Entire Transcript of RIAA's Only Trial Now Online

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The entire transcript of the RIAA's 'perfect storm,' its first and only trial, which resulted in a $222,000 verdict in a case involving 24 MP3's having a retail value of $23.76, is now available online. After over a year of trying, we have finally obtained the transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas. Its 643 pages represent a treasure trove for (a) lawyers representing defendants in other RIAA cases, (b) technologists anxious to see how a MediaSentry investigator and the RIAA's expert witness combined to convince the jurors that the RIAA had proved its case, and (c) anybody interested in finding out about such things as the early-morning October 4th argument in which the RIAA lawyer convinced the judge to make the mistake which forced him to eventually vacate the jury's verdict, and the testimony of SONY BMG's Jennifer Pariser in which she 'misspoke' according to the RIAA's Cary Sherman when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing.' The transcript was a gift from the 'Joel Fights Back Against RIAA' team defending SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston, Massachusetts. I have the transcript in 3 segments: October 2nd (278 pages(PDF), October 3rd (263 pages)(PDF), and October 4th (100 pages)(PDF)."

Comments

Re:Cue - no, Clue...

[pha7boy]

the transcript is public domain. as such, it should be easily available from any law clerk at the courthouse unless the judge orders the court case closed. now the RIAA could file a motion to close the court proceedings - but they would have to have a decent argument as to why that is necessary.

I wonder if this came out now because the RIAA decided to stop suing individuals and work via the ISPs.

Re:That's really awesome

[Kandenshi]

If one assumes that all the music on my computer is stuff that the RIAA can sue over(some isn't, not sure the %), and ignores that some of the stuff that I have comes from legal purchases and my own rips(some, but not all that much to be honest), and if one uses the $9,250 per song figure from the summary:

My computer has a value of approximately $207,900,000.

For perspective, the current price of gold is $871.20 USD per troy oz. Alternatively, about $28,000 per kilogram of gold.
$207,900,000 / $28,000/kg = 7425 kg of gold
A Ford F150 truck comes in with a weight of 2,197kg.

My computer is worth almost as much as three and a half Ford F150 trucks made of solid gold

You're right Adult film producer... I feel rich, powerful! Excuse me, I'm going to go buy a bigger basement and a new family now.

This just says it all:

[Soulshift]

FTFA:

Capitol Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; Sony BMG Music Entertainment, a Delaware general partnership; Arista Records, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; Interscope Records, a California general partnership; Warner Bros. Records, Inc., a Delaware corporation; and UMG Recordings, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

Jammie Thomas,
Defendant.

I rest my case.

Re:To Mr Beckerman

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

To what extent do you think that the RIAA's representatives believe the case that they advance?

I don't know.

To what extent do you think that matters?

I think it matters.

Do you think that they are bad people

Yes.

or poor counsel for advancing that case?

Yes that too. I think they are a disgrace to my profession.

And then on a different tack, when one is dealing with litigants in person in a case that might have national repercussions, how can one deal effectively with those defendants if you have no confidence in their willingness to abide by confidentiality agreements and every fear that they will post the details on the internet?

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Re:"when she testified under oath...

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

"when she testified under oath that making a copy from one's CD to one's computer is 'stealing'."

That one baffled me. I am neither a lawyer nor an American. However, I would assume that a witness' opinion of the legality of a given action is completely irrelevant. Establishing the legality of a given action is a task for the court, not a task for the witness.

Agreed.

So why was a witness asked about the legality of copying a CD?

Beats me.

And why was she breaking her oath (as NYCL is somehow implying) when she did not know the correct answer?

She knew the correct answer. She was deliberately misstating the law in order to improperly inflame the jury against Ms. Thomas, convincing the jurors that even had Ms. Thomas done nothing but copy some CD's onto her hard drive, that in and of itself was a copyright infringement.