RIAA appeals mistrial in file-sharing case

The Recording Industry Association of America is appealing a judge's decision last month to declare a mistrial in the case of Jammie Thomas, who was ordered to pay the recording industry $222,000 for allegedly sharing music online.

Jammie Thomas

Thomas was charged in October with violating copyright law by making 24 songs available for others to download on the Kazaa network. In late September, though, 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.

The RIAA is requesting that Davis let its appeal go through before scheduling a retrial for Thomas.

"Although this court is not the only court to have questioned the making-available right, numerous others have concluded that making a copyrighted work available does constitute a distribution," the RIAA wrote in its request to stay the retrial.

Thomas is the only individual charged with copyright infringement by the RIAA who has taken her case to trial.

[karpenterskids]

Wow, your timing for writing this article is exceptional...


Just today, I got "caught" pirating music, and the distribution group told me that I could be fined "up to $150,000"

Does anyone have any info about what normally happens to people caught pirating? Send me some links...thanks in advance.

[jumpjetta]

Go to the Electronic Frontiers Foundation website, eff.org. They may be able to help, as they did in this case:

http://www.eff.org/cases/capitol-v-foster

[Penguinisto]

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

It's run by one hell of an excellent lawyer... lots of resources in there too.

[MTGrizzly]

Link yourself to a real flesh and blood attorney. the RIAA already has plenty

[kkohnen]

If the act of making copyrighted material available for sharing is illegal, we had better start shutting down Netflix, not to mention libraries! I can't see how this is any different.

[Lerianis]

Ah... but Netflix and libraries have the legal permission of the companies in question to distribute or lend out the movies, music, etc. they get from them.
That is the difference (though I really think it is a moot point). Why is it a moot point, you might be asking? Simple: Because the MPAA and RIAA member companies have ALREADY OR WILL IN THE FUTURE GET PAID FOR THOSE THINGS BY THESE PEOPLE! How? Cable or satellite TV subscriptions for the MPAA. For the RIAA.... they are ALREADY making their music legally available for free with FM radios, and don't give me that crap about the 'quality making the difference'. It doesn't hold water.
The MPAA and RIAA's member companies are just going to have to learn that they have been charging too much for legal movies and music for MANY, MANY, MANY years now (close to 15) and they are going to have to start lowering their prices like everyone else in order to coax people to buy their products.... but of course, they don't want to do that, because their stockholders would whine, grumble, and moan.... even though they would make MORE money in the long run if they cut their prices in half by selling 3 or 4 times the number of legitimate copies of the product that they used to.

[gregwsil]

How can people be so dumb????

Radio stations can play the music because there is commericals... Advertisements. Netflix... you have to pay for.

Making sense yet?

If you download it for free, and the artist did not authorize it... its ILLEGAL. If there are advertisements or you are paying for a service it is not illegal.

What she did was wrong, yes... but I still dont think she needs to be punished. She didnt do anything terrible. If she was sharing like 24000 songs, that is a different story.

[karpenterskids]

Thanks for the link, Jumpjetta...holy CRAP, just her attorney fees were $68, 685!

I'm soooooo dead.


And shoot, if the RIAA can make this much money off of piraters (no matter how small) like me, it seems they could make more money off of piracy than the actual music! =P

[troppp]

by karpenterskids October 16, 2008 8:13 PM PDT
Thanks for the link, Jumpjetta...holy CRAP, just her attorney fees were $68, 685!

I'm soooooo dead.


And shoot, if the RIAA can make this much money off of piraters (no matter how small) like me, it seems they could make more money off of piracy than the actual music! =P


That's probably the idea. Sue everybody they can for whatever they can. Companies file for patents for just such occasions. I hope people get so disenchanted with the RIAA that they lose money at all angles. Right now groups are trying to put the RFID chip industry out of business. Who knows. It might be a model for dealing with other consumer bullies.

[troppp]

by karpenterskids October 16, 2008 8:13 PM PDT
Thanks for the link, Jumpjetta...holy CRAP, just her attorney fees were $68, 685!

I'm soooooo dead.


And shoot, if the RIAA can make this much money off of piraters (no matter how small) like me, it seems they could make more money off of piracy than the actual music! =P


That's probably the idea. Sue everybody they can for whatever they can. Companies file for patents for just such occasions. I hope people get so disenchanted with the RIAA that they lose money at all angles. Right now groups are trying to put the RFID chip industry out of business. Who knows. It might be a model for dealing with other consumer bullies.

[professionaladventurer]

The thing about judgments; you don't have to pay them, sure they can sweep your bank account, but if you get a huge judgment thrown at you consider dropping off the grid. If you go cash and have no venerability you can weather it. Go to trial, defend yourself, if you are found in violation and it's like 200K, just ditch the US, the debit won't follow you. There is more information out there on avoiding judgments and it costs less then tiring to and how to beat the RIAA.

[aka_tripleB]

Why is it taking a judge so long to tell the RIAA to refile its lawsuit against Thomas. In nearly every mistrial decision, a judge will only allow for a retrial. And in this case, I'm 99% certain that a retrial is the only recourse the RIAA can persue.

[sparrowhyperion]

The RIAA makes me sick. First they only give 9% to the actual people who make the music, then they gouge you for it, then they sue people who share it. Although, it is perfectly alright for radio stations to effectively share it with others without getting sued. I think the laws need to be changed to protect the artists, not the price gouging recording companies.

[gregwsil]

How can people be so dumb????

Radio stations can play the music because there is commericals... Advertisements. Netflix... you have to pay for.

Making sense yet?

If you download it for free, and the artist did not authorize it... its ILLEGAL. If there are advertisements or you are paying for a service it is not illegal.

What she did was wrong, yes... but I still dont think she needs to be punished. She didnt do anything terrible. If she was sharing like 24000 songs, that is a different story.

[imacpwr]

9%...??? Think again, it's more like 0.9%....!! The artists cut (before the Labels do the "slight of hand") is only about 10 cents per CD..!!

[k2dave]

IMHO they are going to be thrown down soon, actually they already are being thrown down, though they are trying to fight it, but at best can only prolong the inevitable. Unfortunately them holding onto power at this time involves inflicting great pain on others.

[imacpwr]

If you get caught stealing a couple of CDs you might have to do a few hours of community service as your punishment but download the same songs online and the RIAA wants to sue you into poverty..!!! Where's the logic (and fairness) in that.....?!?!?!?!

[Dalkorian]

Logic? Fairness? We're talking about the RIAA here, the only term that applies is "greed".

Shop at The Pirate Bay, but don't keep your downloads in a share folder. That'll show them!