RIAA Loses $222K Verdict

jriding writes "The $222,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas for copyright infringement by P2P is no more. US District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the verdict, saying it was based on the faulty 'making available' theory of distribution."

Comments

Good for her

[fewnorms]

About time the RIAA loses a big case like this, and have the public know about it. Bunch of crooks...

Re:Good for her

[Evets]

It'll be interesting to see if the verdict reversal gets the same amount of mainstream media coverage. It's one thing to see this in the tech media. It's another thing when it's in Time, Newsweek, and all the major newspapers.

Re:Good for her

[dimeglio]

I suppose it will appear in those media which are not members of the RIAA or owned by members of the RIAA. Maybe some Canadian press will cover the reversal.

Re:Good for her

[orclevegam]

Sure pirates are crooks. Most of them probably cost the distribution companies (not the creators) a couple hundred dollars a year. The worst of them might cost them a thousand or two. The RIAA on the other hand are crooks of a different sort, and they cost people and the government (and by extension everyone) hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. So, I ask you, who's the bigger criminal here, the pirates that all told cost the media companies maybe a hundred thousand dollars, or the media companies that cost everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars, and ruin the lives of people seemingly at random whether they're guilty of piracy or not?

Our copyright and patent system is broken. It's been abused, and stretched to the point of breaking by greedy big media trying to prop up flagging business models rather than innovate and change with progress. We need to reform our copyright and patent systems, destroy the media conglomerates, and then worry about trying to curb piracy. I have a feeling however that they'll find once copyright has been reduced back to what it was originally intended, and media companies are once again innovating instead of trying to enforce, that piracy won't be much of a problem at all.

Re:Good for her

[mea37]

Meh. If it does get coverage, it will merely reinforce the belief that she's guilty.

Re:Good for her

[jedidiah]

As the judge who wrote the original decision put it...

          What they did is wrong but the punishment should fit the crime.

Re:Good for her

[PapaSmurphy]

You've got to be kidding. Your math is pretty bad here.

First, you say most pirates cost the distribution companies a couple hundred dollars a year (let's pick $200). I'll even ignore the "worst" offenders.

Then you say that all the pirates put together cost the media companies maybe a hundred thousand dollars. Here's the problem. My math says:

~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $200 a year, that's $200,000,000 a year.

So, who is the bigger criminal you ask? The pirates that all told cost the media companies at least 200 million dollars, or the media companies that cost everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars?

See, use math and these arguments are much less "obvious" than you make out.

P.S. I am NOT a fan of the RIAA, and would like to see them lose these court cases, but making them out to be bigger crooks than those who steal from the companies they represent is not reasonable. I will agree that the RIAA is organized crime, however, and therefore should be subject to racketeering laws.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot attribute any financial loss at all to the pirates. It's simply a theoretical loss.

If all pirates would never buy a single thing they pirated, and I realize this is an assumption, their net cost to the content distributors would be $0.

For more information, see this helpful drawing:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

Our copyright and patent system is broken. It's been abused, and stretched to the point of breaking by greedy big media trying to prop up flagging business models rather than innovate and change with progress.

And yet anyone, absolutely anyone, is completely free to sell their work under any system they like. If it's a flagging business model then there's nothing stopping people from using a different one. But you appear to be advocating eliminating one particular business model so that a different one has to be used. Therefore answer this question: In what way does reducing the number of possible business models people can choose from increase our options?

Where is your evidence that reducing copyright will reduce piracy? I require some evidence for your point of view because the reasoning seems at fault: That piracy wont be much of a problem when costs are reduced. Isn't it just as plausible that people who think nothing of taking a £10 album without paying will consider it even less of a crime to take a £5 album without paying? Where is your evidence that your belief is founded?

The people I know that pirate music or movies do so as a means of avoiding buying them.

Re:Good for her

[jbgroup1]

Hairy is good!

Re:Good for her

[Znork]

that cost everyone hundreds of thousands of dollars?

Of course, the RIAA corps actually cost everyone approximately 10 billion dollars per year. Subtract the legitimate expenditure going to artists and composers (which would be the cost if we paid just them and handled distribution over p2p) and we end up with the RIAA corps costing the economy around 8 billion.

Intellectual monopoly taxation effects are a significant burden on the economy these days; handing out monopoly rights isn't exactly free.

Re:Good for her

[spearway]

I am really tired of this kind of math. The premise is bogus, copyright infringement does not cost anyone anything. It is a loss of potential gain. In order to estimate the damage from piracy to the economy you need to estimate the amount of lost sales. This is difficult to estimate and most likely one or two order of magnitude smaller than the headline figure announced by the industry. It is not even proven that this "lost sale" exist as it has been proven that the most prolific downloader also buy more "legal" music than others. It may very well be that there is no lost sales but an increase.

Declining revenue in the recording industry is an entirely different matter and no one has proven the cause and effect.

Re:Good for her

[Joe Jay Bee]

Many people (regular, average people) pirate. They would have bought the CD or whatever, but don't because they can get roughly the same thing for free. I've known people like this. Pretending they don't exist does nobody any favours - piracy, quite obviously, does harm the music companies.

Slashdotters can crow all they want about "distribution monopolies" or whatever being the real reasons, but if they really cared about that they'd be trying to stop indie bands from playing and selling CDs, which they're not - they're trying to stop people taking the stuff they sell for free. They're companies, motivated purely by profit, and they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.

Re:Good for her

[PitaBred]

Business models that are artificially enforced by the laws of the land are not business models. They're fascism. You're entitled to any business model you want... you should NOT be entitled to use taxpayer money and deprivation of citizens rights to build a business model.

Re:Good for her

[Jonny_eh]

Why would the Canadian media cover an event that has little effect up here? There's more important things to cover like two elections (US and Canadia) and not to forget the 'next great depression'.

Re:Good for her

[shock1970]

Many people pirate, that's true. And it does cause the recording companies to loose out on potential revenue.

What's fucked up though is that a pirate who illegally downloads 10 songs has created a potential revenue loss of about $15 bucks to the record companies. But the record companies want to sue that individual for $15,000. The punishment does not fit the crime.

Re:Good for her

[Gr8Apes]

Your math is terrible. First, you assume that there are 1 million pirates, and that every "pirate" (Arrrr) would be a paying customer if they weren't "pirating" (what about those that borrow CDs and DVDs? Oh noes, the horror!!!)

With math matching yours for accuracy, I deduce a real loss of around $1 due to this "piracy".

Now, the real pirates, on the other hand, are those manufacturing illegal copies of the items in question and selling them to others, resulting in real lost sales, as someone paid X for the illegal product. Even here the assumption that they lost whatever their stated price is ludicrous, as they only lost whatever the illegal content's sale price, as there is no correlation whatsoever that the buyer would have paid more (with the assumption that the sold item sold for less than the asking price - not always the case - see sales of imported anime or HD DVDs....)

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

Pursuing individual downloaders has NOT proven to be in their best interests. The RIAA wildly overstates losses from piracy. I will grant you there are some, but they are probably 1000x overstated. Only the product that WOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IF NOT PIRATED can count as a loss. This is a very small percentage of what is on P2P right now.

On the other hand, they wildly overestimate the effect of these lawsuits on the supply and demand of P2P files. 100% of what people want is on P2P. 100% of the people who choose not to pay are getting everything they want for free. This was true before the lawsuits, and will continue to be true after the lawsuits.

The product COULD be packaged and sold in a way that would encourage more people to pay for it, but the industry seems determined to prevent this from happening.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

what drivel. walmart is not staffed by 200 guys with machineguns. their business model only works because shoplifting is a crime that is artificially enforced by the laws of the land. In other words they can only stay in business thanks to the threat of the state prosecuting people who walk out without paying.

Get a grip. Just because you want to get free music and reckon you wont get caught doesn't mean you should advocate widespread anarchy in order to justify it.

Re:Good for her

[shark72]

"What's fucked up though is that a pirate who illegally downloads 10 songs has created a potential revenue loss of about $15 bucks to the record companies. But the record companies want to sue that individual for $15,000. The punishment does not fit the crime."

The record companies are generally suing folks (including Ms. Thomas) for distributing -- or, at the least, making them available for distribution.

You're 100% correct that Jammie downloaded relatively few songs -- but that's not the issue. When she downloaded them, they were placed into her share directory (possibly without her knowledge) where they were available to others.

We don't do favors by repeating the notion that people are being sued for "downloading." The record companies are generally dishonest; let's not fight that with more dishonesty. If I run over your cat with my car, I might take some heat for killing the cat; it would be incorrect to state that I got in trouble just for driving a car.

Re:Good for her

[orclevegam]

Ok, fine, we'll see if we can tighten up the math a bit. To start with, according to a article on /. from a while back, the RIAA since 2003 has filed 28000 lawsuits. According to this PDF I found based on public available tax data, court records, and a bit of extrapolation it costs an average of 3112.26 per case to bring a civil case to trial in NJ (assuming similar cost in other states). This figure does not take into account the costs to both parties in terms of legal fees, and costs involved in maintaining the buildings, hiring more people to handle extra case load, or social cost involved in displacing other court cases. The same PDF also lists the average cost for settling via arbitration to be 1296.81 per case.

Lets assume that 75% of the cases are settled out of court (I've no idea how many have actually gone to trial of the 28000). This gives us 21000 settlements, and 7000 trials. Lets also assume that it costs on average 20000 to hire a defense lawyer (and that's probably at the low end). Based on these numbers we come to the following totals:

Cost to the public to settle cases: 27,233,010 (not including infrastructure costs)
Cost to the public to prosecute cases: 21,785,820 (once again not including infrastructure costs)
Total taxes wasted: 49,018,830
Cost to defend against RIAA lawsuits: 140,000,000
Cost to settle against RIAA lawsuits (based on $3000 settlement): 63,000,000
Total cost to public and accused: 252,018,830

In addition each of these cases must of necessity displace other cases that could be utilizing the courts time. I don't know about you, but I consider it a bigger crime for a company to waste 49 million dollars of the publics tax money, than that same company to lose 200 million to people subverting it's dying business model, not to mention costing people 203 million to defend themselves (or settle), a great many of which will be innocent people.

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

I am really tired of this kind of math. The premise is bogus, copyright infringement does not cost anyone anything. It is a loss of potential gain.

I just want to be absolutely crystal clear on this. You're saying piracy has no cost because people wouldn't use it in place of purchasing the product if they had to. Is that what you're saying? Really? You're sure about that?

Re:Good for her

[orclevegam]

You misunderstand, copyright is not a "business model", however it can be used to enforce an unworkable business model. Whether copyright is reformed or not, the business model will still fail, it's merely a question of how long it takes, and how much of an inconvenience on the rest of us it is until then. Whether the RIAA wants to admit it or not they're dieing, and the old model of albums is dying as well. People do not want to buy albums, they want to buy songs. They also don't want to be told when and how they can listen to those songs they buy, nor are they going to buy a new copy every time they want to listen to the song in a new format.

As for the reason piracy will go down, that has to do with the basic rules of supply and demand. There's a certain level of demand at a certain price point. With traditional goods demand is directly related to whether people feel it's worth there money to purchase that item. In the case of non-physical goods, so called "intellectual property", potential piracy (or a certain percentage anyway) can be represented by taking all the people who would purchase the item at a lower price point (for simplicity assume something close to 0) minus the people who would purchase it at the current price point. This leaves us with a number of people that are the potential pirates of said item. Next you must graph the the perceived value of the item versus the risk of being caught committing piracy (as a corollary when the cost of the product goes up, so does perceived value, although not a strictly 1 to 1 ratio). Everyone on the graph of potential pirates who falls below the line of the value/risk graph is then a pirate. You can reduce the number of pirates by either reducing the perceived value of the product, or increasing the perceived risk of being caught. Since it's much simpler to reduce the value of the product (seeing as the value is mostly artificial and arbitrary in the first place) than to increase the risk of being caught, that's the best way to solve the problem. As an added bonus reducing the cost of the product not only reduces piracy, but it increases sales due to increasing the demand.

Re:Good for her

[knifeNINJA]

they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.

I agree, and I believe that's exactly the problem here. IMHO the RIAA abuses the legal system, but I'm not aware of any compelling reason for them not to abuse it (e.g. heavy fines). Sure, it's bad for the RIAA's image, but does the average person really know who the members are? Plus, there's nothing stopping the members from tossing out the RIAA and creating another name to hide behind.

They would have bought the CD or whatever

[citation needed]

Re:Good for her

[falcon5768]

Yes thats exactly what he is, and the evidence backs his claim up, unlike the claims of the RIAA that have more often than not been proven to be made up.

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

Yes thats exactly what he is, and the evidence backs his claim up,

Okay then. The poster claimed that piracy doesn't cost anyone anything because people wouldn't buy it instead, if they couldn't get it for free. That seems extremely unlikely to me, based as it is on universal honesty and a refusal on anyone's part to take things without paying. But you say you have evidence that shows this. The floor is yours, falcon5768. I look forward to seeing this evidence.

Re:Good for her

[okmijnuhb]

Your little drawing shows downloading as "piracy" which should be corrected to "unauthorized copying" or "copyright infringement."

Re:Good for her

[atraintocry]

In the part you quoted, no one talks about lack of choice in business models. He was saying that changes in business have led to changes in copyright. Like many here, my opinion is that those changes do not reflect the spirit of the law, or the caution with which it was introduced. Copyright is a necessary evil, a state-granted monopoly, not an inalienable right to mooch off of what should be public domain for three generations.

Sure, I can choose to release work to the public domain, or under whatever license I want. I can't "choose" to use freely works that have had their copyrights retroactively extended.

Re:Good for her

[number11]

You're 100% correct that Jammie downloaded relatively few songs -- but that's not the issue. When she downloaded them, they were placed into her share directory (possibly without her knowledge) where they were available to others.

And as the judge has now ruled, making them available does not infringe on the copyright. If someone downloads them without authorization from the copyright holder, that would be an infringement.

Now, if the copyright holder tells me to go out and download some files to serve as a basis for lawsuits, I'd interpret that as authorization (and thus not an infringement). Catch-22.

Re:Good for her

[city]

Free Ray Beckerman! Free Ray Beckerman!

Re:Good for her

[shaitand]

From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â

So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.

Re:Good for her

[WiiVault]

The difference is that pirates hurt them, pirates being individuals. By going to court every week and draining tax payer dollars while often hurting innocent grandma clearly the RIAA is the greater threat. A person who steals from another is wrong and should be punished, a person who steals from the collective good of society is a criminal.

Re:Good for her

[frosty_tsm]

If it appears in the mainstream media, I'm so shorting the RIAA's stock...

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the *fact* that she's guilty. 100%. No room to argue. She did it and there's no way around it. The fact that the RIAA demands draconian punishments for the tiniest infractions doesn't change the fact that she's nothing more than a complete freeloader who wanted lots of entertainment for free. Both sides of this case are free to go fuck themselves, especially the one crying "Oh, Lawdy! I's just a po' computer user who had NO idea that gettin' all my shit fo' free was somehow against da' law!"

Re:Good for her

[BlueStrat]

From TFA: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â

So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.

Let me see if I can help.

If the parts quoted above in bold-type were changed to read:

"..an investigator legally licensed to operate as a private investigator in your state.."

Then it would be correct.

Cheers!

Strat

Re:Good for her

[JesseMcDonald]

Sure they exist. However, even if you assume that every single case of "piracy" is, in fact, a "lost sale", the cost of the "piracy" is still $0. No harm occurs when someone decides not to buy from you -- just think of how ridiculous that would be! Competition itself would be illegal. Open source software, and Creative Commons media, would be illegal, as they let you get something for free that you'd have to pay a lot for elsewhere.

No, to have a just case for reparations the music companies would need to show that copyright infringement causes them direct harm, i.e. interferes with their ability to use their own property (not mere projected revenues). They can't make that case because the nature of copyrighted media precludes any such harm.

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

In the part you quoted, no one talks about lack of choice in business models. He was saying that changes in business have led to changes in copyright. Like many here, my opinion is that those changes do not reflect the spirit of the law, or the caution with which it was introduced.

You are correct in saying that the laws have been extended in the interests of businesses, and I do not dispute that (it is true), but this isn't what the OP was saying. The OP post was trying to claim that the legal system was supporting failing business models. Quite obviously, as other business models are available (including those same ones that would be available if copyright law were curtailed), trying to declare the removal of these laws necessary on the grounds that business models are failing is false. Were the business models failing, the other options are available right now for any business that wishes to adopt them.

The tendency of some people here to both claim that the music and film industries are making obscene amounts of money and that they're business models are failing, sometimes even in the same post, is indicative to me of reasoning to support a previously chosen belief (i.e. one that justifies piracy).

You are making a supportable argument which I'm neither agreeing with or disagreeing with in this post - because it's a separate argument to the one the OP was making, which had serious flaws in its logic.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

RIAA: waaa waaa waaa, sue sue sue. LOL

Re:Good for her

[falcon5768]

http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/ippd-dppi.nsf/en/h_ip01456e.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3052145.stm

want any more?

Re:Good for her

[JesseMcDonald]

Where is your evidence that reducing copyright will reduce piracy?

Well, in the simplest case, eliminating copyright would also necessarily eliminate piracy by definition.

I don't care much for the "business method" argument myself -- how "outdated" one's business plan is should have no bearing on its legality. However, it is the pro-copyright group that is claiming that specific actions, which they cannot demonstrate to have caused any direct harm, ought to be illegal. Either prove that copyright infringement harms copyright holders -- interferes with their use of their homesteaded or contractually-acquired property -- or demonstrate why actual harm should not be a prerequisite for restitution and/or retribution.

Re:Good for her

[princessproton]

I actually read this first on the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, which cited the AP article, so it appears to also be significant in legal circles, though still noticeably absent from mainstream news sites. There also appears to be an some additional info here.

Re:Good for her

[Kjella]

You're 100% correct that Jammie downloaded relatively few songs -- but that's not the issue. When she downloaded them, they were placed into her share directory (possibly without her knowledge) where they were available to others.

There's one big flaw in your reasoning here - globally, across everyone on P2P bytes uploaded = bytes downloaded. Sure, there are people that share much more than they download and there are people that only leech and upload next to nothing, but unless you got some good evidence to prove she was very far outside the average, there's no reason to assume she shared at a 1000:1 ratio. It's pretty much impossible to get statistics on public trackers but at least on private trackers it's highly unusual to have ratios below 1:3 or over 3:1. The only way is to make her responsible for all the following generations, which is unreasonable since those generations are also liable so they're double-dipping.

Also, it has been repeatedly upheld that the sender violates the distribution right by making a transitory copy, and the reciever violates the reproduction right by fixing it to a permanent medium. The only reason they go after file sharers is because it's the only case they have a snowball's chance in hell of proving. What they haven't proved is that the file sharer has actually sent the file to anyone, which is the ambiguity between "making available" and "distribute". So yeah, it's not what people are being sued for but it would also be dishonest to claim it was clearly legal. In the end I think it will break down one way or the other, the police and courts don't have resources to prioritize this and people won't accept private copyright police. In many places of the world copyright law is blatantly ignored, I think that will spread rather than the "law and order" of the western world.

Re:Good for her

[collinstocks]

Even though I disagree with you that there is no lost sale, I do agree that this is no premise on which to sue someone.

If people could sue on the basis of lost sale, then capitalism would have no chance (whether the US economy is capitalism to begin with is an entirely different argument). Competition of any kind would be illegal, as it would cause loss of sales to the other party. Monopolies would be protected by law. Creativity would be stifled because nobody would have any incentive to make products better or cheaper. In short, all hell would break loose.

So, we have a judge who finally understands that making a product available to the public is not punishable. We have yet to see future improvements in our copyright and patent system by perhaps putting relatively short time limits on copyrighted material and disallowing corporate patents.

Re:Good for her

[socz]

I spent a little over $2k in cd's that have broken, been scratched, lent out and never returned and a few that just broke (because of guitar playing at loud volume).

Since my experience with spending so much on something i have to buy more than once (my notorious BIG double tape (life after death) that was wiped out due to a friend placing next to large car speaker magnets - replaced with cds) i refuse to pay any more, most of the time.

They can not possibly gain ANYTHING from people like me, for the most part. I support real musicians, not pop bands anyways. I can't really remember the last album I bought but i'll tell you i support bands like Pantera, Kanye and N.E.R.D. CD's, shirts, stickers, concerts etc, i'm helping them get at least a little bit of my money.

So because of my experiences, me downloading the music instead of buying it isn't hurting them, because they wouldn't get another dime out of me anyways. I'm also not the only one. I know many others like me who are tired of getting burned. And for those of you who never paid more than $25 for a cd, you just can't relate because back then $25 was not affordable and it was a lot of money! Gas was less than $.99 cents a gallon&@!(*&#(@!

Re:Good for her

[p0tat03]

First, you assume that there are 1 million pirates, and that every "pirate" (Arrrr) would be a paying customer if they weren't "pirating"

The GP's post is actually pretty accurate I would say. First of all, "1 million pirates" is a gross underestimation as it is. Secondly, the $200 loss figure already includes the pirated material that would not have been bought anyways. Think about a guy who pirates all of the movies he watches (I know MANY MANY people like this). Of course they wouldn't buy ALL those movies if he couldn't pirate them, but he would buy *some*, and there's the rub. The $200 loss is quite reasonable in terms of "how much stuff would this person have bought if the pirated copy was unavailable"... think about how much music you consume, video games, movies... spending $200 on all that stuff per year is pretty little.

Re:Good for her

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

They're companies, motivated purely by profit, and they wouldn't pursue action against individual downloaders if it wasn't somehow in their interests.

That'd be great, if they were actually pursuing people based on actual 'piracy'. They're not. They're pursuing people out of the fear that they might not pay them money. If you'd like some interesting reading, look up the movie industry's view on VHS sales of movies back in the early 80s. You'll find that they were against it, claiming casual copying would destroy peoples' interest in going to the theater. Go back to roughly the year 2000, you'll see Eisner criticizing Apple's "Rip, Mix, and Burn" campaign. That was actually kinda funny. Apple had a commercial of a dude on a plane taking his music collection and burning his own CD. Eisner said it was a pro-piracy campaign, but the commercial didn't show the guy handing the CD to anybody. It was just assumed Apple meant for you to run out, buy a CD, then ... and I don't understand the logic here ... make copies and give them to all your friends. You'd also find that they made claims like '2 billion songs were flying around the net every month' just before announcing an increase of profits.

They're not seeing a million dollars missing and are combating losing another million. They're seeing 300 million people who'd crawl on their bellies over broken glass with their flies unzipped to avoid paying for a CD. They also see a shift in demand from CD albums to a-la-carte music (like iTunes). Not as lucrative. Oops.

If music piracy were really a profit-related problem, they could substantiate it. Instead, they're propagandizing it. Think about it.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that I don't agree with the broad thrust of your post, but you seem to be saying that the average pirate costs the RIAA (and similar) 200 dollars a year and piracy 'all told' costs them 100,000 dollars (a year? over the last hundred years? since the start of internet piracy? to keep it simple I'll assume a year) - now it's been a while since I did any mathematics more strenuous than counting the contents of my wallet, but I'm pretty sure that 100,000/200 is 500.

You probably just pulled the numbers out of your backside so you could lend some imaginary authority to your argument, but suggesting that there are only 500 pirates around... maybe you should have thought about that a bit harder.

Re:Good for her

[shark72]

You might be unintentionally putting words in my mouth. I profess to no knowledge or even a wild guess as to how many outbound bytes those songs in her share directory... I was simply clarifying that the copyright owners and authorities tend to go after copiers and distributors. I've heard the opinion that downloading is fixing to a permanent medium, but I personally don't buy it. Copyright law focuses on reproduction and distribution... I don't believe there are any statutes related to possession of pirated works per se. For those of you speed-reading, NB that I didn't write "pirated works for sale" or "distributing pirated works."

"So yeah, it's not what people are being sued for but it would also be dishonest to claim it was clearly legal."

Agreed. Many Slashdotters believe and/or wish that her actions were clearly legal, but Slashdotters are often at odds with legal experts. One thing that many folks don't understand is that the law is a living, breathing organism that sometimes moves slowly, and sometimes moves quickly. Sometimes it hurts people, too, so the best analogy for Slashdotters is that law is like the horta from that Star Trek episode.

At any rate, "making available != infringement" is a nice, tasty loophole, and loopholes like that don't last. If I were the sort that doffed an eyepatch and a parrot, I would not treat this news as permission share my music collection with Kazaa.

Re:Good for her

[syousef]

For more information, see this helpful drawing:

http://i28.tinypic.com/2m7xd85.jpg

I didn't understand the diagram until I sat down and re-drew it with cars instead of stars.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, here's some numbers for you to crunch on:

At Pacific Mall, in Ontario, Canada you can usually buy 10 pirate DVDs for $20 (this is very public information, just go there if you don't believe me).

I know people who go there at least once a month and pick up _at least_ the 10 DVD deal. Many (often a majority) of the DVDs are actually screeners from the theatre.

Assuming 4 people watch a screener, and movie tickets are $14 each, that DVD has a value of $56. Now, they buy 10 a month, maybe a few more at Christmas. So let's make that an even 150 movies @ $56 each. Now, we'll assume they work the usual 40 hours, 50 weeks of the year.

According to you, $4.20 each hour of the average person's wage goes to movies if they don't pirate. Considering minimum wage, I wonder... how do they afford to eat, never mind find shelter? And how do they afford the TV and DVD player to watch $8,400 a year in movies?

So, stop with the bullshit. The fact is that at best, in this case, movie companies lost $20 a month, since that's what this family budgeted to be spent on movies.

However, even that's questionable! If 12 oz. steaks were $0.10 each, you might budget $3.10 a month for a steak, if you like it a lot. However, if all of a sudden $3.10 only bought you 1 oz of steak, even from the supermarket, would you continue to dedicate $3.10 a month to steaks? Or would you consider eating something else instead?

I'm betting you'd just stop buying steak entirely. And I'm betting 90% of the people getting 10 movies a month at $20 would just stop buying movies altogether, or might dedicate the money to renting movies.

Re:Good for her

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

I occasionaly pirate stuff... but i would never pay money for what I pirate anyway. so they haven't lost a cent from me. -IF- I like something enough i'll pay for it, but that's a pretty big if. I'd much rather go to a concert and support an artist that way than pay them 30c and the record companies $20-30

Re:Good for her

[gnuASM]

~350 million Americans. About 200 million adults. Let's say half are online, so 100 million online users. Let's significantly underestimate the percentage of pirates at 1%. So that's 1 million pirates. At $0 a year (since these people wouldn't pay for the crap anyway), that's $0 a year!!

There! Fixed it for you!

Re:Good for her

[aussie_a]

She (or someone who used her internet connection which she tried to cover up) is guilty over doing exactly what the RIAA said. The only difference now is that there's nothing wrong with doing what she did (making available).

Re:Good for her

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

You cannot attribute any financial loss at all to the pirates. It's simply a theoretical loss. If all pirates would never buy a single thing they pirated, and I realize this is an assumption, their net cost to the content distributors would be $0.

But that's not true. In fact, it is statistically measurable. You essentially multiply the probability of buying music, possibly factoring in certain other factors like what kind infringement it is (albums will be more likely to have resulted in a sale than singles) by the price of the music.

It's a gross oversimplification to say that we can't count it, because we actually can, both in the sense that it's possible and the sense that it's OK. The far, far, far greater injustice would be to sweep all infringement everything into the "it can't be proved" pile, and count it as its best case scenario. If anything, being the wrongdoers in the relationship, they should be punished for the worst possible case.

Re:Good for her

[Anonymous Coward]

So apparently an investigator downloading DOES constitute as infringement.

Let me see if I can help.
If the parts quoted above in bold-type were changed to read:
"..an investigator legally licensed to operate as a private investigator in your state.."
Then it would be correct.

No, that is not what the case says. Whether a third-party investigator is licensed or not was not an issue addressed in this opinion. You have suggested that the third-party investigator's non-compliance with state licensing requirements is a copyright infringement request. This is an untested legal theory.

Here, the court did say that a download by a third-party investigator would be infringement. The problem was that the jury instructions also included the "making available" theory. The jury might have decided against the defendant based on the invalid "making available" theory, the case has to be re-tried with legally sound jury instructions.

This was not really a win for defendants. The post you "corrected" was much more accurate than your legal speculation.

Re:Good for her

[aussie_a]

That's fucked up if they're the only ones who did do the downloading.

Re:Good for her

[spearway]

I did not actually say that there was no lost sale, I am just saying that this is not science, it has not been proven. The RIAA argument is coincidental my revenues fell at the same time people started exchanging copyrighted materials on the Internet. There is no study that I know of that can prove that causality and there are study that prove that people sharing music are larger consumer of music than non sharer and that they buy more legal music. I am just asking for some sort of proof or at least some really strong indication there is a link from cause to effect. If I had to do a reasonable i.e. based on proven facts deduction I would have to conclude that music swapping increase sales, which defies my common sense so I am not ready to go that far but I would like those crying wolf to offer some proofs that there is a wolf. I would like the RIAA to take all the fact and explain rationally how they reach that conclusion and mere coincidence does not cut it.

I do like you argument anyway. Whether there is a loss of sales or not this no reason to sue your customers anyway.

As for copyright I would suggest a few minor tweak to begin with: something that is out of print or unpublished for more that 1 year falls in the public commons. This would free up a lot of valuable material that is currently unaccessible because it is uneconomical to publish it but the owner sits on it just in case. I would probably like to see the same for patent, if a patent is not used it should expire. That would kill the misuse of patent where a shell company collects as many patent in portfolio for the sole purpose of suing. Those changes should not impact legitimate business while pruning abuses.

Re:Good for her

[Bensam123]

RIAA doesn't consist of 1 million people.

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

They can not possibly gain ANYTHING from people like me,

Indeed, but the question is whether all the other unlicensed downloaders are similarly just replacing nicked / scratched / broken by loud guitar playing (who are you? Hot Black?) CDs, or whether they are downloading things that they would have bought new. I find it very hard to believe those posters claiming people don't do this.

Also, back up your collection. ;) :)
Regards,
-H.

Re:Good for her

[h4rm0ny]

I don't care much for the "business method" argument myself -- how "outdated" one's business plan is should have no bearing on its legality.

We agree on that, then. Those trying to justify piracy do themselves no favours depending on this easily falsified argument. As to your next point:

However, it is the pro-copyright group that is claiming that specific actions, which they cannot demonstrate to have caused any direct harm, ought to be illegal.

You've kindly offered me a positive to prove, which I can. I know lots of people that download movies and music and even scanned books as a substitute to buying them. I find it highly unlikely that I am living in some statisitical anomaly of crime and moral rectitude. ;) Now you may argue that piracy actually has a beneficial gain in stimulating music and movie sales which balances it. That's pretty dubious, but it can be at least argued. It can also be argued that countermeasures brought in by the film and music industries such as Blu-Ray DRM and demanding personal details from ISPs are either self-destructive or illegal, and that's a much more supportable argument, as is arguing that penalties for piracy are far too harsh (which we've actually just seen a US judge agree with). But these aren't what I was arguing with in this case. The OP was boldly stating that if you reduce / eliminate copyright, piracy will reduce to be no longer a concern. Except in the sense of your semantic argument ("We will eliminate cake from the planet, by using a different name for it - then we can say there is no cake,"), this is deeply wrong.

Re:Good for her

[bigmouth_strikes]

I know plenty of people who download and share music (a.k.a. "pirate") and who do not purchase any music at all, since they can download all they want without paying. Saying that there are no "lost sales" and that "it cannot be proved" is as naïve and as fraudulent as RIAAs claims are.

Re:Good for her

[registrar]

No, real pirates are people who pillage, rape and murder. Copyright infringement, even for profit, is neither theft nor piracy in any meaningful sense.

Re:Good for her

[Kirth]

And it's not "piracy" either. Piracy is defined as the act of robbery on the high seas with the threat of violence. It's "copyright violation".

Re:Good for her

[JosKarith]

Pirates are crooks - I was just reading an article about how a bunch of them stole a ship with 20-odd T72's on board. That's definate crook behaviour to me.

The legal status of Intellectual Property infringers on the other hand is more dubious, and more relevant to the discussion at hand.

Re:Good for her

[Gr8Apes]

"1 million pirates" is a gross underestimation

It depends - what's a "pirate"? It's either grossly overestimated, or, if you redefine "pirate" to the RIAA standards (criminalizing tons of previously accepted legal fair use) then it would be groslly underestimated, as everyone would be a criminal (a good sign that this is not a good definition)

Think about a guy who pirates all of the movies he watches (I know MANY MANY people like this).

So, does that include time-shifting or borrowing? I'm curious. I know only a few, and what's the difference between them and those that utilize a service like Netflix by your definition?

but he would buy *some*, and there's the rub.

You assertion is unfounded and unsubstantiated. Someone so against paying for stuff would probably buy them at flea markets and the like. Still no "loss", unless you've also removed Right of First Sale.

think about how much music you consume, video games, movies... spending $200 on all that stuff per year is pretty little.

What I "consume" (which is also a fallacy, as I don't consume anything, as that implies rendering it unusable in the future) is actually very very little. I could probably get by with $10/year, or less, especially if I engage in content swapping with friends or the market place in general. There is very little new content I "need" to see, as most of it sucks badly these days. Also, with broadcast sources, as bad as they are, I could get more than enough content that my actual consumption could conceivably go down to $0/year, unless you're going to outlaw broadcast content as well.

Re:Good for her

[BubbaJonBoy]

I have a feeling however that they'll find once copyright has been reduced back to what it was originally intended, and media companies are once again innovating instead of trying to enforce, that piracy won't be much of a problem at all.

Ahhh - but you've all missed it. Their courtroom tactics is their new business model. Surprised no one has realized that yet...

Re:Good for her

[PitaBred]

There's a difference between real property and intellectual "property". I deprive no-one of a tangible good when it's copied. I deprive them of it when it's stolen. Big difference there, sparky.

Or, should we have to pay royalties to the Greeks for copying their ideas of democracy? Royalties to Hammurabi's descendants for using the ideas of laws? Copying is human nature, it's how things progress and get changed.

Re:Good for her

[dpastern]

Whilst what you say is mostly true, what the RIAA does is far worse. Let's look at this issue logically. Say, I have a copy of Bruce Springsteen's "Born to run" on LP. When I bought that LP, part of the cost was for the "licence" to be allowed to play it. Part of the cost was to cover the manufacturing process. Part of the cost was retail profit. In fact, most of the cost was the "licence", probably 90%.

Now - if I went out and bought this on CD, I *have* to pay full price here. Why? I've already paid for the "licence" with the LP (it is the same performance after all). All I *should* have to pay for is the cost of manufacturing, and the retail profit. Now, CDs are EVEN cheaper to manufacture than LPs were, retail profit should be no higher. So, the cost of the CD should be dirt cheap, probably less than 5% of the current retail costs.

This is all the RIAA and its cronies in the US congress do - rehash something old in a nice shiny new package, and resell it for full price. We've seen the same thing happen with the MPAA and Videos/VCDs/DVDs/BlueRay.

The fact that the RIAA uses illegal activities to track down "pirates" is worrying. Lacing torrent files with viruses and seeding them themselves. If that was an ordinary American, they'd be charged with computer crimes and probably get 20 years+ jail time in a federal jail. Where's the equality?

The RIAA is simply a mafia style setup and the sooner that they are dismantled, the better. Let's consider the artists here, who usually wait 12-24 months after a "hit" before they really start receiving any profits. And usually, the artist makes around 2% profit, that's it. That's a pittance.

I think you will also find, that the current state of music is well...most of it is shyte. It's not good enough quality to want people to buy it. It's half OK, so many people will pirate it, but it' snot good enough to justify purchase. You only have to look at the "top ten" artists on the play lists and go yuck. Worse, those with talent, whose music is worth it, generally get little radio play and promotion from the RIAA and affiliates. The modern music industry is NOT based on talent, but on looks and sexual appearance. As an example, the pussycat dolls.

Let's look at the RIAA having a go at artists who decide to go "on their own" and produce, record and make their own labels/CDs. The RIAA then pressures radio stations and retailers NOT to stock/play said artists works. That's racketeering. Where's the US (and other countries) ball less governments here? Where's the charges of operating a monopoly? Operating a cartel? Interfering with sale to cause loss of income to a 3rd party?

No modern "western" capitalistic government will do anything about it, because they're all sucking up humungously to the US government. The few governments that do have backbones and stand up for their rights get molested by the US and the UN (under forced pressure from the US) - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, North Korea, Venezuela and so on. Note the US doesn't attack big countries like China or Russia. Probably cos it knows it'd get its ass kicked form here to kingdom come.

When the US government (and others) start actually being for the people, and not for the rich and big businesses, the illegal monopolies like the RIAA will cease to exist, for the betterment of the population I might add.

Dave

Let the flood gates be opened

[AliasMarlowe]

...for setting aside other judgments

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Evets]

Were there other judgements? I thought this was the first.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[TheLinuxSRC]

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

From the article:

One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[sabre3999]

Yup, first and only... though she'll still end up guilty I bet. The only thing this does is require the RIAA to prove distribution for the monetary value of the punishment, not absolve her and require them to prove anything to get a guilty verdict (at least that's what I gather from RTFA.)

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Anonymous Coward]

So MediaSentry^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HSafenet has to participate in a crime, or else it doesn't have evidence of a crime? Isn't this entrapment?

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Anonymous Coward]

And no they can't use the claim of well we downloaded it from them as proof of actual distribution. Since the copyright holder can not infringe on their own work.

You are and idiot. :-(

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[blueg3]

It is (sometimes) entrapment if the police do it. It's not entrapment if people who are not the police nor working on behalf of the police do it.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Evets]

A whole new trial is what I get from RTFA.

From the judgement:

The Court hereby VACATES the verdict rendered in this case by the
jury and grants Defendant a new trial to commence on a date to be
set by the Court after consultation with the parties.
2. The Judgment entered on October 5, 2007 [Docket No. 106] is
VACATED.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Worthless_Comments]

Entrapment is only when the police cause a crime to happen where there wouldn't be one. If a cop comes up to a drug dealer and bought drugs from them, that is not entrapment. If a cop comes up to someone who isn't a drug dealer and pesters them to get drugs for them and they do, that is entrapment.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[sabre3999]

I'll concede that there will be a new trial, I misread it.

However, there will still probably be a guilty verdict at the end... The judge chimed in saying that distribution to an investigator such as MediaSentry still provides basis for claims. If they can prove that then don't they essentially have the verdict?

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[SpiderClan]

They have the verdict, but not necessarily the financial amount. Unless she uploaded 200000$ worth of music to MediaSentry, she'll be doing much better even if she is found guilty the second time around.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[sabre3999]

This is true... and I won't say that the amount of the judgment has no importance in regard to future legal dealings with the RIAA. However, the verdict is still the most important aspect of the case since it sets precedent. It would be nice to live in a fantasy world where a not guilty was likely.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[PainKilleR-CE]

Of course, if you buy drugs from someone that you've complained to the police about several times, and then call the cops and show them the drugs you bought, guess who's going to jail...

But, since it's a civil matter and the RIAA endorsed the actions of the investigator, the downloading of the files is not a crime, while distributing the files may be.

Of course, if the actual copyright holder(s) stepped up and sued the investigator for downloading the file, that might be more interesting. Sometimes copyrights are assigned to the RIAA for these cases, but I often wonder how much time the RIAA spends determining whether or not they have the copyrights to the files they're complaining about.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[tygt]

Key point: distribution.

In order to distribute, one must send the file, as opposed to (according to most of us, and apparently this judge) merely make it available for fetching.

I'd imagine that if MediaSentry got the file from her, they fetched it (via the file being made available by P2P).

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Evets]

I caught that too. Since that was in the commentary and not part of the actual ruling, I don't think that's binding at all for the next trial. It certainly isn't binding on any other case.

Several other courts have addressed the issue and IIRC the vast majority ruled that Media Sentry downloads don't count since they were authorized by the copyright holder.

As far as the next trial goes, I imagine this will get settled. The jury members' post-trial comments were very much in favor of the RIAA, and Jammie's Lawyer wasn't very effective as a trial attorney from what I read in the coverage.

A new trial would mean that she has to pay her attorney for more work, and she had to cancel her expert witness because of financial difficulty the last go round.

For the RIAA, they have the statement in favor of using MediaSentry downloads as evidence. They have a big jury verdict in their favor in the minds of most (assuming this doesn't get the same kind of media coverage as the big award). They aren't going to get much money out of Jammie (blood from a turnip). It seems like it's in their interests to settle this one as well. The potential for losing the next trial should be enough to scare them into being reasonable.

I bet this turns into a settlement, and that Jammie has a non-disclosure clause for the amount. I'm kind of surprised that didn't happen before this ruling anyhow.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[mea37]

And if I buy a bootleg DVD, I fetch it from the shelf. Doesn't matter.

Every file transfer has a sender and a receiver. The sender is (probably, though I suppose we'll see what the courts ultimately say) engaged in distribution, no matter whether the protpcol model was "pull" or "push".

The more interesting question would be whether, by requesting a copy, an agent of the copyright holder implicitely "approves" the distribution on the copyright holder's behalf. I don't see why that would be the case.

As I've said before -- I believe this verdict was faulty, and I believe the damages were too high, so on both counts I'm glad to see this outcome... but I also believe that putting a file on a p2p network is more than "just making it available", that doing so (if deliberate) should be punishable under the civil provisions of copyright infringement, and that the law may need to be amended to make it so.

Remember, "copyright hasn't kept up with technology" does not always mean "copyright is too strong". Both are generally true, but they don't always overlap neatly.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[againjj]

From the article: One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Notice it does not say "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, constitutes unauthorized distribution." So, this is merely the judge pointing out a argument for the RIAA to make when they relitigate this case, and that it has a good chance of passing muster.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Anonymous Coward]

If I put all my books on a shelf, and someone has legal access to these, and that someone makes a copy of one of my books, who is responsible for the copyright infringement?

If I put all my files on a computer, and someone has legal access to these, and that someone makes a copy of one of my files, who is responsible for the copyright infringement?

Note that I specifically did not mention access methods here, as it is totally unnecessary for the point. In both cases, the the same person is the one responsible for the copyright infringement. You figure out which it is.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Mister Whirly]

If I am a copyright holder and you distribute to me what I have the rights to already, no crime has been committed. That is an "authorized distribution" or, distributing something that is copyrighted to someone who has the rights. Only "unauthorized distribution" is illegal.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Thanks for playing.

From the article:

  One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: "distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution."

Ahhh but here you show your lack of knowledge, young apprentice:

The 'making available' claim was slightly different- the RIAA said that simply by putting a file in the shared folder it counted as distributing the material, even if NOBODY downloaded it.

In addition, if MediaSentry or ANY other affiliate of the RIAA, etc. joins in a p2p swarm then they are now party to the distribution, which means they are authorizing that swarm by participating in it, therefore since it is authorized it is no longer infringement.

Thankyou&goodnight.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[mea37]

There are two problems with your analysis in my opinion, and I expect the courts' interpretation will differ from yours for these reasons:

1) Just because MediaSentry contracts with the RIAA and acts on their behalf, does not mean that MediaSentry is granted any rights with respect to RIAA member organizations' copyrights.

2) Copyright does not control possession of the work. It controls specific acts, such as the act of distributing the work. The act of distribution can be unauthorized even if the result of such distribution is that a copy is placed in the hands of someone who already has a legitimate copy.

I recognize that your statement reflects how you think the system should work, and perhaps a system based on a right-to-possess would make some sense, but that isn't the system we have today.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[ahodgson]

If they aren't authorized, then they should be charged with copyright violations for downloading. They are, after all, admitting to doing so in sworn testimony. Can't have it both ways.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[mea37]

"Note that I specifically did not mention access methods here"

You also didn't mention certain details that do matter -- like whether, in your first example, you broadcast that people could come copy your books (like a p2p network does when you put files in its shhares).

Your second example is further flawed as a description of p2p because, in addition to leaving out the "broadcast that you can copy files from my computer" step, it stipulates that the person who ends up making the copy of the file had legal access to the files. What legal access do you think a person downloading from a p2p network has to copyrighted files on the other end? The only access that person has, is the ability to download.

The summary answer to your question (though I suppose you thought it was rhetorical) is: either or both parties can be responsible for the copyright infringement in both of your scenarios, depending on circumstances. When those circumstances are aligned with a p2p fileshare, I believe both parties are responsible -- though again, we'll see how the courts sort it out and how Congress responds.

BTW, if you're going to be condescending, you might want to properly capture the issue under discussion first.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[mea37]

If who isn't authorized to do what? You appear to be trying to look at a p2p download as a single atomic act that either is or is not authorized, but that's not the case. Even if I'm fully authorized to make copies, doesn't mean you're in the clear to give me one if you're not authroized to distribute.

So, yeah, actually the copyright holder can have it both ways.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[whoever57]

The only thing this does is require the RIAA to prove distribution for the monetary value of the punishment,

This ruling also implies that the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution, not just an offer to distribute. So, it is possible that the RIAA could only show actual distribution of one song, which would reduce the damages considerably.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Mister Whirly]

I never claimed Media Sentry was authorized, I was merely pointing out that disturbing to someone who doesn't have the right to posses a copy is "unauthorized" and is the illegal kind. It isn't how it should work, it is how it works. In order to be guilty of copyright infringement, you need to distribute the work to an "unauthorized" party. Simple making a copy and not distributing it does NOT entail copyright infringement. That is why the case was thrown out in the first place. Now the RIAA will need to prove that A) the songs were in fact distributed and B) that the people distributed to were not authorized to have the copies. It really shouldn't be too hard on either count, but the defense may be able to argue that Media Sense was acting as an authorized agent of the RIAA. May work, may not. Even if they were not granted specific rights, I'm sure an argument can be made if they are working for the RIAA that they are basically an extension of the RIAA. It's certainly worth a shot.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[dcam]

So kinda like the FBI and every terror suspect arrested post 9/11?

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[knorthern knight]

> The judge chimed in saying that distribution to an investigator
> such as MediaSentry still provides basis for claims. If they can
> prove that then don't they essentially have the verdict?

But is Mediasentry a *LICENCED* investigator? oops.

Re:Let the flood gates be opened

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, but I think their point was distribution FROM MediaSentry doesn't count, because they are acting as an agent.

It would be like cops getting charged with drug possession for participating in a sting operation otherwise...

woo!

[Kingrames]

we win!

Re:woo!

[mazarin5]

Not so much; they will try her again, but they have to prove actual distribution. Note that the judge also lowered the bar for actual distribution, in a sense. Our pet theory of MediaSentry acting as an agent of the RIAA, and therefore doesn't constitute distribution, was also explicitly discarded:

âoedistribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.â

Re:woo!

[Dorkmaster Flek]

But doesn't that mean that the only distribution they can effectively prove is to MediaSentry? What damages can be awarded based solely on that?

Re:woo!

[MMC Monster]

Is MediaSentry a licensed private investigator in the state(s) involved at the time of the infraction?

If not, they may not be a wholly unbiased witness.

Re:woo!

[Ken_g6]

IANA Lawyer, but I think there still might be a case to be made against MediaSentry for entrapment. On the other hand, that seems to be a much more difficult case to make.

Re:woo!

[John Hasler]

> IANA Lawyer, but I think there still might be a case to be made against MediaSentry for
> entrapment.

This is a civil lawsuit, not a criminal prosecution. Entrapment is meaningless. However, she could claim that by requesting the files (if they ever did so) the copyright owner's agent, MediaSentry, granted her an implicit license to send it to them.

Re:woo!

[riceboy50]

What damages can be awarded based solely on that?

That depends on how many songs were being shared, but the $750-$150,000 adds up quickly.

Re:woo!

[John Hasler]

Of course they are biased: they are the plaintiff's witness. That is irrelevant. However,
Minnesota does require that private investigators have state licenses. If MediaSentry was indeed acting as a private investigator and was not licensed it is probable that none of their testimony or evidence is admissable at all. Unfortunately this was not brought up at the first trial and so the judge may not allow it to be brought up at the second.

Re:woo!

[number11]

Minnesota does require that private investigators have state licenses. If MediaSentry was indeed acting as a private investigator and was not licensed it is probable that none of their testimony or evidence is admissable at all. Unfortunately this was not brought up at the first trial and so the judge may not allow it to be brought up at the second.

If the new trial was an appeal, that might well be true. But in this case, it's a complete retake, start again from the beginning, so why wouldn't new evidence be allowed?

But my guess is that she may not have the money to defend herself again, so it may get settled. Probably for something like the original offer, much less than the (now void) award.

Today is nice

[BountyX]

What a nice day today...RIAA loses, DOJ opposes DOJ Copyright Oversight. What's next? Bush finally gets impeached?

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Ugh... 2 words: President Cheney.

Re:Today is nice

[Ron_Fitzgerald]

Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...

Re:Today is nice

[Palshife]

Makes me glad he once said, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." *shiver*

Re:Today is nice

[camperdave]

What would be the point of impeaching Bush now? You should have done it a couple of years ago... like back when he called the constitution just a piece of paper.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, he also said "we have evidence that Saddam Hussein was in leage with Al Qaida"

I wouldn't believe anything he says, if I were you.

Re:Today is nice

[polyomninym]

Let's all knock on wood while there's still some left.

Re:Today is nice

[Chris Burke]

Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...

Yet another reason Bill Richardson would have been a better choice than Biden... But hey it's not the first time Chris Rock and I have seen eye to eye. :)

Re:Today is nice

[tmosley]

Impeaching him now would cause a close examination of all of his unconstitutional policies, and get a lot of them thrown out, or at least dragged out into the light so future presidents won't be able to use them.

Also, there's this little thing called 'accountability' that a certain current United States President likes to harp on a lot of the time (when it supports what he wants).

Honestly, I think that a pretty large proportion of our presidents should have left office at the end of a hangman's noose, and none that I can think of deserve that end more so than Bush Jr.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Jack Thompson's disbarment was also approved today.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...

That was Dave Chapelle

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Dave Chappelle you mean.

"Just leave me and Vice President Santiago to our own devices".

Re:Today is nice

[magus_melchior]

Ah, hate to rain on your sunshine, friend, but:

1. While the DoJ did reject a copyright czar, that's only because it came from Congress. If the media cartels asked for an executive order establishing one, I doubt Cheney/Bush would have a problem with it. Meanwhile, they are pushing everyone for the biggest bailout in history, and this is just the thing to distract us geeks.

2. Capitol Records gets to sue Thomas again, or at the very least, really squeeze her in settlement negotiations. The rejection of the $222K damages payment may seem like good news, until you realize that a retrial may cost just as much or more, combined with the first trial. What's more, the venue is already biased against her ("she shouldn't have downloaded crap from KaZaA", etc.) and the RIAA lawyers will almost definitely call for this judge's head on a stick for wasting their time. Capitol can continue to intimidate, drain, and make an example of Thomas, while whacking a judge for having a conscience and common sense-- it is a serious win for the RIAA.

Re:Today is nice

[Joeyspecial]

You use jelly?

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the Chris Rock bit about a black person for President securing his life by having a Mexican Vice President...

Pretty sure that was Dave Chappelle.

Re:Today is nice

[ivan256]

He's neither been nominated, nor would he have been elected, so he's in the clear.

Re:Today is nice

[macslas'hole]

Makes me glad he once said, "If nominated I will not run. If elected I will not serve." *shiver*

How said that? That is paraphrasing William Tecumseh Sherman.

If drafted, I will not run; if nominated, I will not accept; if elected, I will not serve.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

No such luck, but hey, Jack Thompson disbarred.

Re:Today is nice

[PKFC]

Nope. Jack Thompson got disbarred for life though

Re:Today is nice

[bendodge]

Not even sell-our-nukes Clinton?

Re:Today is nice

[xerxesVII]

Jack Thompson has been disbarred!

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

That was Dave Chappell, actually.

Re:Today is nice

[Palshife]

The gist of my statement was that Cheney clearly does not want to be president.

Re:Today is nice

[TheQuantumShift]

Cheney did his share of the lying, we can't impeach both?

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to your list "Jack Thompson gets disbarred. . ."

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Honestly, I think that a pretty large proportion of our presidents should have left office at the end of a hangman's noose, and none that I can think of deserve that end more so than Bush Jr.

How fucking stupid are you? People get secret service visits for saying things less menacing than that.

I know you think you worded it carefully so as not to look like a threat... have fun explaining that when agents show up at your door.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Since you ask: Jack Thompson disbarred.

Re:Today is nice

[Bobfrankly1]

no, I predict Jack Thompson will be disbarred today...

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah... that'd be a lot different. Cheney would finally get his chance to manipulate government... oh, wait...

Re:Today is nice

[Chris Burke]

I prefer syrup.

Re:Today is nice

[melikamp]

What do you guys use jelly and syrup for?

Re:Today is nice

[steelfood]

It has always annoyed and somewhat puzzled me when I hear people refer to Andrew Jackson as a "strong" president. Even in grade school, after reading about him and the atrocities he committed, I couldn't believe that it was possible to defend him. Yet, every piece of printed literature I had read at the time simply wouldn't say what was blindingly obvious, instead choosing to say he was a "strong" president.

That's about when I realized the heavy pro-US propaganda in the material used by public schools in "liberal" places. About the same time was when I realized most people don't think for themselves, instead choosing to repeat verbatim the things others have told them. These are pretty frightening thoughts for a preteen.

Here's hoping history will give Bush Jr. the treatment he deserves.

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

...or, perhaps, an old and infirm president ensuring that he gets the very best medical care ever by choosing a complete and utter fruitcake as his running mate...? *ducks*

Re:Today is nice

[arbitraryaardvark]

What a nice day today...RIAA loses, DOJ opposes DOJ Copyright Oversight. What's next? Bush finally gets impeached?
Close, Jack Thompson disbarred.
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/09/25/1822207

China launches 3 Tychonauts into space,
Anti-apartheid activist becomes SAfrica president
McCain campaign slows, but doesn't stop
Iraq election law marks progress, opens political season, etc. , google news

Re:Today is nice

[TechForensics]

Ugh... 2 words: President Cheney.

He's already effectively president. You don't think Dubya could even plausibly impersonate a president on his own?

Re:Today is nice

[Anonymous Coward]

Impeachment is not equal to being removed from office. If you remember, Clinton was impeached...

Re:Today is nice

[devnulljapan]

What a nice day today...RIAA loses, DOJ opposes DOJ Copyright Oversight. What's next? Bush finally gets impeached?

Almost. Jack Thompson was disbarred today.

In a four-page written order (download here.), the Florida Supreme Court today affirmed a referee's recommendation to permanently disbar controversial Miami attorney Jack Thompson...
The Court also upheld a fine of $43,675 against Thompson.

I think the end-times are upon us. Time to move to Alaska for the rapture...

Re:Today is nice

[ikeman32]

Impeachment was never an option for Bush, there simply are not enough Republicans in the House of Representatives that hate Bush to vote for Articles of Impeachment, even with The House controlled by Democrats. They still need a two thirds majority to impeach the president and even if they impeach the president that doesn't mean that the president is removed from office. Article II Section 4. "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, AND CONVICTION OF, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." Sorry self proclaimed constitutional scholars but impeachment is not the removal of the president but only first step in the removal of the president. Bill Clinton was impeached but the Republicans failed to convict him in the Senate trial. Now there simply isn't enough time to impeach Bush and with elections only 6 weeks away it would be a miracle of biblical proportions to get Congress to act on such a drastic measure. All this nonsense about war crimes and BS like that were even remotely true then why hasn't Congress or the International Community acted upon these alleged crimes? Answer: Because it's nothing more than political pandering to rile the masses. Politics and Politicians should be outlawed and real people should be put into office not liars... I mean lawyers... no actually I mean liars.

It's about time

[wraithguard01]

I'm glad to see that common sense has finally broken out in the court system, and the ridiculousness of the whole copyright infringement thing is becoming more obvious to judges.

Another go?

[Amorymeltzer]

Well, doesn't this mean they get a second try? I mean, throwing it out is awesome, but it could still happen again, now that they know all that they do.

RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[devnullkac]

Read literally, I suppose this means a $222K verdict is roaming the countryside, looking for someone to ... adopt it?

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Dmala]

I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[NotBornYesterday]

the editing is very pour.

FTFY

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Sockatume]

I assumed it meant they lost it down the sofa with all their artists' royalty payments. "Whoops!"

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[BronsCon]

I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor.

Yeah, I hope the editor that made the error loses there ass over it.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

> for all intensive purposes ...

As opposed to all light, casual purposes? For all intents and purposes, many posters' editing isn't much better?

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/intensive.html

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF is with your grammar? I think my head just exploded.

1) of -> have
2) there -> they're
3) their -> there
4) intensive purposes -> intents and purposes
5) could care less -> could not care less / couldn't care less

(I'll assume a that whooshing sound I just heard was the joke...)

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

All the obvious editorial mistakes in the GP, and this is the one you home in on??

Where's my clue-bat...

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[ValuJet]

It is nice to see someone else around here who doesn't talk like a fag

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

Might want to have that sarcasm detector looked at, I think it's broken.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

I know there doing the best they can over their...

I hope this is a joke, but it is they're and there.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[McFly69]

Found it! ..... And its coming home with me :)

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Waffle Iron]

I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.

Which begs the question: Irregardless of wether your disinterested in this verdict, do you tow the line on copywrite law in general?

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Hellpop]

I was wondering if all they did was LOOSE the verdict, that would mean that there is still a chance they can WIN, right?

Hasn't anyone heard of editing? Sheesh...

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[reiley]

I know there doing the best they can over their

Over there

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[BronsCon]

"Woosh!" indeed!

Try looking at the italicized words.

-----

or....

I see what they did there... now that you pointed it out...

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

For all INTENTS and purposes, you're editing is not much better.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[A440Hz]

I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.

You mean there, I assume.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

Hear that? That's the sound of you missing the joke.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

the best they can over their

there

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

All this typo naziing and you guys miss 'intensive purposes'? Good lord.

INTENTS and PURPOSES, good sir. Learn it, live it, love it.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrections:

couldn't of > couldn't have
I know there > I know they're
over their > over there
intensive purposes > intents and purposes

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.

[sic]

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[quincunx55555]

Oh Please! Do it right!

Eye couldn't of said it better myself. Aye no there doing the best they can over their, but four awl intensive purposes the editing is very pour. As fore the verdict itself, I could care less.

Does that make me an Anti-Grammar Nazi?

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[eredin]

Wow. What a sorry lot of grammar and joke impaired grammar nazis...

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[91degrees]

You sir, are evil. You know this site is full of grammar pedants with OCD and still you posted this.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

"intents and" not "intensive."

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[steelfood]

Maybe they just couldn't find their promissory note among the stacks of files they submitted to the court system. It would be poetic justic if true, but alas, things just don't work out that way.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Dmala]

How could I possibly resist? The only thing more enticing would be a big, red button labeled "Do not push."

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't of said it better myself. I know there doing the best they can over their, but for all intensive purposes the editing is very poor. As for the verdict itself, I could care less.

Uh, don't you mean that you COULDN'T care less?

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[sunwukong]

Does that make me an Anti-Grammar Messiah?

FTFY

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

And I couldn't HAVE thought I'd see someone on Slashdot substitute the word "have" with "of".
Retard.

Re:RIAA Looses $222K Verdict

[Anonymous Coward]

and for all intents and purposes too, as well as intensive purposes!

Looses?

[HaeMaker]

Was it around their neck like a noose and they loosened it?

Re:So What's Next?

[mazarin5]

Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.

It's in the first fucking paragraph of the article!

Re:So What's Next?

[Cathoderoytube]

They can, but only before the next full moon. If they fail to file before that time their lawyers will have to return to hell until the next equinox..

Now reverse the charges

[Maxo-Texas]

and get them for attorney's fees and mental anguish.

Re:Now reverse the charges

[magus_melchior]

Ms. Thomas isn't in as good a position as Tanya Andersen, so she'll have a very hard time getting a countersuit to stick.

Technically . . .

[UnknowingFool]

The RIAA didn't lose. The judge declared a mistrial. If both sides cannot come to a settlement, there will be a new trial. The judge determined he made an error in the jury instructions. Specifically in #15, he told them that making a song available could be considered as copyright infringement. On another note, he did call the $222K reward excessive. So even if Jammie Thomas loses the next trial, it will be unlikely she will have to face such a large damage award.

Re:Technically . . .

[Krinsath]

Actually, he calls on Congress to review the penalties of the Copyright Act. The Act was intended to penalize "competitor's" who engaged in the infringement where income was earned on the enterprise, not so much a consumer who is actually getting nothing in the process. Hence why the damages seem so excessive, the law wasn't really designed to cope with these circumstances. The infringing party makes no money on the enterprise and are usually private individuals...applying a "business" penalty to an individual is why they seem so grossly out of proportion.

That said, the fact that the law wasn't designed with the situation in mind does not mean they can ignore it since there's no other law on the topic. So if she's found guilty again she will likely face the same "penalty" scheme that she had previously. Hence why he asks Congress to amend the law and is simply characterizing the judgment, not throwing it out. There's nothing truly unconstitutional about the law, it's just not being used against the targets that the writers had in mind when the law was written.

Re:Technically . . .

[JoeMerchant]

In the old days, warez exchangers would require a newbie to send something to them first before sharing anything - something about entrapment if the investigator would do something illegal to gain the marks' trust. The last paragraph of the article mentions that distribution to MediaSentry would constitute infringement - I wonder if P2P networks will be adopting the old "send me one first" mechanism in light of this?

Re:Technically . . .

[Abcd1234]

That said, the fact that the law wasn't designed with the situation in mind does not mean they can ignore it since there's no other law on the topic.

If it's a jury trial, they certainly can ignore the law if they choose.

Re:Technically . . .

[moderatorrater]

The Act was intended to penalize "competitor's" who engaged in the infringement where income was earned on the enterprise, not so much a consumer who is actually getting nothing in the process

That's funny, because I thought the DMCA specifically put in ridiculous sums of money where consumers were doing the pirating. They might have justified it by saying that it was for use with corporations, but the way I read it leaves little doubt in my mind that they wanted it used against consumers as well.

Re:Technically . . .

[RulerOf]

it's just not being used against the targets that the writers had in mind when the law was written.

When MAFIAA agents wrote that bill and lobbied to get it signed, they damn well intended it to be used to ruin the lives of anyone who would later cross their paths, irrespective of any profit motives other than their own.

The law is irresponsibly unfair and unjust, quite possibly even to the wealthiest and most criminal of piracy enterprises.

Re:Technically . . .

[blueg3]

Possibly, but the primary goal of the DMCA was to target companies or individuals who produce tools to assist consumers in copyright violations, not the copyright-violators themselves.

Re:Technically . . .

[Dragoon412]

There's nothing truly unconstitutional about the law

Actually, that's not entirely true.

The leading case on the constitutionality of damages is BMW v. Gore. You can read it here if you're interested.

Out of that case came three guideposts that the Supreme Court uses to assess whether or not damages are constitutional.

1. The degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct
2. The portion of the damages that are compensatory
3. Statutory punitive damages/penalties that could be imposed

So, that the statute allows such damages only satisfies one of the three guideposts. However, punitive damages in this case vastly outstripped the compensatory damages. I remember reading it in an article when the verdict was announced, but the punitive:compensatory damages were, what, on the order of 9000:1? The court has said, in Phillip Morris USA v. Williams, that damages that were only 100:1 punitive:compensatory were "grossly excessive."

The only issue to be resolved, at this point, is how reprehensible the court finds the defendant's conduct.

It seems to me that, if this question of damages managed to get before the US Supreme Court, it'd be thrown out as unconstitutional in a hurry.

But I'm just a law student offering my armchair lawyer analysis. Take the above with a grain of salt.

Re:Technically . . .

[John Hasler]

The DMCA has nothing to do with this case.

Re:Technically . . .

[Xocet_00]

Couldn't the RIAA simply grant MediaSentry the rights to distribute the music of all its members? That would render the "send me one first" action legal, and avoid the entrapment claims, would it not?

Re:Technically . . .

[John Hasler]

> The only issue to be resolved, at this point, is how reprehensible the court finds the
> defendant's conduct.

In addition to the issue of whether any infringement occurred at all.

Re:Technically . . .

[mapsjanhere]

only if MediaSentry would distribute with attached copy right notice ;)
Joke aside, the issue is if "acting on behalf of the copyright holder" makes anything they do non-infringing. So giving them explicit distribution rights makes that hurdle even higher for the RIAA. Plus it's always hard to get a jury to find for you if you so obviously trapped.

Re:Technically . . .

[AlexCorn]

I was recently considered for jury duty in a cocaine selling/possession case. One of the screening questions the potential jurors were asked was "Do you have any problems with the Indiana drug laws?" I said yes, that they should be repealed. The judge asked if I was capable of making a distinction between what the law said and what I believed. I said yes, of course, and brought up jury nullification. He said that we don't do that anymore, and I was dismissed from jury duty.

Re:Technically . . .

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The Act was intended to penalize "competitor's" who engaged in the infringement where income was earned on the enterprise, not so much a consumer who is actually getting nothing in the process. Hence why the damages seem so excessive, the law wasn't really designed to cope with these circumstances. The infringing party makes no money on the enterprise and are usually private individuals...applying a "business" penalty to an individual is why they seem so grossly out of proportion.

Actually, the act exclusively and explicitly applied only to people who earned income on distribution. It was only 10 years ago that the act was amended to include not-for-profit distribution. But the judge is right that the penalties were never adjusted downward when that happened.

Re:Technically . . .

[Krinsath]

Agreed. I think the RIAA took the stupid route here of suing the "distributors" rather than the people who actually make the copies.

Of course, nothing about suing your own customer base seems like a smart idea, so I suppose it's really just par for the course.

Re:Technically . . .

[Rich0]

And yet, they can't actually stop you from doing it (unless you say that you're doing it).

Basically, it is don't ask, don't tell. Or in some cases, ask, but don't tell.

As long as you offer a reasonable prima facie reason for your verdict, nothing can be done about it - or about you.

Re:Technically . . .

[The Moof]

They could just go the route of major retailers: $221,999.99.

Or even gas stations: $221,999.999

Re:Technically . . .

[Rockoon]

If the RIAA grants MediaSentry the rights to distribute, and they do so to get on the "good side" of a pirates sharing quota, then pirates no longer need to pirate whatever it is being distributed.. MediaSentry will send it to you for free!!!!111one!!11one

Re:Technically . . .

[cpt kangarooski]

However, punitive damages in this case vastly outstripped the compensatory damages.

No, actually. There really aren't punitive damages available for copyright infringement. Whether actual or statutory, the damages are considered to be compensatory. The closest it comes is that willful infringement can raise the ceiling on statutory damages.

no dept?

[qw0ntum]

Wow, this story has no "from the blah-blah dept." tag on there. It is indeed a story of great magnitude.

Re:So What's Next?

[Jimmyisikura]

"Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution"

Call me cynical

[LuxMaker]

but this is just what the *IAA needs to push through tougher legislation.

And Judge Davis went further, "implor[ing] Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases..."

How many people want to guess that "Copyright reform" turns draconian?

Re:Call me cynical

[magus_melchior]

How many people want to guess that "Copyright reform" turns draconian?

You mean it isn't already, thanks to Bono's Disney Defense Act and the DMCA?

The only thing that is still keeping the RIAA labels and MPAA studios in power is their iron-fisted control over the creation and distribution of "mainstream" music and motion pictures. Once more people take media creation and distribution into their own hands, Berne Convention terms will become an annoyance rather than an advantage to the big media businesses. Their answer will always be to crush the ability for the small indie producer to make or distribute their stuff; we see this in action when an RIAA-sanctioned company collects royalties for everyone, not just RIAA members, and when the web radio community is threatened with financial extermination by fiat.

A few things can slow them down: important legal victories in the RIAA driftnet campaign that establish case law, and cutting lobbying and campaign contribution influence down to size, if not eliminating it. But the best way to break the cartels' backs is to encourage and support indie artists who stay away from the major labels and studios, and avoid buying products from labels and studios known to either participate in the driftnet or other consumer-hostile measures.

It won't be easy, and it will certainly take time, organization, and a lot of dedicated people. But the current Presidential campaigns (in particular, Ron Paul and Barack Obama) demonstrate that a concerted effort can be assembled nationwide through the Internet.

We just have to get out of our basements and brave the day-star. Well, that's what cell phones are for, IMO.

Re:Call me cynical

[Warhawke]

You mean like the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 (S.3325), which proposes that copyright violation, a civil matter, will no longer have to have a "preponderance of evidence" to initiate a trial, and that the civil infractions can be pursued and prosecuted by a new czar branch of the FBI? Oh, and statutory damages for "willful" trademark violation are doubled, up to $2 million. Plus, the government reserves the right to search and seize any property used to violate copyrights and trademarks.

You can thank Leahy for that one. I am ashamed that my senators are co-sponsors...

As a side note, COPS would certainly become more interesting if the FBI showed up for every domestic violence case...

If your first name is "Jammy"

[gad_zuki!]

Then you still lose.

Duh!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly what the title says. They lost the verdict. They had a guilty verdict now they have no verdict.

Re:Duh!

[BronsCon]

Those pesky pirates stole our verdict using P2P!

more links

[apodyopsis]

well in the UK "Jammy" is slang for "Lucky" - and yes, she is.

so what does this mean for the other **AA cases on the go? whilst its good news for Jammy, having legal weight behind the concept that "making available" is flawed no doubt helps everybody else as well.

am I right?

the main link is already dead (for me) but you can see more here..
http://news.google.co.uk/news?q=Jammy+Thomas&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

so she is facing retrial, but already the previous damages award is dismissed as "wholly disproportionate". I wonder if the **AA will offer her a lower fine, something negligible to admit liability and end the case? I mean, its a dirty tactic - but probably well within their remit. they make the money from people who fold and they try to avoid court cases they think they may not win - but they obviously thought they'd win this one first time round and the evidence is unchanged.

of course, the lawyers will win regardless...

Mediasentry issues

[Volante3192]

One point brought up in the articles is that it's possible the MediaSentry downloads are unauthorized copies, which seems to be necessary since if the RIAA authorizes the copy, then technically they're not infringing copyright and hence have to basis for a lawsuit.

However, if the copies by MediaSentry are not authorized, then by not prosecuting MediaSentry for illicit downloads, aren't they undermining their own case by not going after every case of infringement?

Just idle thoughts...

Re:Mediasentry issues

[ShaunC]

One point brought up in the articles is that it's possible the MediaSentry downloads are unauthorized copies, which seems to be necessary since if the RIAA authorizes the copy, then technically they're not infringing copyright and hence have to basis for a lawsuit.

Whether or not MediaSentry was authorized to download the file is irrelevant. Mitch Bainwol himself could be doing the downloading, it's still illegal for Jammy Thomas to do the (alleged) uploading.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[TheLinuxSRC]

That depends on your point of view. Did Jammie Thomas make the illegal copy? Or did she just provide someone else (the downloader) the means to make a copy. If she did not make a copy she has (technically) not infringed on anyone's copyright. I know, I know; semantics, but that is up to the court to decide.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[doug]

Uploading, downloading, whatever. It is copying that is important. In your example, Jammy didn't copy anything; Mitch Bainwol did. Anything involving putting in on the network is merely shifting. I'll agree that Jammy didn't do a good job of securing the shifted files, but I don't think that he is required to. We don't have many laws requiring you to lock your door.

I hope MediaSentry gets it in the shorts on this one. If it is acting as a representative of the RIAA, it might not be an infringing copy. If they are not acting on RIAA's behalf, then they should be held liable.

Yes, MediaSentry is paid by RIAA, but because they are not licensed PIs, RIAA is having to back away from them a bit. I think the official relationship depends upon which court is hearing the case.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[Wylfing]

Whether or not MediaSentry was authorized to download the file is irrelevant...it's still illegal for Jammy Thomas to do the (alleged) uploading.

Correct. Since we are only talking about civil matters, not criminal, there is no burden upon the plaintiff to apply uniformity among whom they choose sue. Put another way, civil suits are about redressing harm, and the plaintiff himself is the sole party in charge of saying who has harmed him and who hasn't. The RIAA can merely say "We see no harm in MediaSentry's filesharing" and that's the end of it.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[sbeckstead]

I think what every one has missed is that even if Media Sentry is authorized to have a copy the person delivering it IE the distributor (in this case the defendant) is still not authorized to provide that copy. So even though Media Sentry are authorized to receive it, you are still in the wrong to provide it for them to download and by downloading it they prove you are illegally distributing their files. I am not a lawyer but this seems obvious to me so it must be to the legal people.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[The Moof]

Depending on the p2p software you're using, you're usually uploading completed parts of the file while downloading the missing ones. So by downloading with, say, eMule (as an example), you're actually uploading the file right back out as it comes in.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[Volante3192]

My Google-fu is lacking today, but I know for trademarks, companies have to diligently protect their name even in seemingly absurd instances (changing 'Kleenex' to 'facial tissue' in novels for example) in order to establish a credible defense of their trademark for the times when it IS a critical case.

I was under the impression that copyrights had the same sort of diligence attached to them. If the RIAA willingly lets some infringment happen, that would show they are not pursuing all infringement claims with the same diligence. In fact, there's reports of CEO's children and presidential campaigns infringing on copyright and they haven't been prosecuted. ...and if copyrights don't have that same trail of diligent protection like trademarks have, they should.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[drquoz]

I wholly agree with you. I don't understand how distributing to MediaSentry can be prosecuted, especially since in some states MediaSentry may be operating illegally. The way I see it:

Situation 1: MediaSentry is working for the RIAA illegally. Therefore, they should not be suing.

Situation 2: MediaSentry is working for the RIAA legally, thereby representing the copyright holders and making the file transfer legal. Therefore, they should not be suing.

Either they're operating illegally or they're downloading their own music. It doesn't make any sense.

Re:Mediasentry issues

[Anonymous Coward]

That depends on your point of view. Did Jammie Thomas make the illegal copy? Or did she just provide someone else (the downloader) the means to make a copy.

Another way of putting it: is a library responsible for leaving books on shelves and having xerox machines available to anyone that walks in, should someone decide to copy a book? Or is it the person that is copying the book that is solely responsible? Since the "making available" claim has been struck down, unless she is found to have specifically placed files into shared directories and advertised them, knowing the purpose was to let others make copies, then she is as liable as the library.

tm

Re:Mediasentry issues

[shentino]

If anyone uploads to MS *believing* it to be a member of the general public, it counts as circumstantial evidence that you probably WOULD do it to a real public member.

Of course, the little part about MS being unlicensed may bring in "unclean hands".

Re:Mediasentry issues

[drquoz]

File sharers should start tagging their music "for MediaSentry use only." ;-)

Charge her $24

[ilovesymbian]

If she's charged at the market rate of $0.99 per song, she'll owe the music companies $24.00 plus tax.

Let her pay it and be done over with.

Re:Charge her $24

[DaveV1.0]

You have forgotten the punitive damages for violating the rights of the copyright holders.

Re:Charge her $24

[corsec67]

Generally lawsuits like that should have a fine that is worse than just buying the item. Otherwise people would infringe on copyrights all the time, since the worse fine would be equal to paying to begin with.

In this case, I think the maximum fine should be what she would have gotten for actually stealing the songs. Like from a brick and mortar store.

Re:Charge her $24

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't steal a loaf of bread, get caught, and expect the store to say, "Well, just pay for it and you can go." I'm not saying I agree with the RIAA, their practices, or their charges. It's just that there are consequences to breaking the law. Paying what everyone else is paying is not a punishment.

Re:Charge her $24

[Spy der Mann]

You have forgotten the punitive damages for violating the rights of the copyright holders.

Fine, make it $240 :)

Re:Charge her $24

[magus_melchior]

Capitol Records is calling for infringement damages on the order of "messing with our business". The judge prudently calls for a review of copyright law, such that small-scale infringement like this should not be treated like the bootlegger in Russia or Hong Kong. Capitol, and the other RIAA member labels, claim they are one and the same. We and the judge know better, but this ain't in the current statutes, whereas the labels are trying to solidify this in case law through litigation and lobbying.

Re:Charge her $24

[Locklin]

While $222,000 is a stupid amount, she's either innocent (or within fair use) or she's guilty and needs to pay a significant fine.

Suppose someone distributes Linux without source. Fining the person for the market value would be pointless. The fine needs to be large enough to provide a deterrent to future infringement. I would hazard to guess that a sufficient deterrent to casual, non-profit infringement would be about the cost of a speeding ticket.

Re:Charge her $24

[OneIfByLan]

Yep, I completely agree. Usually, petty theft of something worth twenty bucks isn't even prosecuted -- it's not worth the court or DA's time. If some incredibly junior member of the DA's office decided he needed practice filling out the forms, then the normal result is Deferred Adjudication, basically "Promise not to do this again, or we'll actually charge you with something."

So, by your standards, this case should be settled with the Defendant promising not to do it again, and perhaps spending her Saturday attending a class.

Re:Charge her $24

[PKFC]

Make it $0.99 and have 15 cents go to the service provider (KaZaA), 45 cents go to the RIAA, 35 cents to the artist and 4 cents to tax or however the break down is

Re:Charge her $24

[bidule]

Except she's not charged with stealing songs, but with distributing them. Since zillions of copies might have been distributed, she should pay a few zillion dollars. Notwithstanding some so-called facts that totally oppose truthiness, like her upload bandwidth cap.

BTW, moderators: insightful does not mean "I wish it was true".
I have points, and I would have moderated the parent post as interesting, but it shows such a total lack of understanding of the case that it can in no way be construed insightful.

Re:Charge her $24

[Forbman]

...unless it's Wal-Mart.

Re:Charge her $24

[isBandGeek()]

Legally, statutory damages for copyright infringement (see here for more information) can be a lot more than the actual cost of theft. The original reason was that pirate businesses (the target of this legislation) could hide the number of copies that they made. The effect is a deterrent effect on all copyright infringers, but only if the legislation has teeth. With this trial, the RIAA intended to show the financial consequences of file sharing. That is more valuable than if they received the $222k, which I doubt the woman can pay anyways. They don't want it to be over with.

That being said, the RIAA may win this battle (by means of the retrial), but it will ultimately lose the war because it is sticking to its antiquated business model.

Re:Charge her $24

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's charged at the market rate of $0.99 per song, she'll owe the music companies $24.00 plus tax. Let her pay it and be done over with.

They aren't going after her for downloading. They are upset because she was caught uploading, so you need to charger her $1 per upload too. That would still be far less than $222K.

Re:Charge her $24

[AK Marc]

While $222,000 is a stupid amount, she's either innocent (or within fair use) or she's guilty and needs to pay a significant fine.

She "stole" $20 worth of stuff. Fines of even 3 times the actual damages have been found to be excessive (like Exxon's fine for the spill). So she should pay a significant fine of three to four times the value of the items, which would still be less than $100.

Re:Charge her $24

[DinDaddy]

I wonder how opinion against these suits would go if that was the level of penalties involved? Seems like it become sort of like speeding, most people would do it a little bit, but the penalties for flagrant transgressions might discourage it. People might download a dozen albums, where they might end up on the hook for a few thousand dollars, but be pretty unlikely to build up libraries of 5000 songs knowing they would make themselves a target for a bankrupting penalty. Sort of like it used to be when people would tape a friend's records.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.

It's in the first fucking paragraph of the article!

There's an article?

Not So Fast

[Nom du Keyboard]

Not so fast here with the bubbly. This judge still says that copyright infringement can be shown by "circumstantial evidence", rather than the strict proof of the details of actual infringement required by the law and court decisions. And that (in another related case) downloads by MediaSentry count as infringement even thought MediaSentry is a paid agent of the copyright holder and the law has long held that a copyright owner cannot infringe their own copyrights. While all this is good news, it is yet to be great news.

Re:Not So Fast

[m0rph3us0]

What is "strict proof"? Many people are convicted purely on circumstantial evidence, think Hans Reiser where they really had no proof she was even dead. The standard in civil cases (which this is) is even lower. Criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and in civil cases is "based on a preponderance of the evidence".

Re:Not So Fast

[shentino]

Hans led them right to the body.

For circumstantial, it's pretty slam dunk.

Re:Not So Fast

[Forbman]

The case during the trial was based on circumstantial evidence. He showed them the body of his wife only after his conviction in order to get a slightly reduced sentence.

Re:Not So Fast

[shentino]

I guess you got a point.

What I tried to say was that, since there WAS a body that he knew where was, karma has good aim.

Karma tends to cause lots of things to work better than they should in an imperfect world.

Personally, I despise the legal system. My emotion when it gets things right is not happiness, but relief.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

RTFA has a much nicer ring to it than RTFFFPOTA.

Hating the RIAA does not work

[Dan667]

Really if you want to stop the RIAA you need to start posting hate on the companies that support it. Once you start to hurt their brands and people stop buying their products, because of the negative press, and the RIAA will cease to exist. Everyone hates the RIAA, but no one hates those who fund it yet. So hate on these companies SONY WARNER EMI UNIVERSAL ...

Re:Hating the RIAA does not work

[O('_')O_Bush]

"Once you start to hurt their brands and people stop buying their products, because of the negative press, and the RIAA will cease to exist."

No, historically they have just used the loss of profit in their figures for pirated musics.

"We've had x loss this quarter! There is no explanation other than that people must be pirating music and causing us financial harm! Nevermind the shit music we produce and the media attention from the lawsuit we just filed against a dead person..."

Re:Hating the RIAA does not work

[Spy der Mann]

But how can you boycott their albums and movies? Yeah, right. I can picture you standing besides the line for the premiere of IronMan 2 holding a cardboard saying "The MPAA is screwing america" or something. Let's see what the people in the line tell you.

Bread and circuses.

Re:Hating the RIAA does not work

[Dan667]

Actually, these companies are very sensitive to their brands. If you start getting everyone to say Sony sucks and it affects their sales, they will change their behavior. Look at what EA is doing with Spore and DRM.

WRONG.

[SuperBanana]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/09/not-for-publica.html

Still, Judge Davis' decision does not derail the RIAA's case against Thomas on retrial or any other pending or future case. Davis ruled that the downloads from Thomas' open share folder that RIAA investigators made, 24 in all, "can form the basis of an infringment claim."

Or how about http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/25/jammie_thomas_again/

The judge in Jammie Thomas' challenge to her landmark $220,000 fine for sharing music over KaZaa has declared a mistrial, forcing yet another court case.

I don't expect Joe Blo's blog to get this right, but I do expect ZDNet and Slashdot to.

Re:WRONG.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't expect Joe Blo's blog to get this right, but I do expect ZDNet and Slashdot to.

You must be new here. Neither of those two sources have been any more creditable than Joe Blo's blog in several years.

From TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK (IANAL) a mistrial means that the same evidence and INTENT is used in the prosecution of the defendant. such as:

"Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution." (Direct from TFA)

But it is interesting to note that:

"The decision means the RIAA now has zero wins at trial, Wired notes." (from TFA)

So far, it seems that the RIAA is nothing more than a paper tiger, and there is much ado about the nothing that is the reporting of all this hoopla.

I do seem to remember (can't cite the examples at the moment) some headlines concerning individuals being brought to trial that had unbeliveable judgements levied at them for "copyright infringement", but no ACTUAL culpability against the plaintiff.

Re:So What's Next?

[CodeBuster]

Right, still it seems "unsporting", as the British might say, about trying her again. I hope that the RIAA doesn't, but that is probably to much to expect from such an ethically bankrupt organization.

Re:So What's Next?

[Piranhaa]

Unless of course this is based on true life...

RIAA books

[krystar]

isn't it awesome to be part of the RIAA though? you get all this money from the record companies and get to use it without any recouping of costs. all they do is spend spend spend. track record for income is ...zilch.

Re:RIAA books

[sabre3999]

Their income is only zilcho if you choose to ignore the large amount of out-of-court settlements they've obtained from those who don't want to go through a legal battle. I'm sure it doesn't totally make up for all they've spent, but it's still gotta be worth quite the pretty penny.

Epic FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

For the RIAA... w00t!

Re:Epic FAIL

[LunarEffect]

And Fepic Ale for us? =D

Re:Epic FAIL

[Anonymous Coward]

And Fepic Ale for us? =D

Sure, why not.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's an article?

Yup - I checked and (to my surprise) there actually is. Looks like Slashdot has making more changes lately than just breaking the front page with JavaScript.

CAN

[SmallFurryCreature]

The word is CAN constitute, not DOES constitute. This is what the next trial will most likely be about.

Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to jail. What might still win the case is that mediasentry is NOT a cop.

Even if mediasentry is allowed to perform the actions of a sworn in police officer, they would still have to proof there method of detection is accurate.

Further more, if it counts as distribution, so what? They got proof you uploaded it to one person. Big deal. 1 dollar per song, you need to have pretty big share going on to have to worry about that fine.

Because the really big thing in this judgement is the judge saying that the damages were excessive. That is going to hurt the RIAA the most. This judge EVEN if the case had been been proven would most likely still have lowered the damages. That could seriously hurt the RIAA. Why settle for a couple thousand when the fine is going to be little more? And if the settlement is going to be a couple hundred, how are they going to pay their lawyers?

Re:CAN

[John Hasler]

> Granted, most likely it will count because if you sell drugs to a cop you still go to
> jail.

Irrelevant. Selling illegal drugs is a crime regardless of who you sell them to. Distributing music is only a tort (no crime involved here) if you do so without the permission of the copyright owner. How could giving a copy to the copyright owner be said to have been done without said owner's permission? And even if it could how could doing so damage them?

For that matter did MediaSentry ever produce proof that they actually downloaded the files? Aren't many of these cases based on just having observed the file names?

Re:CAN

[autocracy]

Telling me that I can't prove you're committing a civil infraction by showing that you would distribute to me without any knowledge that you were given permission is bullshit. Being the party capable of giving permission doesn't make it legal when I haven't given you permission. Your argument is bullshit.

"Making available" is also bullshit, and I'm glad that was vacated. If you didn't get a full copy from somebody, get bent. Seeing an index listing is insufficient.

Re:CAN

[fwarren]

The problem then is where did this media sentry evidence come from? They are not a licensed investigation service. I am sure that issue will be revisited.

Re:FUCK artists

[Anonymous Coward]

FUCK artists, and FUCK their rights! How dare the RIAA go after individual infringers, even though it's what Slashdotters said they should do back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit.

I deserve to have people's work for free because I can. Artists are my personal slaves. Somebody else will pay them, by buying show tickets or t-shirts or something. I don't care. FUCK THEM.

Straw man arguments are lies.

Timing

[wfstanle]

I too would like a lot of media attention but let's be realistic. With all that is happening now, they will bury news of it to where you will be forced to hunt for it. It's important news, but it will not get much public attention. In this respect, the RIAA is lucky because the timing is good for them. They may have lost a battle but the war will still continue.

Re:So What's Next?

[internerdj]

What's an article? We are all slashdot readers here.

Re:FUCK artists

[SpiderClan]

1. Paying major media companies != Paying artists
2. Going after individual infringers != Throwing out lawsuits at random in the hope of settlements and the occasional success

Re:So What's Next?

[street struttin']

What's an article?

Vexatious

[UnixUnix]

Let the RIAA lose a couple of more such cases and IT can be dubbed a vexatious litigant.

$222K is NOTHING

[InlawBiker]

OK, Hooray for the small guy!

But losing small court battles for six-figure judgments is really nothing for these guys. What they got in exchange was thousands of newspaper articles and blogs talking about people being sued for file sharing. The FUD Factory worked! You can't buy that kind of press. Anything under a million is a bargain.

Re:$222K is NOTHING

[somanyrobots]

OK, Hooray for the small guy!

But losing small court battles for six-figure judgments is really nothing for these guys. What they got in exchange was thousands of newspaper articles and blogs talking about people being sued for file sharing. The FUD Factory worked! You can't buy that kind of press. Anything under a million is a bargain.

That's a fact. While we don't have any good idea about exactly how many people the **AA have gone after, best estimates put it at 20,000 to 30,000 people. We have no idea how many of those cases have been settled, but it's safe to say "the vast majority". 20,000 * $3000 per case = 60 million dollars.

$60,000,000 extorted from their customers.

Now, does somebody want to estimate their legal fees?

Re:$222K is NOTHING

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

My guesstimates, for what they're worth, are that
-the RIAA has gone after ~40,000 people
-it's gotten around 25,000 default judgments
-it's collected almost nothing on the default judgments
-it's gotten around 10,000 settlements at an average of $3000, for a total of $30 million
-it's spent around $100 million.

Re:So What's Next?

[Rolgar]

But you can't blame the RIAA for the judge's mistake. Since they can't bring back the original jury, legally, this is like the original case never happened. I hope RIAA will be on the hook for the defendant's lawyer fees for both trials if they lose this case.

Punitive Damages

[blindd0t]

Yeah, that's a really scary prospect. There's a 1 in 3 chance you'll get your dick ripped off. (Not sure if this is sfw)

Re:So What's Next?

[camperslo]

"Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution"

Even if they do prove distribution, the claims of damages per track should be fought. It's as if the people involved don't understand how file availability works with torrent p2p sharing.

If someone downloads 5 tracks and seeds each to 1:1 ratio, what they've sent out on the net has only replaced copies (in pieces and blocks) that they got instead of someone else. In that case the net increase in copies going to others is ZERO making the damages only the lost-sale revenue for the downloader. At 1:1 seeding ratio, no additional copies go to others as compared with what existing seeding on the net would have provided had the downloader not transfered the files in and out. The lost revenue is certainly no higher than the cost of the same tracks on iTMS or another commercial source. It could be argued that the track value is even lower since a portion of the iTMS price covers bandwidth cost so that amount in not lost profits.
It is only when seeding above 1:1 ratio that a downloader/uploader has actually done something to result in an increased number of copies going to others online over what would have occurred had they not participated. For the entire group of peers, each contributes to distribution by their seeding ratio minus one to allow for availability being reduced by what went to them instead of others.
It is not reasonable to hold a particular peer responsible for the seeding action of others.

This discussion also illustrates why torrents die off if people fail to seed adequately.

Cases of higher damages should be reserved for cases where material not otherwise available is leaked onto the net in violation of a license or NDA that applies, or material an uploader bought under license violates the license and then distributes a measurable number of copies on the net.

Wrong, she only "made available"

[Anonymous Coward]

The RIAA sued her for "making available", so that's not under dispute by either party. And the judge has knocked on the head the theory that this was copying.

So, since thus far there is no evidence presented that she carried out copying, as her only involvement was making available, then if an act of copying occurred it must have been done by someone else, unless new evidence is presented.

In the absence of new evidence, the only party to have made a copy is MediaSentry. Therefore, as things stand she cannot be sued, and the RIAA is obviously not going to sue MediaSentry, so there is currently no case of any kind in the absence of new evidence.

Re:From TFA

[magus_melchior]

Given how a certain Presidential campaign is applying its own reality distortion field, I wouldn't be surprised if RIAA labels claim this as a win, along with all of the paid extortions/settlements from people without the knowledge, counsel, and/or resources with which to defend themselves. In fact, the odds are still stacked against Thomas, even though Capitol now has to prove actual distribution.

Winning is increasingly becoming not about who wins in actuality, but about who forms consensus about who won or not.

And no, IANAL, unless "armchair QBs" are all actual QBs.

Nelson Muntz Reply

[Anonymous Coward]

HA! HA!

President Pelosi

[tepples]

So Vice President Cheney has turned down the presidency in a Sherman statement. If President Bush is out of commission, and Cheney refuses the promotion, who becomes President? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi?

Re:So What's Next?

[i_liek_turtles]

"a", "an", and "the"

Those are the only articles I know of.

Excessive Damages

[maz2331]

It is possible that the statutory damages could be overturned as "excessive" by the appellate courts. They have ruled that punitive damages of hundreds ro thousands of times the compensatory award are unconstitutional before.

It's concievable that they will follow the same reasoning with the statutory damages too, although that is far from certain.

You might make a hero of him.

[tjstork]

mpeaching him now would cause a close examination of all of his unconstitutional policies, and get a lot of them thrown out, or at least dragged out into the light so future presidents won't be able to use them.

Careful. You might just find that a lot of people would like what was found and that your side would be invariably painted as anti-American. What would happen is, the Nixon effect. Nixon was never really popular until after he was booted from Office. But, once all the stuff that he and Kissinger did became public, a lot of people who are big into national security and winning suddenly found that Nixon was their man after all. He was rehabilated into a "great statesmen", and now he's looked at as a good Cold Warrior. I mean, by the time a lot of the Nixon revelations came out, to some extent, many Democrats would take a look at Carter and say, Nixon would have done something, a perception that helped propel Reagan into the White House. Remember that in early Reagan years they used to actually talk about how he would chat with Nixon and Henry the K in matters of cold war brinkmanship.

To move that to today, let's say it came out that Bush had the CIA crawling all over New Orleans immediate post Katrina and was assasinating looters, but there was some operational weather problem that wrecked the plan, or that, he had secretly invaded Pakistan and Iran and had actually sabotaged the industrial capacity of any number of nations that were believed to be hiding Bin Laden, he would lock down the center-right base for sure. I mean, if Cheney's secret conversation revealed that Bush saw the coming peak oil, went through a phase of trying to secretly re-open talks with Saddam, but was rebuffed, and -then-, he invaded because Saddam did some covert anti-American thing... then, a lot of people would see the war in an entirely more positive light.

Similarly, if there did emerge some conspiracy that the struggles of the US financial system were part of a set of financial moves of the US against China or the world, then, Bush comes out ahead, again. Even if he's just paranoid and writing all this stuff down, along with Cheney, Bush comes out ahead.

I mean, the biggest asset Democrats have on Bush right now is that, they've painted him as stupid. But, if Bush is actually documented to be intelligent but evil, then, a lot more people are going to like him and you'll make a saint out of him.

Re:You might make a hero of him.

[VShael]

if Bush is actually documented to be intelligent but evil, then, a lot more people are going to like him and you'll make a saint out of him.

Sheesh! Only in America, can you make a saint out of someone who is documented to be evil.

Re:You might make a hero of him.

[tmosley]

Vlad the Impaler is a national hero in Hungary. He was a war hero who turned back the Turks and saved Europe from a Muslim invasion, yet today, he's a "vampire".

Bush will never be remembered in such a way, simply because he HASN'T done anything to help America, only presided over it's decline. Nixon was known during his time to have opened up China.

In practice, there is little difference between incompetence and evil, and they should be handled in a similar way.

Slapping down the $240 as unreasonable

[OneIfByLan]

Courts routinely slap down punitive damages that are 10X the actual damages as being grossly unreasonable. Treble damages are the norm, so right now, she owes $72.

Re:So What's Next?

[HappySmileMan]

They could also count it as "They download the song once and then uploaded it once again". Which is simpler to understand, and when worded that way it makes it sound like defendant committed two crimes.

Your logic is of course more correct, but since when does that matter to a jury of mostly randomly chosen people

No, FUCK the RIAA

[Weaselmancer]

How dare the RIAA go after individual infringers, even though it's what Slashdotters said they should do back in 2000 during the Napster lawsuit.

It's all about how you go after them. Jaywalking is illegal. So to stop it, would you mind if we shove a camera up your ass to record where you walk and a set of electrodes on your balls to we can zap you if you look like you might be heading away from the crosswalk?

I deserve to have people's work for free because I can. Artists are my personal slaves.

Actually, it's the RIAA that feels that way. Here, read this bit from Steve Albini. Scroll down to the math part.

Once you're done, read this.

You're an industry shill so I know you won't get the point, but there is a point to be made. It's the RIAA that are fucking over the artists you claim to care so desperately about - not the pirates. For every penny lost to piracy the record execs walk away with truckloads of cash. All in the name of "protecting the artist".

Total bullshit, and you know it.

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[Overly Critical Guy]

It's all about how you go after them. Jaywalking is illegal. So to stop it, would you mind if we shove a camera up your ass to record where you walk and a set of electrodes on your balls to we can zap you if you look like you might be heading away from the crosswalk?

This is such a stupid statement. The RIAA isn't zapping your balls with electrodes. They're filing lawsuits against copyright infringers

You're an industry shill so I know you won't get the point, but there is a point to be made. It's the RIAA that are fucking over the artists you claim to care so desperately about - not the pirates. For every penny lost to piracy the record execs walk away with truckloads of cash. All in the name of "protecting the artist".

Total bullshit, and you know it.

My favorite aspect of pro-piracy Slashdotters and their misinformed opinions is that if you dare defend artists from getting ripped off, you get accused of being an "industry shill."

IF THE RIAA IS FUCKING OVER ARTISTS, HOW IS YOU PIRATING THEIR MUSIC GOING TO HELP THEM?

Did you know artists willingly sign their contracts? Did they ask you to "fight for them?" You're using the same mindless pro-piracy argument that every pirate uses to justify their immoral activities and make themselves feel less guilty. "I'm not the bad guy, the RIAA is! That makes it okay for me to be ripping off artists!"

You're a tool, and you don't even consider the artists who have publicly stated that they don't want people pirating their material. Hell, the MST3K guys have started a program called RiffTrax, and they posted comments to their materials on PirateBay asking people not to download it. EVERYBODY ATTACKED THEM AND INSULTED THEM.

Pirates are freeloaders who just want shit for free. You use morality plays like "the RIAA is evil and screws over artists" to distract people from what you're doing. Period.

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[Weaselmancer]

They're filing lawsuits against copyright infringers

No they're not. Someone "making available" hasn't done anything wrong. Or maybe you're too fucking clueless to understand Judge Michael Davis' conclusion. If I leave a TV on my patio and it gets stolen, am I partially responsible for the theft since I made my TV easily available?

Guess what, bucko. I'm not. And the judge agrees.

My favorite aspect of pro-piracy Slashdotters

Feel free to re-read my post and see where I'm pro piracy. You won't find anything saying that because I'm not.

What I am is pro due process. And I'm against an industry trying to gain police powers to prop up their broken business model. If you need senators to make laws saying that you have to buy a buggy whip with the purchase of every new car - then it might be your product you're trying to sell that's the problem.

Nobody needs the RIAA anymore. In the digital age they're a dinosaur.

IF THE RIAA IS FUCKING OVER ARTISTS, HOW IS YOU PIRATING THEIR MUSIC GOING TO HELP THEM?

I'm not funding the people who are using that money to fuck them over. I don't pirate - I just simply don't buy any music. That's my solution.

It's the least I can do for them. Also totally legal.

You use morality plays like "the RIAA is evil and screws over artists" to distract people from what you're doing. Period.

Ignoring the "you're an evul pirate OMG" part of your post, let's turn the tables a bit.

Defend what the RIAA is doing. If they're the good guys, tell me why you think so. Go ahead and refute that article from Mr. Albini. Don't just lay on with the ad hominem - refute my thesis. Poke holes in my argument.

"The RIAA are a useless dinosaur sitting on top of the music industry sucking up money, stifling personal freedom and established fair use with frivolous and lawsuits and lobbying for orwellian laws to prop up their broken business model, crushing both the artist and consumer alike in a grab for cash to continue their own existence."

Good luck.

Signed,
Summer Glau

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

You use morality plays like "the RIAA is evil and screws over artists" to distract people from what you're doing. Period.

You use unfounded accusations of piracy to distract people from your inability to argue a point. You're a liar. Period.

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[ireallylovelinux]

"Jaywalking is illegal. So to stop it, would you mind if we shove a camera up your ass to record where you walk and a set of electrodes on your balls to we can zap you if you look like you might be heading away from the crosswalk?" Man this comment made the milk come out of my nose! You rock!

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[Weaselmancer]

Thank you, we aim to please. I only hope you were drinking milk at the time. If not I'd see someone about that. ;^)

Re:No, FUCK the RIAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that's it, slink away in shame with your tail between your legs, you craven liar.

Pretend you're not reading this, even though we both know you are.

Pretend you're not shaking with impotent rage and screaming at your monitor right now, pathetically attempting to displace the anger you rightfully feel towards your worthless self.

Pretend you're not responding because you "have better things to do" rather than because you know that you've been caught lying and have no response at all.

Loser.

that should be "unlicensed" investigator

[Peter Simpson]

MediaSentry is having a bit of a problem with the fact that they are not licensed as a private investigator in any state where RIAA has brought suit.

Re:So What's Next?

[Pervaricator General]

This is not EXACTLY like a new trial. The judge significantly shifted the burden of proof from a very light thing (a screen shot of available files) to proof that the files were actually distributed.

An opinion from one of our own

[dkleinsc]

Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here

Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.

Re:An opinion from one of our own

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Ray Beckerman's (a.k.a. NewYorkCountryLawyer) comments can be viewed here [blogspot.com] Apparently legal efforts like his are starting to pay off.

Thank you, dkleinsc. Yes, as Cmdr Taco wryly observed, the tide is turning.

Now what we need is for more people to fight rather than settle, more lawyers to join this worthy cause, and for people to exploit the rich panoply of defenses that are available to them, such as the fact that the RIAA can't collect statutory damages at all if the recording was not registered with the Copyright Office by the time the defendant began file-sharing.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

a, an, the.

Re:So What's Next?

[Fred_A]

They can, but only before the next full moon. If they fail to file before that time their lawyers will have to return to hell until the next equinox..

Couldn't they just draw a fresh blood pentagram and summon new ones ??

Re:So What's Next?

[Bobb Sledd]

It's a small word like "the," "a" or "an."

Re:So What's Next?

[Dun Malg]

They could also count it as "They download the song once and then uploaded it once again". Which is simpler to understand, and when worded that way it makes it sound like defendant committed two crimes.

Of course they then run into the not so minor issue that the law only covers distribution (uploading). Downloading is not really covered by the language of copyright law.

And for those that don't understand

[Sycraft-fu]

Yes a Jury can still nullify. No, there has been no change to the law that makes it illegal or anything. Jury Nullification is a simple fact of how the criminal system in the US works. You can't be put on trial for a crime a second time if you are found innocent. Because of that, an innocent verdict from a jury cannot be subject to review. They can't throw it out, or demand it be done again. While juries are supposed to rule on the facts of the case, not the law, there's nothing stopping them from doing it.

So even if a judge says "You can't consider the law, only the facts," (s)he can't stop the jury from voting innocent if they wish. Barring a repeal of the 5th amendment, there will always be the ability for a jury to nullify in the US. That doesn't mean that juries will be told that they can do so, or that they won't try to filter out jurors who want to, but the people on a jury will have the right to nullify.

There very well may be

[Sycraft-fu]

You may recall the 8th amendment, which states "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." The part we are interested here in is the "nor excessive fine imposed." It would seem to many that the extremely high statutory fines in copyright infringement cases are indeed excessive. They are vastly out of proportion with the harm caused by the crime. When you are, literally, facing fines higher for copying a song than you would for shoplifting a CD with the same song on it, many reasonable people would call that excessive.

Then there's also the whole copyright law itself. The government doesn't automatically have the right to grant copyrights, it is given to them by the Constitution in Article I Section 8. It says "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;"

Ok great, they have the right to grant copyrights... However it isn't unlimited. The reason they can do isn't just because they feel like it, the reason is to promote the arts and sciences. So if the law doesn't serve that purpose, it could well be unconstitutional. Likewise it isn't a forever kind of thing. It specifically says "for limited times". Idea is that stuff falls in to the public domain after a time.

Well one could argue that the current "Life + 50 years" statute fails at both of those. It isn't used to promote the arts, nor is it a limited time, it is used to grant near perpetual copyright to companies so they can stifle new creations.

Re:FUCK artists

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Yeah, and pirating music != Paying artist
2. Artists willingly sign their contracts with those media companies

You just don't want to admit that you're ripping artists off.

Re:So What's Next?

[Basilius]

If someone downloads 5 tracks and seeds each to 1:1 ratio, what they've sent out on the net has only replaced copies (in pieces and blocks) that they got instead of someone else. In that case the net increase in copies going to others is ZERO making the damages only the lost-sale revenue for the downloader.

Uh, no.

1. Let's say Server A is seeding a track. (For sake of simplicity, assume he's got the entire track already.)

2. User T downloads the track from the cloud (if there's more than one server, difficult to track how much was received from each) while simultaneously sending to other peers. (Users B, C, and D.)

If users T, B, and C each seed at 1:1 ratio and D simply leeches, that's the equivalent of a full copy sent by A, B, C, and T, and downloaded by B, C, D, and T.

By your logic, there's no net gain they've only "replaced copies" yet now five people now have the file where only one did before.

Your logic would work if whatever was sent is deleted from the server as it's sent, but that would be silly.

Nope

[Sycraft-fu]

Because most of the judgments, aren't. They are settlements. There's a difference. When you settle a lawsuit, part of what you give up is the ability to appeal it. Both sides are saying, in effect "I find these terms to be satisfactory and to resolve the matter under dispute." So a court can't overturn them. You are free to make lousy settlements if you wish.

For example you could sue me for being ugly. Yes, you really could file a lawsuit for that. Now such a suit would have no hope of going anywhere, it's totally frivolous, not to mention stupid. It would be thrown out pretrial... However you could approach me and ask to settle. If I was a moron, I could choose to do so. If we did settle, well then it's done. I couldn't later object to a judge and ask to have it thrown out. I had my chance, I chose to settle, even though it was stupid, it's done now.

That's one of the reasons why insurance companies often settle even when the claim is BS. If they fight it in court and win, great, but they are out whatever they had to pay their lawyer and the other side could always appeal. Could end up being a case that they have to fight for a long time and even if they come out victorious ultimately, still cost a lot of money. With a settlement it's done then and there. The other party can't appeal.

Re:So What's Next?

[Fnord666]

"a", "an", and "the"

Those are the only articles I know of.

Definitely.

they may exist, but the companies are to blame

[someone1234]

About five years ago i got some 'pirated' cds. I also bought some legally (in those times DRM was not so rampant).
I bought CD's of people whose music i liked from the 'pirated' samples.
I still listen to those, and don't buy or pirate any more.
Music companies will eventually die out, because they don't have any added value over indie, pirated or otherwise free music.
DRM just takes all remaining value away. They should try to innovate their distribution methods and pricing, maybe then they will survive.

Mediasentry loophole is still there?

[argent]

The Judge seems to have left open the option of treating the files downloaded by MediaSentry as "unauthorised distribution". Which means the retrial may turn into a walk in the park for the RIAA.

Buchanan

[PeeAitchPee]

Honestly, I think that a pretty large proportion of our presidents should have left office at the end of a hangman's noose, and none that I can think of deserve that end more so than Bush Jr.

Nah, we 21st century Americans have it waaaaaay too easy. James Buchanan was much, much worse. As Wikipedia says, "His inability to avert the Civil War has subsequently been assessed as the worst single failure by a United States President."

It's all fake losses though.

[DamnStupidElf]

The existence of piracy does not magically give me an extra $200 a year that I could have spent on music or movies. I have the same amount of money I did last year (or less, with the wild inflation), so the MAFIAA would get roughly the same amount of money from me whether or not I could pirate things.

Via piracy I can never view every single movie ever made, or every song ever produced, which means that if I happen to see a few movies this year that I couldn't have afforded otherwise, it will *not* cut into the amount of money I'll spend next year on music and movies.

Inadequate summary?

[xtracto]

All well and good... but I fail to understand why was this summary accepted instead of the more appropiate and insightful summary submitted by NewYorkCountryLawyer?

Re:FUCK artists

[Anonymous Coward]

You just don't want to admit that you're ripping artists off.

You've seen nothing to indicate that he is "ripping artists off", and you know it. Therefore, you're lying when you say that he is.

Re:So What's Next?

[Zwicky]

No it's an acronym.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

topscore

Re:So What's Next?

[CodeBuster]

True, but the RIAA were themselves both the originators and promoters of that theory during the trial. They did nothing to prevent the judge from making this mistake (by offering honest and good faith legal opinions and failing to bring other relevant and extant documentation and decisions from similar cases to the attention of the judge). As for legal fees, that is an interesting question. If the defendant eventually prevails in subsequent but related litigation can the RIAA argue and convince a judge that legal fees from the previous mistrial are not warranted (they would probably almost certainly try if the defendant won legal fees after a successful defense)?

Re:So What's Next?

[clickety6]

article physicists have already identified a number of exotic articles like "le", "un", "der", "die", "das", "lo" and many others...

Now these same article physicists are trying to break these down into their sub-article components...

They've constructed an article accelerator that will crash the articles together at high speed... it's basically two opposed rings of megaphones and a pair of Swiss guys shout down the end of either megaphone

Re:So What's Next?

[SatanicPuppy]

You forgot the other two indefinites: "some" and "any"

As in, "The RIAA as sued some people in an attempt to prop up a failed business model but those SOBs aren't getting any money today."

Re:So What's Next?

[SatanicPuppy]

Crap. As==Has

Re:FUCK artists

[SpiderClan]

Thank you.

I listen mostly to CDs I bought before deciding I wanted nothing to do with media companies who were pissing me off. Outside of that, radio and Jamendo keep me covered.

So it's true that I'm not paying artists, but that isn't ripping them off anymore than I'm ripping off IKEA by using the furniture I already have.

I, for one, have no interest in paying an artist that signs an abusive contract with a record company, and I'm happy to not listen to their music, so I don't care if they get paid at all. I was responding to the post implying that buying CDs is the same as paying artists, which I don't think it is.

Re:So What's Next? Obligatory.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's in the first fucking paragraph of the article!

You mean someone on /. didn't read TFA?

You must be new here.

Re:So What's Next?

[camperslo]

Your logic would work if whatever was sent is deleted from the server as it's sent, but that would be silly.

Data doesn't have to be deleted to be unavailable to the cloud. The number of offline copies of the file will grow, but not the number in the cloud if no one uploads more than they download.
Server, what server? Everybody connected contributing anything is a server. They don't delete what they got, let's say they go off on their way (disconnect) and listen to it...Remember, the seeding ratio includes data sent while downloading plus any sent after completion.

Let's say that the original user with the track "A" seeds one copy of the file divided equally among
B, C, and D (these must be unique pieces or A would have to seed more than 1:1 for even one copy to exist in the cloud). A has given his limit and disconnected. B, C, and D, would each have to send their third of the track to the other two for everyone to get a complete copy. All would remain connected since they would have only a 2/3 seed ratio. If user T came along, each off the three giving T different pieces (1/3 of track) would reach 1:1 ratio as T completed. They'd disconnect being at 1:1 with the full fill. T would basically now be the new A.

In practice the distribution is different, but the math is always the same. Seeding 1:1 only gives back what you took. If you were D and really uploaded nothing while downloading, A still would have been gone and B and C would only have 2/3 of the track between them.

My point was on the impact of D. His presence downloading actually REDUCES file availability in the cloud unless he seeded 1:1. In that case, the file availability after he's gone is unchanged by his getting it. The availability to T would be the same whether D was there or not in that case.
My point, as related to the legal issue, is that at 1:1 D's decision to join in only resulted in him getting a copy of the track, in neither increased nor decreased what other got (or could).
That tips either way with a higher or lower seeding ratio.
A legal argument that D's participation would result in damages from multiple other getting copies of a track are just wrong if he's seeded 1:1. If he's seeded less than 1:1 he's actually reduced file propagation (to others). At 1:1, the loss-of-sale damage is only for the copy he got.

D can be a real pain. If he's a leech downloading a bunch of things at once with minimal upload bandwidth available per torrent, speeds will suffer as others wait for him to eventually dribble in enough data to reach 1:1. That wait is required if he has any unique pieces.
In practice the transfer to others may complete because A seeded over 1:1.
A well behaved D can improve life for the cloud. If D had at least twice the upload bandwidth of A, he can give unique pieces he gets from A to both B and C as fast as he gets them. For lack of knowing another name, I'll call that effect bandwidth amplification. He speeds up things for everybody. His ratio would then show above 1:1 while downloading. On file completion his ratio would be above 1:1 and the track availability in the cloud would go up.
For the number of complete copies in the cloud of a new torrent to grow, it takes A or some peers seeding more than one copy worth of data. Users with slow upload connections need to be connected longer to reach a given ratio, but the affect on availability is the same.

Properly designed clients favor sending rarest pieces to and in general seeding to those who are uploading to the cloud fastest. That tends to increase availability of rarest pieces, complete copies of the file, and overall swarm speeds.

Copies of the file and bandwidth don't magically come from nowhere.
Individual peer behaviour determines if they help, hurt, or are neutral to the overall picture.

By your logic, there's no net gain they've only "replaced copies" yet now five people now have the file where only one did before.

Again, the total number of copie

Re:So What's Next?

[Repton]

Apparently "some" and "any" can function as articles in some cases.

Wikipedia also informs me that you can get zero articles, which are the absense of an article. (I just used one there, did you notice it?)

Re:Technically... like bittorrent?

[gringer]

That sounds a bit like what bittorrent tries to enforce with the share ratio and download throttling.

Re:So What's Next?

[Anonymous Coward]

As we say in England (the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish don't really play it): 'If there's grass on the wicket, let's play cricket'...

Wait. I mean: 'That's not cricket!'

Re: where's the ninja assasins when you need them

[DreadHarn]

I keep expecting them to pick a fight with the wrong person and something "bad" happen.

Qoth the Judge:

[cyclomedia]

Since zillions of copies might have been distributed. [emphasis mine]

You are indeed correct that distributing to zillions of other users who might have otherwise legitimately purchase them would deprive the plaitiff from zillions of dollars of revenue.

The judge has established that she downloaded these songs and subsequently distributed *one* to mediasentry *once*, but beyond that no further distribution can be proven. The next point is that she neither sought nor made any commercial gain from her infringement, save saving the cost of legitimate purchase, so the judge has now ruled that that is the only basis upon which the cost of damages should be awarded.

To adpot the stealing a physical CD analogy, the old verdict would be based on not only stealing the CD but the probably that she might have distributed something up to zillions of CDR copies without charging for them we think but can't prove, your honour, probably.

To quote the judge:

The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit. Thomas's conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. [...]

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 - more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. [...]

Thomas not only gained no profits from her alleged illegal activities, she sought no profits. Part of the justification for large statutory damages awards in copyright cases is to deter actors by ensuring that the possible penalty for infringing substantially outweighs the potential gain from infringing. [...]

Re:So What's Next?

[solferino]

There's an article?

Definitely or indefinitely.

Articles linked to by Slashdot are in an uncertain state of existence until one reader actually goes to RTFA and this uncertainty state collapses. Oftentimes, this never happens.

I agree

[SmallFurryCreature]

That is going to be the next trial. Does sharing it with the RIAA or people/entities employed by it count as copyright violation?

After all, say I rip a CD and upload it to you. That would be copyright violation right? But WHAT if you also have the CD? Does that count?

MediaSentry methods of detection are also in question. Worse yet, if I sell drugs, I do something. But say I got legal drugs in an open window in my own house. You then reach into that window and take them. Does that constitute the illegal distrubution of drugs?

Going to be an intresting case. I am a bit hopeful because the RIAA choose to go with this theory that has now been thrown out first. Did their own lawyers say that other theories were not going to work?

Re:So What's Next?

[MChisholm]

Even if they do prove distribution, the claims of damages per track should be fought.

Only since I haven't seen this mentioned here yet, Judge Davis did address the question of excessive damages:

"The statutory damages awarded against Thomas are not a deterrent against those who pirate music in order to profit... Thomas's conduct was motivated by her desire to obtain the copyrighted music for her own use. The Court does not condone Thomas's actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother's acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit in the securities market.

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs' claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has farâreaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs - the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 - more than five hundred [emphasis his] times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs...

Unfortunately, by using Kazaa, Thomas acted like countless other Internet users. Her alleged acts were illegal, but common. Her status as a consumer who was not seeking to harm her competitors or make a profit does not excuse her behavior. But it does make the award of hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages unprecedented and oppressive."

Taken from an Ars Technica article.