Comments on: Jammie Thomas likely to get another day in court

Headline here should be "EFF to court: Jammie Thomas judge was a dolt." Judgment in music-sharing case should be overturned because of erroneous jury instructions, says group.

[scurrlin1]

She was just stupid enough not to know about being a freeloader instead of sharing all your files which can be turned off in Limewire preferences.

[Penguinisto]

...and if it was her kid who set up Limewire without her knowing about its existence (assuming ti was actually her in the first place)? It's easy to say stupid things (like your post for instance), but not-so-easy to think. Keep that in mind, 'kay? :)

[fredtheviking]

I believe the use of software like Kazaa is dubious at best on part of the user. If you are using software that lets you download music you would have otherwise had to pay for iTunes, then you are breaking the law. No different than going into a candy shop and taking candy without paying for it. I don't know enough about this case in particular to have much of opinion, but I think more enforce is needed, to restore the value of copyrighted material.

My second point is people who don't respect copyrighted material need to be published to protect and reward people's creativity. If content is cheap (free), then all you will have is crappy content, because no one with the ablity to create good content will do it for free.

[Penguinisto]

So let's say you're a gamer, and the next WoW patch comes out on bittorrent (like the last one)... what do you intend to use to get it? (obviously not something outdated like Kazaa, but... how?)

[Lerianis]

No, using software like Kazaa is NOT dubious on the part of the user, unless you are going to put FTP, Bittorrent, Share, etc. in the same category and stop everyone from using IE, Firefox, etc. (just about every browser) because they might be used to download things illegally.

Really, the companies in question here have to make the cost/benefit analysis in their favor. With the DRM problems, compressed files they are selling, etc...... it just isn't in their favor and WON'T be no matter how many people they take to civil court.
Get rid of the DRM, start charging less for their songs on iTunes, MSN Music, etc..... then maybe we will see a change.

[The_Decider]

A digital file is not the same thing as a physical item. Equating the two only makes you look ignorant.

[glennc2]

Note to RIAA: Sell a better product for a lower price, quit suing your customers and make money the old-fashioned way....

[dyakoubian]

I agree that it is that simple. Where there is general disregard of a law, it usually is a sign that the law is not appropriate. People generally want fairness and accept fair laws, taxes, policies etc. Neither our government nor many corporations seem to get this basic fact of nature - and we get stupid law enforcement and basically a popular uprising against whatever stupidity is being forced on us.

[Tom_Sydnor]

Mr. Cooper:
I enjoy your work. Two points about this story.

First, I think you overestimate EFF's chances of getting (or sustaining) a victory on the making-available issue. The Copyright Act grants copyright owners exclusive rights "to do and to authorize" acts including making copies of a protected work and distributing copies to the public. Someone "sharing" a file on KaZaA surely "authorizes" the reproduction and distribution of that file. As a result, EFF will have to find a way to convince the court that "to authorize" does not really mean what it says.

That's always a weak argument, but here, there is another problem. In a 2001 case called Tasini, the Supreme Court held that certain publishers infringed copyrights in certain magazine articles because, when the publishers signed contracts that let third parties upload copies of those articles into widely accessible online databases, the publishers thus "'authorize[d]' reproduction and distribution of the Articles." 533 U.S. at 498. Litigants who must swim upstream against the plain meaning of statutory text and a Supreme Court holding are longshots--at best.

Second, EFF forgot that the outcome in Thomas cannot save Google from lawsuits brought under a making-available theory of copyright infringement. Why? Because governments are expressly required to provide a making-available right to copyright owners by two multilateral treaties (the WIPO Copyright Treaty, (Art. 8), and the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, (Art. 14). These treaties have been ratified and adopted by 65 nations including Australia, Austria, Belarus, Botswana, Canada, Chile, China, Columbia, Denmark, the European Community, France, Germany, Greece, Indonesia, Ireland, Isreal, Italy, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, Singapore, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, the UK, the US, and Venezuela.

Cases like Thomas are important because they may tell us whether the US is violating these treaties, but most other nations are complying with them. As a result--and regardless of what happens in Thomas--online service providers will need to structure their operations to account for the making-available rights of copyright owners.

Thanks again for your work. --Tom

[Penguinisto]

IIRC, there was a related case that was dismissed entirely because the "making available" argument was rejected outright. it should still be lurking at peoplevsrecordingindustry.com (I think that's the URL...)

[ackwell2009]

Downloading/distributing copyrighted music in this day and age is flat out stupid. It's one thing if alternatives aren't available. You have all kinds of subscription services and legal services to choose from. This isn't the 90's anymore. You are (a)Stealing (b)Exposing yourself to legal problems. (C)exposing your computer and files to viruses and trojans It's just not worth it in the end.

[Lerianis]

It wouldn't be if the cost/benefit was more in favor of those legitimate services, like it would be if they charged .33$ a song to about .50$ a song.
Right now, with the cost being the SAME as if you bought the real thing in a store, when they don't have to pay for: blank CD's, transportation, etc...... there is still a VERY good reason to download things like this off p2p.
I personally don't do it.... but I can understand why other people do it.

[The_Decider]

What was stolen? You pro-RIAA idiots always screw up when you confuse copyright infringement with theft.

[Travis Ernst]

if I recall, didn't RIAA violate the law in this case history? Shouldn't THEY be fined for their criminal acts of downloading (turning the tables)? I don't support sharing, but RIAA makes it so grey to even share radio broadcasts one records from live free gigs. KEEP FIGHTING JAMMIE.

[ExWinUser]

scurrlin1 - you are a moron!
fredtheviking and ackwell2009, it's obvious you two like to bend over and be the corporate **ich!

[ackwell2009]

ExwinUser:It's not about being someone's whipping boy. It's the fact that some people believe unauthorized use of things that aren't physical in nature are ok, because noone's getting hurt. If you did this in the physical world, you would at the very least be investigated and probably prosecuted. Your purchase of a cd does not give you legal authority to distribute someone else's contents. I will say that the industry was hard headed in the mid to late 90's and didn't adapt when they could have been making money instead of letting people illegally distribute music. They have finally started to listen and you have an array of perfectly legal services to use. Committing a crime that has a small chance of being prosecuted is still a crime. If you get caught, you need to pay your debt and move on. Not liking a law doesn't mean that law doesn't apply to you. If you are sued or prosecuted, is your defense gonna be "I hate that law"? Again, people have free choice. Do what you want, but not start crying if something happens. Just m $.02.

[aka_tripleB]

But there is a huge difference between stealing something in the physical world and downloading song. In the physical world, theft of something $1 in value is typically a misdemeanor with a fine far less than the minimum of $750 for copyright infringement or a modest period in jail. Even if the RIAA/MPAA were to charge violaters with criminal charges, each song or video would have to almost be treated individually seems how each theft is likely to occur in separate locations. Even if they were to group files, they would have to have been download at approximately the same time AND there would have to be around 400 song or upto 200 videos or any combination in between before it will result in anything more than just one.

On top of that with copyright cases, you only need to convice 9 of the 12 jurors that the person is probably guilty. While with any physical case, you have to convince all 12 jurors of guilt beyond a reason of a doubt. So the prosecutor will need a lot more evidence than the RIAA ever presented in the Thomas case. And a crime isn't a crime until a person is convicted of it. That's why the people in court are call "the accused," not "the criminal."

[benjaminstraight]

She should have been wearing a limwire shirt in the photo.

[elliottdp]

Thomas "infringed by making the music available for others to download".

I guess that means that any retailer that has a sidewalk sale with racks outside of the store can be found guilty of enabling/contributing to shoplifting??

Strange world. Just remember folks, It's not a court of justice, but a court of law.