Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!
Fnord.
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.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
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
Fnord.
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.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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."
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.)
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.
"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.
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.