Mobile/PDA About Us Advertise here


		User name	Password

		Not registered yet? Register here. Lost your password? Click here.

Browse by topic

News

Jammie Thomas begins music sharing case appeal

17 May 2008 10:50 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 7 comments

Jammie Thomas, the Minnesota woman ordered to pay the record industry $220,000 USD for unauthorized sharing of music file is finally getting her chance to appeal the case, and may get to see the jury once more.

The issue at hand is whether the record industry needs to know prove that anyone even downloaded the songs Thomas made available or if her making them available is enough to warrant throwing the appeal out. Over the past few years the record industry has sued thousands upon thousands of would be file sharers and has argued that all they must prove is that the defendant put the music on file sharing networks.

File sharing fans, and the EFF, have argued that so far the only proven downloaders of the music were private investigators working for the record labels and trade groups such as the RIAA.

In October 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. Davis said that making copyrighted music available was illegal "regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown." Yesterday however, Davis admitted that may be a mistake. Citing a 1993 ruling from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, he noted that infringement "requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords."

The judge also noted that a case used by the record companies during the original trial was vacated on April 29 and therefore no longer relevant.

"If we have to retry the case, we will do so without hesitation," added a record industry lawyer.

To date record companies have sued over 30,000 people for unauthorized distribution of music online. Most of the defendants settle their cases for $3000-7000 USD but a few have fought back and taken the cases to court. Thomas was the first to make it to a jury trial. She was originally charged with offering 1,702 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network but at the trial the record companies only brought up 24 songs. When she lost, she was then told to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, a hugely disproportionate number.

Permalink to this article

Law professors argue against making available as infringement in Jammie Thomas appeal (20 June 2008)

RIAA goes judge shopping in New York (14 June 2008)

Canadian copyright bill proposal includes $20,000 fines (12 June 2008)

MPAA accuses laser printer of illegal file sharing (5 June 2008)

EFF notes that Microsoft is complying with NBC broadcast flags (19 May 2008)

RIAA finds new way to fight college piracy (18 May 2008)

EFF targets RIAA's 'making available' claims (14 January 2008)

Thomas to get new lawyer team for RIAA case appeal (1 January 2008)

RIAA challenges Jammie Thomas' excessive damages complaint (13 November 2007)

Buy a thong, fight the RIAA? (4 November 2007)

RIAA trying to dodge legal fees after dropping case (18 October 2007)

Thomas to appeal P2P trial verdict (8 October 2007)

Woman to pay full record label damages herself (5 October 2007)

« Previous news article
UK government orders ISPs to retain data

Next news article »
Shinoda introduces 1mm-thick, ultra-wide plasmas

Post your comment

Discuss this article!
7thsinger (Senior Member) 17 May 2008 11:51
I've been following this one since it's inception and will continue to follow it. [ + quote]
chaos_zzz (Junior Member) 17 May 2008 12:58
The music industry should work a way around this, i mean all this just gives them bad reputation. An ipod costs around 200$ to fill it up u would have to clear ur account and probably sell ur car(most ppl) this is non-sense, they need to drop their prices like for real, we see al this piracy going on in the us, europe where ppl are suppoused to have a higher income, guess how that's working in other countries. [ + quote]
lxfactor (Senior Member) 17 May 2008 15:30
seriously.. i own 4 CDS.. all rufio. all they have to do is lower the prices.. i am not going to pay 13.99 for a CD.. it is bound to scratch.. but if i go to the guy on the corner and buy a copy for 5 dollars.. i wont give a hoot if it scratches or not.. because i can go around the corner and spend another 5 to replace it.. and its still cheaper than 1 store purchased CD. thats how most people think... noticed when they dropped prices of ps3.. sales increased dramatically. Zomg!? lets try it RIAA. lower CD cost. [ + quote]
Hopium (Newbie) 17 May 2008 18:59
the only reason i know who rufio is ironically i downloaded a pirated cd... the same way i find all the music i merit worth a purchase [ + quote]
ZippyDSM (AfterDawn Addict) 17 May 2008 21:13
*Originally posted by lxfactor:* seriously.. i own 4 CDS.. all rufio. all they have to do is lower the prices.. i am not going to pay 13.99 for a CD.. it is bound to scratch.. but if i go to the guy on the corner and buy a copy for 5 dollars.. i wont give a hoot if it scratches or not.. because i can go around the corner and spend another 5 to replace it.. and its still cheaper than 1 store purchased CD. thats how most people think... noticed when they dropped prices of ps3.. sales increased dramatically. Zomg!? lets try it RIAA. lower CD cost. The trouble is 2 fold what they can afford and what they can afford keeping their grand a day cocaine habit. the media industry from games to music to film have "issues". [ + quote]
iluvendo (AfterDawn Addict) 18 May 2008 3:44
We may just yet get some real justice. [ + quote]
nobrainer (Inactive) 18 May 2008 5:27
seriously though Jammie has to be the most stupid file sharer ever, i mean having her Kazaa user name the same as her email and other user names is beyond stupid. I'm glad the case may be having a retrial as just because a file is in a shared folder does not mean that any files were actually shared, this just shows the rhetoric and bull crap that the RIAA spout to win their point. Then these ass butts go off to congress and introduce bills like the Pro IP Act, The DMCA, The Spy Act Amendment. Boycott anti-consumer RIAA, MPAA Companies, Ect, its the only way to stop Anti-Consumer. The BPI Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The RIAA Soundexchange Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, EMI. The IFPI Are: The same anti consumer lot as listed above! The MPAA Are: SONY, UNIVERSAL, WARNER GROUP, DISNEY, PARAMOUNT, FOX. [ + quote] This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18 May 2008 5:39