Jammie Thomas May Face RIAA Trial Alone

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "With her trial coming up on June 15th, Jammie Thomas has received a motion by her lawyer to withdraw from the highly publicized case, Capitol Records v. Thomas. Ms. Thomas said in a written declaration (PDF) obtained from her by her lawyer that she was not opposed to the lawyer's withdrawal, and waived any hearing on the matter. The court papers submitted by the lawyer (PDF) also indicated that the RIAA was not opposed to the withdrawal — i.e. it graciously consented to Ms. Thomas having no legal representation — but was opposed to any continuance (i.e. the RIAA wants to make sure that Ms. Thomas does not have sufficient time to find other legal representation, or to prepare to handle the trial herself, or to enable new counsel to prepare to handle the trial). Nice of them."

Comments

Bad case

[maroberts]

I'm not terribly convinced Jammie Thomas is a great case to fight the RIAA with;

Have I misunderstood the paperwork? reading between the lines it appears her lawyer is withdrawing and he is concerned that he has information contradictory to the line of argument his client wants put forward, and as an officer of the court, money matters aside, he feels he cannot go on.

where's the support from slashdot?

[rastoboy29]

You know, for all the vitriol on this board, it seems surprising to me that money isn't overflowing this nice lady's coffers for lawyers.

Re:where's the support from slashdot?

[goffster]

Maybe because no one particular feels like supporting someone who, apparently, is
"guilty as charged".

The facts of this case are very hard to dispute. If you read the comments of the jury, the outcome of the case is not in doubt.

I think people are far more likely to support someone who might, actually, not be guilty, or is having their rights trounced upon.

Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

I'm not trying to be a troll, and I happen to dislike (and disagree with) the RIAA and their tactics as much as anyone else here. But....

I suspect you are a troll, but...

1. He is leaving because he hasn't been paid.

2. I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying case; I am not familiar with the facts of this particular case.

Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui

[Timesprout]

the case is an embarrassment to the RIAA and a stern rebuke to their moronic legal theory

I have never expressed any opinion about the underlying case; I am not familiar with the facts of this particular case.

So which is it?

So this is justice in America

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this the kind of justice we can expect in America? Having your life financially ruined by astronomical damages for copying songs?! How can any sane judge with any sense of justice even allow this to continue?

We all knew stories about backward country with religious zealot wielding harsh laws punishing poor oppressed victim for seemingly trivial offense, but this kind of cases are telling you the America is not that much different, it is just that corporates+money have replaced the religious zealots+dogma.

Re:So this is justice in America

[NormalVisual]

Are you intending to argue that listening to music that was produced by someone else (at a cost to the producer) is an inherent natural right of human beings and therefore downloading it (without compensation to the producer) constitutes no moral or ethical injustice?

I will.

The way it's supposed to work (in the US, anyway) is that when someone creates a work, it's owned by society. However, understanding that people need to eat, they're given an exclusive right to distribute what they create for a *limited* time, the idea being that it will encourage them to keep creating new works, but that the work will revert back to society where it will enrich the cultural pool. Problem is, the whole concept of "limited time" is now one of a mere technicality, as copyright terms extend well beyond the length of the author's lifetime. Apparently, as long as Congress doesn't define the term of copyright as "forever", it's not considered to be at odds with the intent of the Constitution. This is ridiculous.

Distributing a tune recorded by Britney Spears should probably be considered copyright infringement. All of her "work" is recent, and she probably should expect to have at least a few more years of copyright to profit from. Distributing a tune recorded by the Beatles most definitely should not. In the 45 or so years since their songs were recorded, not only have they recouped their production costs, but all four members became fabulously wealthy as a result. There is/was no further need to provide the financial incentive to create for them (especially since half are dead now), and continuing to grant copyright on their works has now become a very real theft (in the literal sense) from society.

Re:When your lawyer withdraws, you're probably gui

[NewYorkCountryLawyer]

Reading the Toder memorandum, it seems that Ja[m]mie's lawyer isn't getting paid.

That's what it's all about. Most lawyers, like most other people, don't like to work if they're not getting paid for it (unless that's what they agreed to do, which he didn't). Lawyers like anyone else have families to support and bills to be paid.

Donation site

[debrain]

Why doesn't Ms. Thomas set up a legal fund donation page via PayPal, for example? I'd contribute some funds to this cause. It deserves attention.

Has she sought legal aid? Or the support of the ACLU, EFF or a law school? Her time is running short. This is an unfortunate situation because the likelihood of setting an important precedent very favourable to the RIAA is quite high, now.

Re:HAHAHAHA

[NormalVisual]

No, it's not. It's documented, billable time that Thomas' lawyer could have spent working on other cases that produced real income, that is now gone forever.

I don't agree with the way things are working out for Thomas, but don't dare say this lawyer hasn't incurred a very real loss.