reardon has been a CNET News reporter since 2004, covering cell phone services, broadband, citywide Wi-Fi, the Net neutrality debate, as well as the ongoing consolidation of the phone companies. E-mail Maggie. 
...and for the sake of all of us everywhere, and more importantly our right to not be bullied by extortionists by any means, legal or not.
So, all the RIAA has to do is *suspect* that someone is doing this, and boom, they're "convicted"? Greaaaaat, I feel so much better now.
Oh wait.
Massive copyright theft can not be allowed to become a way of life. This is an issue that CAN NOT be lost, the economic future of the world is based on intellectual development, not flipping burgers and tilling the soil --- not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)
If we are to to judge both cases of copying/growing by the same common sense reasoning, we should be paying artist directly for live performance (the actual creation of the product) and farmers fro growing produce. We should not be paying third parties for the promotion and distribution of something that is not really theirs.
You are one of those modern day extortionists who think that a one-time performance in the studio will earn you a life without ever having to work in the future again. Imagine: Everybody around you rich and poor will will rush to make sure your blessed lifestyle will not run out of money.
Keep dreaming lad, but you are gonna be another roadkill of reality.
Joanna K
Copyright is a limited right. It was set up to encourage the creation of intellectual and artistic work, so that, ultimately, the public domain would be enriched. Originally it wasn't even for the life of the creator.
Music is specially problematic: If music is publicly performed, distributed for free over the radio, where then is the absolute right of intellectual property? If copying a file is theft, isn't public broadcast throwing stuff out into the street?
It's made all the more difficult by the fact that the only way to sell music is largely to play it for people. So the only way to sell it is to give it away.
The world of the future will be built on information, it's true, but that does not mean that the future is served bylocking up that information and charging for its access. It's weird to those in the Econ 101 mindset, but vetrry often the best way to profit from information is to give it away.
That's why there is a public domain, even though corporations have been rtrying mightilyto destroy it.
Second prediction is that they make these deals with the ISPs, but a few months or so down the road they produce some crackpot study with numbers that are hand selected to prove their point that since they claimed they weren't going to sue file sharers anymore P2P music piracy shot through the roof as proof that lawsuits deter piracy. Then they start suing people again as they continue to kick people off line in cooperation with the ISPs all based on the false assumption that you can accurately identify someone based on IP number alone.
Even though everyone one in your house and the guy next door and the wardriver across the street that is tapping into your wifi has the same IP as you. Question, if everyone you lived with had the same finger prints and some people that drove by your house knew a way to copy your finger prints as well, would we still use fingerprints in court even when no other evidence was available?
Bite me, Warner Bros.
What do we do with witches? BURN THEM! What do we burn with witches? MORE WITCHES!
"The night is black without a moon,
The air is thick and still.
The vigilantes gather on
The lonely torchlit hill.
Features distorted in the flickering light,
Faces are twisted and grotesque.
Silent and stern in the sweltering night,
The mob moves like demons possesed.
Quiet in conscience, calm in their right,
Confident their ways are best.
The righteous rise
With burning eyes
Of hatred and ill-will.
Madmen fed on fear and lies
To beat and burn and kill.
They say there are strangers who threaten us,
Our immigrants and infidels.
They say there is strangeness to danger us
In our theatres and bookstore shelves,
That those who know whats best for us
Must rise and save us from ourselves.
Quick to judge,
Quick to anger,
Slow to understand
Ignorance and prejudice
And fear walk hand in hand."
- Rush, Witch Hunt (Moving Pictures)
Not saying I agree with it, but all the woes will lead to this, mark my words.
Glad you see you don't agree with it.
Sue me if you want, you'll put me in jail before i willingly give them any of my money for Crippled Media. You'll have to PULL the money from my accounts before i cut you a check. We aren't the only pirates in the water, the RIAA just has a bigger fleet.. for now..
- by syberlink December 31, 2008 8:04 AM PST
- Both the RIAA and Directv sued a total of 60,000 people many of who were innocent. Even though they knew of their innocence, they collected money from them then locked them into an agreement not to tell or not to report them for the false court complaint. The US justice system refused to help those falsely accused and failed to stop the suits even though they knew the court complaints were bogus. To bring the justice system back into the fold of protecting innocent people, those falsely sued need to send a strong message. The next time they are a juror before a court, do just what Justice did to them. Ignore Justice. Cast your juror vote against justice. The next time you are a witness, do not come foreword. This way eventually Justice will learn what it is like to be ignored when crimes are committed against you by huge companies you never had a chance against. Huge corporations should not be immune from braking the laws just like the consumer.
- Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (40 Comments)