Mistrial declared in Jammie Thomas/RIAA lawsuit
Thu Sep 25, 2008 1:24PM EDT
See Comments (9)
And so it will all begin again.
The judge in the now precedent-setting Jammie Thomas trial has reversed himself and declared a mistrial, ordering a new trial be held for the woman who was found guilty of sharing music (24 songs) over a peer-to-peer network and ordered to pay $222,000 in damages for her crimes. It was the first such verdict in legal history.
The new decision comes from Judge Michael Davis, who has ruled that he erred in telling juries about a specific instruction which was crucial to the verdict. At issue: Whether "making copyrighted material available" is a crime in and of itself. In the original trial, Davis told the jury that the music labels did not need to prove that any infringement actually occurred, just that Thomas had made the tracks available for infringement, regardless of whether any infringement actually took place. Now he has revised his opinion on the matter and has ordered a retrial, this time with different jury instructions.
The RIAA has previously said that it will re-try the case, "without hesitation."
Davis has been mulling his position for more than four months, after noting in May that he might reverse his earlier ruling. The new ruling and mistrial declaration were issued last night. In addition to his concerns about the rule of law, he has also expressed dissatisfaction with the enormous financial penalty the jury assessed in the original trial, declaring that $222,000 is way out of line against the roughly $54 the 24 offending tracks would be worth if purchased as compact discs.
What happens now? Unless Thomas and the RIAA reach a settlement (which seems unlikely), it's back to square one, with a new trial and a new jury. More news as it develops... likely in 2009.
Comments on Mistrial declared in Jammie Thomas/RIAA lawsuit
Post a Comment
Join in the discussion. Here you'll see the comments in the order they were posted.
-
2 Posted by penguin_152 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:06PM EDT Report Abuse
It's not the cost of an individual track that you need to focus on. It's the fact that the track could be downloaded royalty free from thousands of people costing the company thousands (not just $1). That being said, any damages should have to be based on the actual loss ($ per track x # of times downloaded) not a number that the RIAA thinks they lost.
-
3 Posted by nighteye23 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:38PM EDT Report Abuse
"It's the fact that the track could be downloaded royalty free from thousands of people costing the company thousands"------------ That is assuming that every person who downloaded it would have purchased it in the first place. I bet most of the people downloading wouldn't have bought in the first place even if they couldn't download it.
-
4 Posted by h.a.talbertlll@sbcglobal.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 4:15PM EDT Report Abuse
To those concerned, CREATIVE PROPETIES are produced by someone financing them. It is not too much to expect a return on an investment for its inception. It may seem like a simple thing to download these "creative propeties" and E-Mail them around to your friends because technology allows this practice. But for those of us whose livelyhood depends on that return, even one download should be purchased. Yet, all we have for this expectation is a Please and Thank You. Please don't Pirate our creative propeties and thank you for your morality.
-
5 Posted by cbomonti on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:20PM EDT Report Abuse
Where else in the legal system can you be found guilty of a loss that can't be proven? One download, ten downloads, whatever. The only thing that can be proven without doubt is the files were available. The loss is pure speculation. I not aware of a way an individual can sue for such vague damages. The system is supposed to be "balanced" favoring no one. The powerful RIAA/music industry has been given incredible "legal" power, via their lobbies, which is truly insane. IT'S MUSIC, not plans for an atomic bomb! They should take their $54 an be happy. Geeze...
-
6 Posted by cyrusthevirus81@att.net on Thu Sep 3, 2009 3:33PM EDT Report Abuse
So lets say I install limewire onto my computer and it scans my computer and makes availible all my music I didnt tell people to download it. its the people downloading from me that are breaking the law. It would be like me leaving a cd in my car and someone steals it while I'm in the store and them shares that cd over the internet sure I left that cd out in the open and "availible" but it would be the one who stole it from me that did the crime
-
7 Posted by soundbox2112 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 9:34PM EDT Report Abuse
Like cbomonti states, take the $54 bucks and leave unless they can then bring to trial all the other folks that she'd shared with or had taken from her offering up. It's the ol' "We'll make an example of this person" approach, which in most, if any cases, doesn't work. People will keep doing this whether P2P or otherwise, as a musician, I now look at my music as adverts for our shows, where bands had to make back their money anyway. Yup folks bands would end up owing so much back to the record company, that playing as much as they could was one of the ways they'd pay off their loans from them. Only the elite level of performer makes money off disc sales, it's now merch, sponsors or peddling some other gear that makes bands money. It's why it's called the record business.
-
8 Posted by annarborrocks on Thu Sep 3, 2009 2:55PM EDT Report Abuse
one poster had it right.The people that downloaded it you cannot prove they would have bought it anyway so wheres the loss of revenue?And how is this any different then when we use to tape songs off the radio or make a copy of a cassette tape and give it to our friends ?Bunch of bull----- and way to big of a fine.If they would spend as much time looking for and developing new bands their sales wouldnt be nosediving.When you put out half the crap the record companies put out because their lazy you deserve to lose money.Punishing people and getting ludacris fines is the easy way to make money because they dont have to put any money into it
-
9 Posted by rschaubert on Thu Sep 3, 2009 8:53PM EDT Report Abuse
I agree with post number 5. It sounds very similar to the mysterious 700 billion dollars needed to "stabilize" our economic situation...222,000....700 billion...hmmm, that should be enough. It is ridiculous. I have a question. What about this Kazaa file sharing company. Why aren't they being sued or shut down. What is their responsibility to all this. Did you hear about the 12 year being sued by the RIAA for downloading? Kazaa was involved too. People are paying for a service that gets them sued. What's up with that?!
1 Posted by nighteye23 on Thu Sep 3, 2009 7:38PM EDT Report Abuse
"he has also expressed dissatisfaction with the enormous financial penalty the jury assessed in the original trial, declaring that $222,000 is way out of line against the roughly $54 the 24 offending tracks would be worth if purchased as compact discs." -------- What kind of people does this jury consist of? I can't believe that ordinary people would do that. Must have been some really smooth talking lawyers on the RIAA's side. Probably told them all how CDs would cost them all $1 if it weren't for piracy, or some similar crap.