Slashdot Mirror
Testimony Wraps In RIAA Trial
Eskimo Joe writes "A federal judge surprised observers in the Captiol v Thomas file-sharing trial yesterday by barring RIAA president Cary Sherman from testifying. 'After a brief recess this afternoon, plaintiffs' counsel Richard Gabriel and defendant's counsel David Toder made their cases before the judge as to the relevance of Sherman's testimony. Toder argued that Sherman's testimony was not relevant to the question at hand, the fact of whether Thomas was liable for copyright infringement. Gabriel said that Sherman would be able to tell the jury why this case was significant, and more importantly, describe the harm the RIAA believes piracy has caused to the music industry. "I don't want to turn this case into a soap box for the recording industry," Toder argued in response.' Testimony wrapped up today [Wednesday] with closing arguments expected Thursday morning." Ars has up a summary, filed a few hours earlier, of other testimony in the trial. The jury could come back with a verdict later today.
This whole seemingly systematic smackdown being applied by the judicial system to the RIAA on what looks like multiple fronts is really getting close to making me have faith in our judicial system again... almost.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
1) We don't know how it's going to turn out. I think the RIAA has actually done the best job they could do to present their case. They have strong circumstantial evidence that this particular defendant uses the Kazaa user name in question, and that she was likely the only person using the computer. The standard in a civil case is proof by a preponderance of the evidence. That is to say, that it's more likely than not that she did what is claimed. It doesn't have to be lock solid, or beyond a reasonable doubt. On the flip side, the defense has also done an excellent job controlling who gets to testify, and appears to have argued for good jury instructions. The most important thing to come from this case may well be the "making available" jury instruction, as that will likely be a major issue for future cases.
2) This is going to be appealed. If the defendant wins, the RIAA will appeal. They have to. If the RIAA wins, I imagine the defendant will appeal so long as she can afford it. As likely, both sides will have parts of the ruling that they're unhappy with, and they will cross-appeal. This decision won't end the case.
It's a very interesting and important case. I look forward to more developments.
A. It is important to them because it may mean the end of them using shotgun tactics (hope to hit someone) to try and curb piracy.
B. It is important to him because they pay what I assume is a substantial salary to him, and he will not look good to the media companies backing him if revenue drops even further because they don't have money coming in from lawsuit settlements
C. They "believe" the piracy has caused harm. I've yet to see credible evidence that is has (at least using realistic numbers, instead of their inflated ones, plus I don't even really know if piracy is any worse than the tape swapping days). I believe that their methods have caused the Consumer and Taxpayers harm. Does that mean I can testify?
The lawyer was exactly right, as was the judge. It was not relevant to the question at hand, it would have been emotional rather than factual, and it would make the case an even bigger circus and soapbox. Plus, I want it to be our soapbox where we expose the RIAA for the slimy weasels they are.
Oh, and I don't like the RIAA, in case I hadn't made it clear yet.
The RIAA already had anti-pirating laws voted, so why would he have to testify that pirating is bad?
Probable answer: because thet cannot prove the guilt of the defendant so they tried to move the trial away from the determination of the truth.
The judge probably saved him from perjury.