Jammie Thomas suffers pretrial setback in copyright case

Jammie Thomas will be much more restricted in arguing her defense after Thursday's court decision.

(Credit: Jammie Thomas)

A federal judge dealt a serious blow to Jammie Thomas' defense on Thursday.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis will allow evidence gathered by MediaSentry, a security firm that once investigated illegal file sharing on behalf of the music industry, to be heard by a jury in Thomas' retrial, scheduled for Monday. Thomas is the first person sued by the recording industry for copyright violations to have her case argued before a jury. She was found guilty in October 2007 of illegally sharing 24 digital-music files. The judge in the case declared a mistrial after acknowledging he erred in giving jury instructions.

Her new attorneys recently accused MediaSentry of violating federal and Minnesota wiretapping statutes and asked the judge to throw out its findings.

The decision is significant for the music industry. Had the judge granted Thomas' motion, "it would have been nearly impossible" for the Recording Industry Association of America to prevail, according to Ben Sheffner, a former entertainment industry attorney and copyright expert.

Davis also won't let Thomas raise a fair-use defense because she waited too long to make the argument.

"This litigation has gone on for years, yet Plaintiffs had no inkling of this defense until the eve of trial," Davis wrote in his decision. "The record in this case, with which this Court is intimately familiar, gave no hint that a fair use defense would be forthcoming. It would be highly prejudicial to Plaintiffs to allow Defendant to assert this new affirmative defense on the eve of retrial."

What all this means is that Thomas' legal team is running out of ways to prove she's innocent. At her first trial, her defense offered little more than her telling the jury she was innocent of illegally sharing music.

That didn't work out so well. One member of the jury called her a liar following the trial.

[gerrrg]

They are not really setbacks, because in the first trial, the Media Sentry evidence was allowed, and she didn't assert fair use. And since the use of the Media Sentry evidence was not contested as grounds for overturning the last trial, it stands that this could still be used as an appeal to the Supreme Court.

[demner]

Um, but she was found guilty the first time! So this decision makes it more likely she will be found guilty again, hence the setback part.

[AndrewRich]

demner, she was found guilty as a result of a mistaken jury instruction. With that corrected, and the lack of any actual evidence of sharing with anyone but MediaSentry, an acquittal seems possible.

[hamm3rhead]

She was found guilty because the judge gave inappropriate/decision swaying instructions to the jury. It was all very seedy and a guilty verdict only hurts the rights of individuals. When this trial was initiated they hadn't even thought of takedown notices and reasonable process yet.. it was purely a draconian response on the RIAA's part.

[WallyEG]

demner: the reason the judge threw out the first verdict was because of a flawed jury instruction. That instruction told jurors that making a copyrighted item available was the same as distributing it, when in fact a week or so prior to the the judge's instruction a higher court had ruled that not to be the case.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. Are these rulings a setback? Maybe. MediaSentry probably hasn't violated the law until they actually present the evidence at trial. A forensic expert in Georgia a few years ago was arrested after testifying at a trial. It is providing testimony about an investigation that many states require a private investigator's license (or a license to practice law) for.

If I thought they would actually arrest MediaSentry next week, I'd take the time off work to go watch...

[C0mmanderB0nd]

Nice vague article, do Thomas's attorneys have names????

Of course while today was a setback the other angle "they" are taking on the case of attacking copyright registration and whether it was valid or correctly evidenced should prove interesting, as it would be hard for the RIAA to collect on violations they didn't "officially" prove they own.

Considering the whole case hinges on keeping out "fair use" if discovery and deposition had to begin again fair use could be brought back into play and make the case a bit different.

[inachu]

How the hell can you keep out the topic of fair use?
That sounds like communism to me.
Why not then tell the RIAA,MPAA that they can't use the words "MUSIC" or "SOUND FILE"

[Dalkorian]

You mean they didn't? It wouldn't change a thing, the only thing I ever hear out of the MAFIAA are the words "pirate" and "won't someone please think of the artists!"

Oh, and "we're so gonna sue you."

;-)

[MusicandLight]

Jammie lied under oath the first time and yet escaped charges and a conviction leading to punishment on the perjury alone. Let's all hope the court is studiously fair and she is not as fortunate this time around.

[Aggie1295]

Was this another Minnesota jury? First they elect Al Frankin and then twice they slam this lady and give absurd damages to the RIAA. Are the people of Minnesota just complete idiots?