• On TechRepublic: Five super-secret features in Windows 7
July 9, 2009 12:13 PM PDT

Odd-couple lawyers aim to save Jammie Thomas

by Greg Sandoval
  • Font size
  • Print
  • 19 comments

Joe Sibley (left) and Kiwi Camara

(Credit: Camara & Sibley law firm)

The elder member of Jammie Thomas-Rasset's legal team is a former U.S. Army Ranger. He doesn't say whether he's proud of that, but his voice does dawdle when he says the words "special forces."

"I like pain. I like fighting. I like conflict," says Joe Sibley. "Going to war was something I always wanted to do (but didn't)...later in life I discovered I was more capable of fighting and ending wars with my mind."

The younger member of Thomas-Rasset's legal team says, half kidding, that he spent his youth disappointing his parents, who wanted a career for him in medicine. Instead, he fecklessly pursued a Ph.D in economics at Stanford University, and then drifted into law school at Harvard. When he graduated, magna cum laude, Kiwi Camara was 19 years old.

They are the founders of the Camara & Sibley law firm, and they are pretty much all that's standing between Thomas-Rasset, the music-pirating mother from Minnesota, and the $1.9 million judgment that's hanging over her head. Last month, the attorneys sat next to Thomas-Rasset when she was found liable for willful copyright infringement, the second time a jury has decided against her.

On Monday, her attorneys filed a motion for a new trial and asked the judge to set aside the verdict or reduce the damage award to the minimum of $18,000. If they don't get that, they plan to file an appeal. They will argue that forcing Thomas-Rasset to pay $2 million for illegally sharing 24 songs is unconstitutional, the equivalent of "sentencing someone to life in prison for shoplifting $25 worth of merchandise," said Sibley.

"We actually think that the jury award of $1.9 million is helpful to our argument about unconstitutionality," Sibley said. "Here's a real life award of a ridiculous amount of damages for a group of songs that costs $25 on the Internet."

That's not how 24 Minnesotans saw it. Thomas-Rasset has had two goes at proving to juries she wasn't the one who used her computer to illegally share music on a peer-to-peer service. The first time was in October 2007, when she was found liable for $222,000 in damages. The judge threw that decision out after acknowledging he erred in giving jury instructions.

As for Sibley, 34, and Camara, 25, the Thomas-Rasset case could be a springboard that launches them to the upper ranks of attorneys who defend downloaders and tech companies from copyright suits. They could certainly boost the reputation of their fledgling Houston-based law practice, which they opened in February, by helping Thomas-Rasset break her losing streak.

Pointing fingers
In her first trial, Thomas-Rasset was represented by another attorney who suggested to the jury that an unknown hacker might have commandeered her computer and shared the music. Sibley and Camara, who didn't take over the case until three weeks before her retrial, were skeptical anyone would believe some unknown third party was responsible.

Instead, the attorneys went with the only other choice they had, in effect fingering the only other people who had access to Thomas-Rasset's computer: her ex-boyfriend and her children. While on the stand, Thomas-Rasset said it was possible one of her children or her former boyfriend, who had babysat while she was away on three separate occasions, could have shared the music.

"On one end, if the jury believed it, they could let her off," Sibley said. "On the other end, if they disbelieved it that could create the opposite effect. If the jury thought she was lying and pointing a finger at family members, that could result in inflation of the statutory damages and in my opinion that is what happened in this case."

After such a dramatic defeat, how do they go forward?

"I think there is a fair shot that (U.S. District Judge Michael) Davis will grant (some of the requests) in our (new trial) motion," Camara said. "I think the arguments are strong, there's lots of law behind them and it's the first time he's heard them."

There's little doubt the case is headed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, Camara said. The side Davis rules against will surely take the case to the higher court.

Facing long odds
Both Sibley and Camara acknowledge that they knew they were facing long odds when they offered Thomas-Rasset their services pro bono. The truth is that anytime a lawyer takes on the RIAA or MPAA in a copyright dispute, he or she knows that the opposing team has an almost perfect batting average, certainly with regard to the most high-profile disputes of the past decade. Tick off the names: Aimster, Napster, Grokster, and TorrentSpy, all wins for the copyright owners.

These are precisely the kind of long-odd cases that Sibley and Camara say they want. Sibley said one of his greatest regrets was that he joined the Army too late (1993) and missed the fighting in Somalia. He's spoiling for big fights. The calmer Camara said the duo is willing to take on cases that "matter, make a difference" regardless of how tough they are or whether they involve technology, securities or anything else.

The partnership was formed when the duo arrived at Harvard. Sibley and Camara were the first people each other met that first day on campus. Their individual trajectories to reach that point were vastly different.

The child of two doctors, Camara wrote a paper on treatments for rheumatoid arthritis that was published in a medical journal in his home state of Hawaii. He was 11. He dropped out of the 8th grade to attend college and graduated at 16. After Harvard he began teaching at Northwestern University School of Law. He was groomed for academic greatness.

In contrast, Sibley was an also-ran for most of his life, a poor kid from East Texas always battling more privileged and pedigreed opponents.

After getting out of the Army, he took a series of odd jobs in his East Texas hometown of Spring. No one in his family had ever gone to college and he never thought he would either--he was an average student in high school who got disciplined a couple of times for fighting--until one day he woke up and wanted to study philosophy and Frederick Nietzsche. First came community college then the University of Texas, where he took 21 hours of course work each term and graduated with honors--all the while working part-time, maintaining a marriage and raising a child.

At Harvard, said Sibley, he and Camara became friends and allies despite Sibley being one of the oldest students and Camara being the youngest. What they had in common was their conservative political views, which made them "outcasts" among the liberal majority, Sibley said.

They stuck by each other even when Camara stirred what became a controversy on campus that spilled out into a national debate via The New York Times. Camara posted course outlines on a student-operated Web site and used a racial epithet to describe African Americans. There were protests and denunciations. Camara seems to accept that the incident is going to trail him for a long time.

"The story has been covered in lots of other places," Camara said. "I have apologized many times and I think the existing coverage is adequate."

He and Sibley, who said he knows the pairing might seem odd to outsiders, don't seem willing to allow the controversy to define them or their practice.

"(Physically) I wouldn't pick him in a fight over too many people," a chuckling Sibley said of Camara. "But when it comes to mental toughness and ability he's one of the smartest people on the planet and he's scrappy. He doesn't take any s***. He's not the stereotypical sort of genius. He's more like the evil genius."

Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET.
Recent posts from Digital Media
Convicted murderer sues Wikipedia under privacy law
Verizon tests sending RIAA copyright notices
Microsoft denies Windows 7 is based on Mac OS
NASA launches Web resource for 2012 predictions
Universities reject Kindle over inaccessibility for the blind
Even in media mecca, plenty are willing to pirate
Author says Google lacks 'emotional intelligence'
FanSnap--another way to find cheap concert tickets
Add a Comment (Log in or register) (19 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
by Electro_Fox July 9, 2009 12:44 PM PDT
I like these guys, gonna keep an eye on this...
Reply to this comment
by contentcreator--2008 July 9, 2009 12:54 PM PDT
Ah, recursion.... I love how the damages are too large "because" the songs might only cost $25 to buy.* It's kind of like jewel thieves arguing the merchandise isn't worth much because you can buy it real cheap on the street if you know who to ask.

The attorney is fanning the flames, dear readers --- he knows that the $25 is irrelevant, it's the amount of damages inflicted on the plaintiffs that matters. You could slander the heck out of someone and it wouldn't cost you anything, just a little hot air, and you'd get sued for just as much.

* Ignoring the other 1680 she shared that aren't the direct subject of the suit
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk July 9, 2009 4:58 PM PDT
*psst!* In your zeal to look like a total '****, you forgot something:

"It's kind of like jewel thieves arguing the merchandise isn't worth much because you can buy it real cheap on the street if you know who to ask."

Unless you're prepared to claim that iTunes "stole" their music for resale, your analogy doesn't work.

If you;re going to shill for the RIAA, it helps to have a halfway believable argument, kid.

"it's the amount of damages inflicted on the plaintiffs that matters"

Fine... then you should have zero problems proving the damages, even if the plaintiff hadn't managed to do that in any sort of admissible manner... right?
by Lerianis3 July 9, 2009 5:42 PM PDT
Yeah, contentcreator--2008 is a record industry shill, who doesn't think through the arguments that he is making before he makes them.

The fact is that a lot of people today don't think that there is anything such as 'stealing' when it doesn't involve actually taking any PHYSICAL product from someone. The blunt fact is that many of these things are available for free in various fashions, and I personally don't think that something being 'higher quality' unless it is a real, can-put-my-hands-on-it thing makes it stealing if you download it online.
by contentcreator--2008 July 9, 2009 7:29 PM PDT
Stochastic-man --- Prices are being artificially depressed by theft, think you should crack the SAT study guide again. And this is what statutory damages are for ... hard to say exactly when people hide behind "privacy," (please don't look now, I'm stealing!!!!) so you can get whacked 100K$ per.

Hey Lerianis, still trying to legalize IP theft, huh? Talk about not thinking things through. Here's something for you to ponder --- I come into your mommy's house and take your TV. You take a TV's worth of intellectual property from me without paying. We're both out a TV either way, eh? But somehow it's OK for you to take my TV? I don't think so. Can't pay for what you want? Awwwww, welcome to the real world.

I guess every night you guys check under your bed and in your closet for the RIAA bogeyman. Everything's always about RIAA this, RIAA that. Get a grip.
by Random_Walk July 10, 2009 6:53 AM PDT
I can give you props for catching the math reference, but you're still shooting blanks otherwise:

"Prices are being artificially depressed by theft,"

Really? Because...

1) a typical cassette in the 1980's held an average of 10 songs and cost and average of $10. A typical CD in the early 1990s held an average of 10 songs and cost an average of $15 (but had higher audio quality to compensate). I can go to Amazon or the iTMS right now and buy individual songs for anywhere from $0.69 to $1.49, depending on quality (audio, not content). Not much has changed over the years in absolute terms there.

2) you need to study basic economics: prices are generally agreed upon by consumer demand, not held by seller fiat. If no one wants to pay $50 per song, the song won't sell.

3) The music cartels agreed to the pricing structure in iTMS, Amazon, etc. because that is what the middleman wanted as a price range, and that is what the consumer has been shown to be more than willing to pay.

"And this is what statutory damages are for .."

Yep, but you listed an "amount of damages ... that matters", which points to a quantity... so what is that quantity?
by Thad Boyd July 14, 2009 4:36 PM PDT
@CC2K8:

Well, I've always thought argument by analogy is for people who know they can't possibly win by arguing the actual facts, but I'll bite:

Let's say you steal my TV and a jury then says you owe me 80,000 TV's. Would a sane person think that's reasonable?

Or, you know, the Supreme Court. Ever hear of Gore v BMW? That was the one where they said awarding 500 times an item's value is unconstitutional.

Oh wait, I used an analogy that's actually directly relevant to what we're talking about and not just some stupid hypothetical I made up. Whoopsie.
by C0mmanderB0nd July 9, 2009 1:31 PM PDT
Wow so the "geniuses" thought an unknown hacker was too unbelievable so scapegoating family members was a more plausible approach???? Only an attorney would hang out a loved one like that. After following this coverage on Cnet I have wanted to cheer for these guys, but the simple fact is they keep losing and the case just keeps getting worse.

I bet the typical $5000 settlement is looking much better now that facing bankruptcy over 1.9 million. Even if the diversion worked and jury bought the family member did it on her computer, if they thought it was the kids isn't she responsible for what her children do? I guess the BF was an ok scapegoat but even then its pretty thin.

The simple fact is she was an idiot who thought everyone else is doing it why can't I, got caught file sharing and is trying to stall with no really good reason.

Of course they can still pull out the "chewbacca defense" for the next trial, since nothing else seems to be working.....
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk July 9, 2009 5:01 PM PDT
"I bet the typical $5000 settlement is looking much better now that facing bankruptcy over 1.9 million"

So if my business called you up and filed preliminary lawsuit papers on you (w/o anything really proving it was you who violated copyright), stating that you can make it all go away for $5000, you'd be cool with that, right?
by Ortaias July 9, 2009 1:53 PM PDT
There seems to be a fairly large body of studies that document that file sharing does not adversely affect the music industry. Simply based on that; where are the so-called "damages". If there are no damages, as these studies suggest, than the fine is clearly outrageous.

Additionally, the legality of any "law" that protects or gives special consideration to a special interest should be questioned. We seem to be opening up ourselves to "some of us are more equal than others". Laws that favor X over Y will be ignored by the public through civil disobedience and will ultimately result in disrespect for our legal system.
Reply to this comment
by gertruded July 9, 2009 2:53 PM PDT
"Laws that favor X over Y will be ignored by the public through civil disobedience and will ultimately result in disrespect for our legal system."

I think it has already happened. The poor are convicted with long sentences and the rich get off.
by Random_Walk July 10, 2009 6:58 AM PDT
"The poor are convicted with long sentences and the rich get off."

Well, technically Madoff is poor right now... and the legal fees prolly put a dent in the Enron convicts' nest eggs...

Inicdentally, I don't see a jail sentence for Thomas in the article.
by toomath July 9, 2009 2:15 PM PDT
This award is in my view criminal inand of itself - this woman's life is destroyed over a trivial matter. The jurors who served on this case were gullible and vindictive people and should be deeply ashamed. I see no moral difference between physically attacking someone and destroying them with a jury award like this. What this woman did harmed nobody. There can be no damages when there is no harm. The artists themselves have all spoken up about this and expressed disgust at the ruling. And at the same time this case was moving through the courts, the biggest online music retailer, Apple, did what? They took DRM off all their music. With the permission of the same RIAA members who claim to be harmed in this suit. Why take DRM off the music if sharing 25 songs is a $2 million dollar crime? I'll tell you, there is a term called "legal terrorism", and frankly, this fits the bill. Sick, sick stuff.
Reply to this comment
by fazalmajid July 9, 2009 4:54 PM PDT
The music industry has a perfect legal record because it is very careful about which cases it goes after. I was surprised it took them so long to target Napster in the first place. While I agree Ms. Thomas' $1.9M fine is excessive, she is clearly guilty of the offenses she is charged with (her Kazaa login was the same as one she used on some social network). The amount of the fine can be disputed, but her guilt is beyond reasonable doubt. The RIAA has offered to settle, probably because it knows this could easily turn into a PR disaster and a pyrrhic victory. I am not sure her lawyers are doing her a favor by pursuing appeals instead of a settlement. They don't stand to lose anything, she risks bankruptcy or worse.
Reply to this comment
by Random_Walk July 9, 2009 5:03 PM PDT
"The music industry has a perfect legal record because it is very careful about which cases it goes after"

Actually, no. They have a "perfect" legal record (over their absurdly tiny sample of, err, one) because they're smart enough to drop the case and run like hell if there's even the slightest hint that they'd be in for a real fight, or if their BS arguments begin to fail in front of any halfway intelligent judge, or...?
by Bill_I July 10, 2009 2:57 PM PDT
If a tune is playing on the radio, so anyone can listen, you can expect it to go everywhere on the internet. --- Do you think that all those sound-alike bar bands which play covers of pop tunes ever pay royalties to the writers and publishers? --- What about those DJs who play copyright performances which are only licensed for home use? --- Once the horse is out of the barn its too late to lock the door.
Reply to this comment
by Garken July 11, 2009 10:27 AM PDT
I think everone is missing the point here.How long before the RIA can just come into your home and check what you are doing with your music collection ( did you lend a cd to a friend ) ? Maybe you think its okay that soon they will just have a rep come to live with you just in case you want to let your spouse or your kids listen to your music without buying them the cd which you already own. Big Brother is all over this and looking for more ways to control people. How long before they sue you because you shared your tooth paste ? Far fetched ? I think not !
Reply to this comment
by 4thehorde July 11, 2009 5:20 PM PDT
Although they seem like nice guys, I hope it wasn't THEIR advice to reject the settlement offer, or they will start their practice out with a big legal malpractice judgment against them.

Also, the ex-Ranger keeps talking tough but he's smaller than the other guy, is this just a Napoleon complex at work?
Reply to this comment
by DJR978 July 12, 2009 10:41 AM PDT
I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine how the damages awarded could be allowed under the Eighth Amendment. I wish Silby and Camara and their client every success.
Reply to this comment
(19 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

13 games for newer iPhones

So you've got an old iPhone or iPod and want to see what some of the latest games are doing with the newer hardware? We've checked out 11 titles to show you the differences.
• Images: Old vs. new

Intel to pay AMD $1.25B in settlement

Antitrust and intellectual property fights come to an end for now. AMD will drop pending litigation, and Intel will "abide by" a long list of prohibitions.
• AMD: Our claims are 'ratified'

About Digital Media

The Web is now the place to go for news and entertainment. Look here for the latest on blogs, music, video, virtual worlds, social networking and more.

Add this feed to your online news reader

Digital Media topics

advertisement
advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right