AfterDawn: News

Thomas to appeal P2P trial verdict

Jammie Thomas, the first person to be found guilty of copyright infringement by a jury for allegedly sharing music using P2P software, is to appeal the decision. The woman was left with a bill of $220,000 following the guilty verdict, which was considered appropriate damages for "making" 24 songs "available" for download, and not actually proving that copyright infringement took place.

Not only did the jury not find her guilty of uploading any songs, it also didn't find her guilty of downloading the 24 songs (of the 1702 in total she was accused of sharing) beforehand; the verdict was delivered because the files were "made available". Thomas announced that she has decided to appeal the decision on CNN.



Her attorney, Brian Toder, will appeal based on the jury's finding that making files available online violates copyright. "This would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks," Thomas wrote on her blog. "Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making-available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared."

Source:
News.com

Written by: James Delahunty @ 8 Oct 2007 19:02

• Previous article

• Another iPhone lawsuit for Apple

• Next article

• Phillips introduces new line of flash based media players

• 18 comments

• svtstang

  Very unlikely things will go her way, but best of luck in the pursuit.

  8.10.2007 19:10 #1

• furchtlos

  My god that sucks. I feel so bad for her. Best of luck, piece of shit RIAA

  8.10.2007 20:11 #2

• AXT

  Just say F*** You RIAA and run away to Mexico.

  8.10.2007 21:17 #3

• edsrouter

  She may still have a case here. For one how can Sony BMG say that ripping music is infringement when Sony plays on the other side of the fence as well, and is one of the largest makers of CD-R's?
  
  Also if a group of stupid teenagers climb my fence and fall after smoking crack, who would be respopnsible for their hospital bills? Me. I think the ISPs are similar in this case and should have some level of responsibility in regards to illegal activites over their networks. I support P2P, but what if Big Brother sued Great Grandfather (AT&T, Verizon)? I think in a judgment against these guys, we would see a decent compromise/resolution (due to the ISP competition for customers) instead of all this intimidation court BS.

  8.10.2007 22:48 #4

• jimmer

  Originally posted by AXT: Just say F*** You RIAA and run away to Mexico.its better to get sued than live in Mexico

  8.10.2007 23:09 #5

• svtstang

  Quote:She may still have a case here. For one how can Sony BMG say that ripping music is infringement when Sony plays on the other side of the fence as well, and is one of the largest makers of CD-R's?That is far too simplistic in nature to ever carry weight in court. A cd is meant to hold data by design, all Sony has to say is that their media was created for its consumers to easily transfer data (ie files, photos etc) and the argument is now null/void. Same thing can apply to manufacturers of all dvd/cd media as well as drive manufacturers to avoid potential lawsuits. It is very easy to place blame on these companies as their devices are what people use everyday to circumvent copyrighted material, but when the dust clears the end user is ultimately responsible.
  

  
  
  

  8.10.2007 23:13 #6

• edsrouter

  Quote:That is far too simplistic in nature to ever carry weight in court. A cd is meant to hold data by design, all Sony has to say is that their media was created for its consumers to easily transfer data (ie files, photos etc) and the argument is now null/void. Same thing can apply to manufacturers of all dvd/cd media as well as drive manufacturers to avoid potential lawsuits. It is very easy to place blame on these companies as their devices are what people use everyday to circumvent copyrighted material, but when the dust clears the end user is ultimately responsible.
  Oh, I definitely agree. However, they are using phrases like CD-R "audio" and some actually say "music". I think they're doing a good job intimidating this into a Catch 22. Check the pic.
  
  
  

  9.10.2007 02:34 #7

• themboots

  Sony are crooks who'll sell anything they can. Judas Priest CDs (signed to Sony at one point) as well as the blank media to record those very same CDs.
  
  The thing that kills me about this case is that no one actually download (ie "stole") the music off of her computer. Is leaving your front door unlocked also considered making available since someone can walk in and make copies of your CD without your authorization?
  
  If her appeal doens't work out, it just means that people are going to switch to private peer to peer apps, which are legal, such as Gigatribe (www.gigatribe.com)

  9.10.2007 02:43 #8

• chaos_zzz

  riaa has money and they don't care for the 220 000 they care cuz this will make ppl afraid of downloading ,this rules are stupid ripping your own cd is stealing so i have to use a discamn in the year 2007 to be legal or spend thousands of dollars on music i already own on itunes to ve legal give me a break, anyway those rules are for the US,
  they will keep losing money outside of it and i'm outside of it :)

  9.10.2007 15:38 #9

• emugamer

  The legal side of this is black and white. The moral side is gray. Obviously the system is broken. Driven by greed. It's up to the people to change it. I hope it works out for Ms. Thomas. We can't let the RIAA set these ridiculous precedents. I like the illustration about leaving your home door open. If I get robbed, am I a pirate? Can I prosecute the theif? Or should I pay a fine because copywrited material was stolen from my house. Obviously, it's not that simple, but I find it amusing :-P

  10.10.2007 08:36 #10

• noncomjd

  The legal side isn't so black and white.
  While I am not familiar with the statute involved here, "making available" while not proving any actual infringement? Giving damages without the Plaintiff proving any damages? All of this is questionable. Even the statute is drafted in a way that allows that type of proof and relief, then the statute itself needs to be attacked on various grounds.
  People have the right to have their accuser prove their case and prove how and how much they have been damaged. Allowing plaintiffs to collect a judgment proving only that it was possible that a defendant did something and it was possible that the Plaintiff may have damaged would lower the bar considerably and further muck up an already mucked up system.
  I think that she has a good case on appeal.
  The bottom line is that most people know what probably happened here.
  But proof is still required.
  The RIAA (Record & other Companies) would still be better off looking at a way to use net to its advantage, rather than pissing off and alienating the very people that are most likely to use it.
  There was a line on one blog that is true, these companies should be more worried about what not being Torrented, because if you can't give it away....

  11.10.2007 06:32 #11

• svtstang

  Yes the system is broke, will it change, I doubt it. So many small instances stated in the DMCA and other copyright laws are alienating the consumer. For instance, we all know that a disc of any type gets screwed up from use. Are we legally allowed to make a backup so we can preserve a copy of what we paid for? No! Further, will the big corps replace our disc in two years when our cd player/dvd player refuses to run the disc? HELL NO!
  
  Small things like that are the cause of the insurgence of piracy over the past few years. Treat a customer well they will be a customer for life. Treat them like garbage, and well.....look what you have done RIAA.
  

  
  
  

  11.10.2007 10:46 #12

• wetsparks

  Not only does Sony make cds to burn songs onto, they also have a program out there to burn the songs onto the cd for you. I can't remember the name, because it is a p.o.s. program, but it is out there.

  15.10.2007 18:38 #13

• borhan9

  So all this is about is a share folder that she put the songs in why not next time just rename the folder or not make it shared :)

  21.10.2007 17:33 #14

• svtstang

  Originally posted by borhan9: So all this is about is a share folder that she put the songs in why not next time just rename the folder or not make it shared :)That, my friend, would be too logical....and we all know how logical most people are lol!
  

  
  
  

  21.10.2007 17:52 #15

• seagrave

  Originally posted by edsrouter: She may still have a case here. For one how can Sony BMG say that ripping music is infringement when Sony plays on the other side of the fence as well, and is one of the largest makers of CD-R's?
  It would seem that a royalties tax on blank media would be a more amicable solution than these Gestapo tactics by the RIAA. I know something like that was tried in the early days of CD recording when there were both music and data CDs. I don’t know what happened. I can only assume that as PC burning became more popular the old dedicated CD burners went out of style.

  25.11.2007 19:07 #16

• edsrouter

  Originally posted by seagrave
  It would seem that a royalties tax on blank media would be a more amicable solution than these Gestapo tactics by the RIAA. I know something like that was tried in the early days of CD recording when there were both music and data CDs. I don’t know what happened. I can only assume that as PC burning became more popular the old dedicated CD burners went out of style.[/quote: A royalties tax on blank media would be a good solution. I heard on NPR the government has offered a solution but the industry refused.

  27.11.2007 03:21 #17

• reuven25

  I understood that in Canada there is a royalty tax on blank media?

  8.12.2007 15:00 #18