p2pnet - rss feed: Jammie Thomas vs the RIAA: Day II
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- “A single mother has made legal history by forcing America’s biggest record companies into a costly and potentially embarrassing trial after she refused to pay an out-of-court settlement for alleged music piracy.
“Jammie Thomas, a Native American from Minnesota, is one of 26,000 people the Recording Industry Association of America has sued over the past four years for alleged use of music ‘file-sharing’ software. But she is the first to refuse to settle and has forced the music industry into a trial that could set a legal precedent. ‘I refuse to be bullied,’ she said yesterday. ‘I know that I did not do this, and the jury will hear that I did not do this’.”
She isn’t, of course, the first to refuse to settle, far from it - ask Patti Santangelo and Tanya Andersen - but the quote is interesting nonetheless because it doesn’t come in a North American media report.
Instead, its the intro to a story in Britain’s upper-crust The Times, alarming - for EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France), Sony BMG (Japan and Germany) and Warner Music (US) - because it proves the story is gaining legs with the reading public in Europe, something the Big 4 definitely don’t want and won’t like.
Because the Thomas case is only one element of a massive, carefully orchestrated international campaign on the part of the Big 4 cartel to gain control of how, and by whom, music is distributed online.
The Times goes on:
The case threatens to become another PR disaster for record companies. After they were initially accused of refusing to offer a legitimate alternative to file-sharing, the companies are now being attacked for the way they price such music. Their practices have prompted an investigation by the European Commission and alienated many big-selling bands. Next week Radiohead will release its new album independently and allow fans to decide how to much to pay for it online, through an ‘honesty box’ system.
Cary Sherman barred
And in and in another telling blow, Cary Sherman (upper right), the RIAA’s most skilled dissembler and sophist, was barred from giving evidence.
He’s infamous for his ability to describe black as white and make the mainstream media believe him.
Representing Thomas, Brian Toder is forcefully pushing home the argument that there’s no way the RIAA can prove she could have stolen and shared the songs which are central to the case, to the deep chagrin of Dr Doug Jacobson, hired by the RIAA to prove that she did.
Toder demolished him and seeing Sherman banned represents is possibly even worse for the corporate music industry.
Writes Eric Bangman in Ars Technica:
After a brief recess this afternoon, plaintiffs’ counsel Richard Gabriel and defendant’s counsel David Toder made their cases before the judge as to the relevance of Sherman’s testimony. Toder argued that Sherman’s testimony was not relevant to the question at hand, the fact of whether Thomas was liable for copyright infringement. Gabriel said that Sherman would be able to tell the jury why this case was significant and, more importantly, describe the harm the RIAA believes piracy has caused to the music industry.
“I don’t want to turn this case into a soap box for the recording industry,” Toder argued in response.
After Judge Davis initially struck Sherman from the witness list, Gabriel continued pressing his case, saying that Sherman would be able to draw the jury’s attention to “the massive problem of file sharing” and testify that the RIAA is “not out to get millions in damages, but to prove a point.” With the judge refusing to reconsider his motion barring Sherman testifying, the case wrapped up with witnesses from UMG, Warner Bros., and EMI Records North America, all of whom testified that the record labels did indeed own the copyrights to the recordings in question.
In her testimony, Thomas denied ever having installed Sharman Network’s Kazaa P2P file sharing application, named in virtually every sue ‘em all case.
Tomorrow is slated as the third and final day of the trial and with Sherman out of the way and closing arguments limited to half an hour each, it’s possible a verdict maybe forthcoming by the end of the day.
Definitely stay tuned.
Also See:
The Times - I won’t surrender to download bullies, says mother fighting the music giants, October 4, 2007
demolished him - RIAA ‘expert’ gainsays own evidence, October 3, 2007
Ars Technica - Judge bars RIAA president from testifying in Capitol Records v. Thomas, October 3, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile - http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
October 3rd, 2007 at 6:56 pm
If the RIAA are going to such great lengths to prosecute this alleged massive distributer of copyrighted material, then it seems to me that they have good evidence for it and that her activities must certainly be causing them harm.
After all, the fact that the hard disc was replaced like that after the defendent received notice, is very suspicious, isn’t it? Yes, obviously she has the pretext that it was “for repair”, but oh come on! Think about it, if it was a murder case and the defendent got rid of their gun or whatever, it would be more than a little suspicious, wouldn’t it?
Also, I read somewhere, that 700+ pages of evidence gathered by the RIAA has been ruled inadmissible after a crafty manoeuvre by the defendent’s lawyer. This seems a shame to me, because for any court case, for there to be a fair trial, *all* the evidence must be considered, especially that from the prosecution. I think deep down, the defendent and her lawyer would also be happier if all the information were to be included and might reconsider the inclusion of this evidence.
For everybody’s benefit (not least consumers such as Jammie Thomas) it’s very important that this trial sets the precedent that those who engage in the sharing of copyrighted files will be tracked down and punished for their crimes.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Jon, please ban this troll.
October 3rd, 2007 at 7:49 pm
I am simply excercising my right to express my thoughts on this case, as I see it.
So then, let’s see you put up reasoned argument, like mine, instead of calling me a troll. You can’t, can you?
Perhaps YOU are the troll, my friend?
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:01 pm
“After all, the fact that the hard disc was replaced like that after the defendent received notice…”
You need to spend the time to actually READ the article and not take it for what you want it to say.
The evidence was not allowed because the lawyers couldn’t get their crap together and tried at the very end of their time limit to submit a mountain of nonscence that could have been sumitted weeks before.
Again, spend some time to READ the articles for what they say and not what you think they say.
This will be the last time I answer this troll. Throughout his continually attempts at trolling, this guy couldn’t make a pimp on a real troll. I’ve seen trolls so good, they leave the place begging for them to come back. It is more than evident that isn’t the case here as the trolling skills are sorely lacking and a waste of time to respond to simply for the fact there is no reason behind the attempts other than to be contrary and making the attempt without actually spending the time to make sure his facts are in order before spouting off. In otherwords handing out nonsence and spouting off about feelings is the sum total of it’s ability. There is nothing of substance in the posts that make it worth reading or considering an opposing viewpoint.
In the end it appears to be faith based or contrary based and no facts will ever penetrate the false facade. It’s like arguing with a conspiracy theorist that makes it up as he goes.
So good by troll, I’ll cease to acknowledge your attempted disruptions nor will any longer satisfy your attempts at attention. In otherwords…Don’t feed the troll. Ignore it.
October 3rd, 2007 at 8:41 pm
One of these day you people will finally GET IT……..the Riaa sues only WHITE PEOPLE Why are there No lawsuits in Compton, Camden or Newark NJ, Gary IN, South Central LA, Harlem Crooklyn, Far Rockaway?
White people are the low hanging fruit…..with MONEY!
I Demand Racial Equality in the lawsuits….. I’ve been a DJ for 20years and nobody black i know is Legal…just look at Craigslist and Ebay…tons of rap hip hop xmix remixes hard drives all black stuff…..
Fair is Fair!
===============================
Brainerd is located just north of the geographical center of Minnesota,
Demographics
As of the census2 of 2000, there were 13,178 people, 5,623 households, and 3,036 families residing in the city. The population density was 638.4/km² (1,652.8/mi²). There were 5,847 housing units at an average density of 283.3/km² (733.3/mi²). The racial makeup of the city was 95.83% White, 0.71% African American, 1.44% Native American, 0.46% Asian, 0.01% Pacific Islander, 0.26% from other races, and 1.29% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 0.86% of the population. 31.4% were of German, 17.7% Norwegian, 7.1% Swedish, 6.8% Irish and 6.1% United States or American ancestry according to Census 2000.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:06 pm
I don’t know if you are just trolling or just trying to understand what is going on. But let me set you straight about a few things you have mentioined…..
“If the RIAA are going to such great lengths to prosecute this alleged massive distributer of copyrighted material, then it seems to me that they have good evidence for it and that her activities must certainly be causing them harm.”
FIRST, if you would read some of the stories about the RIAA, you would ALSO know that they have actually sued DEAD PEOPLE and that is a FACT….now I don’t know about you, but to say they must have good evidence against her is showing your ignorance, as apparently you do not know how deceptive or intimidating the RIAA actually can be. Any organization that sues dead people and will not even investigate weather or not the person is indeed LIVING before issuing a lawsuit brings considerable doubt in my (and others) mind when they say something is true. Think about that.
“After all, the fact that the hard disc was replaced like that after the defendent received notice, is very suspicious, isn’t it? Yes, obviously she has the pretext that it was “for repair”, but oh come on! Think about it, if it was a murder case and the defendent got rid of their gun or whatever, it would be more than a little suspicious, wouldn’t it?”
It would be suspicious IF she KNEW about the lawsuit BEFOREHAND, but again, if you READ the stories, you would already know that. She did not know about the lawsuits when her computer was in for repair.
“Also, I read somewhere, that 700+ pages of evidence gathered by the RIAA has been ruled inadmissible after a crafty manoeuvre by the defendent’s lawyer. This seems a shame to me, because for any court case, for there to be a fair trial, *all* the evidence must be considered, especially that from the prosecution. I think deep down, the defendent and her lawyer would also be happier if all the information were to be included and might reconsider the inclusion of this evidence.”
Again, you are showing ignorance in that you apparently are not aware of the tactics by the RIAA and it’s lawyers! There is a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT against them right now because of the legal tactics they have used in the past and in it they are being accused of EXTORTION as only ONE of the charges. So think about that before you say that RIAA is somehow being mistreated or that they are innocent.
“For everybody’s benefit (not least consumers such as Jammie Thomas) it’s very important that this trial sets the precedent that those who engage in the sharing of copyrighted files will be tracked down and punished for their crimes.”
And again, you sound like you are very ignorant about some of the “people” they have sued…dead people, 14 year olds, mothers who don’t know how to turn on a computer… let alone fileshare …THEN they go AFTER THEIR KIDS!
The RIAA is not a group of innocents! They hire high priced lawyers to bully and intimidate people into their way of thinking. They use every tactic they can think of that is legal (and some illegal in some cases) to intimidate the people they think are responsible for sharing files. Even as in the case of one mother, if they lose in court …they still go after her kids.
Not the kind of organization that is just fighting for it’s clients right to recover losses to piracy now is it?
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
GEEZ you people are THICK!
Who cares about the hard drive, the fact is the riaa targets white communities, white high schools, white colleges and tries to extra $$$ from them.
Do you own research, it was a fluke she’s a Native American.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:41 pm
I hope someone starts a fund to help pay for her legal expenses! I personally would like to be able to pay for and download a file in mp3 format and be able to do with it as I please (DRM free). Until I have that ability I would gladly donate to her cause (more than I have ever spend on music by far). I think it would send a msg to the RIAA that they can play nice and make money or people will just go out an get it for free. The RIAA complains about losing money because people are downloading illegally well they have the option to make money off of the downloading but they insist on blocking you from making a copy for your other computer or a different mp3 device. Eventually this will happen (I think Amazon has started this) but it is sad that people like her have to suffer. Once you have the option to pay for a DRM free download then they can start going after the cheap skates but at this time most music isn’t available in this way.
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
“Free Thinker” is not only a troll, but a walking oxymoron. Like the corporate-paid rethug trolls on OTHER boards, he purposefully misinterprets the material at hand as “fact”, outright lies, personally attacks those who point out what he is doing, and attempts to misdirect when it becomes obvious to even a blind monkey that he is full of 100% grade-A BS.
Yeah Jon….please ban the guy’s IP. There is a DIFFERENCE between “free speech” and outright lying as “fact”….although you couldn’t tell it from Faux Noise (who he obviously gets his “news” from) since they have a court judgment saying they CAN LIE AND CALL IT “NEWS”!
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:59 pm
“For everybody’s benefit (not least consumers such as Jammie Thomas) it’s very important that this trial sets the precedent that those who engage in the sharing of copyrighted files will be tracked down and punished for their crimes.”
For the big four worm companies benefit (Not least parasite such as “Free Loser Says” or Cary Shitman) it’s very important that this trial sets the precedent that those who engage in trempling our constitution and abusing our justice system will be tracked down and punished for their crimes. You and the parasites of the same species do not want to know the very sinister alternative that you deserve and is waiting for you in the dark.
You are more dangerous than Ben Laden to our society. In USA we don’t need parasites and traitors such as YOU working for foreign and evil corporations.
October 4th, 2007 at 12:49 am
“I am simply excercising my right to express my thoughts on this case, as I see it.”
Mee too! Hang Free loser and all the RIAA parasites NOW!
Tarr and feather the remain.
My constitutional right!
October 4th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Anti Reich-Wingnut Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:49 pm
“Free Thinker” is not only a troll, but a walking oxymoron. Like… Yeah Jon….please ban the guy’s IP.
**********************
Perhaps YOU should be banned for making PERSONAL ATTACKS, simply because you disagree with what I have to say; these are only words. Sounds like the truth is getting to you then my friend…….
But on the other hand, I find your ineffectual rants quite amusing, so please stay!!
October 4th, 2007 at 8:01 am
um, great retort to 9:06pm…
October 4th, 2007 at 8:46 am
“Thankyou”
October 4th, 2007 at 9:42 am
The RIAA will win, because they are rich and powerful, regardless how flawed their arguments are.
October 4th, 2007 at 11:51 pm
sadly the RIAA won and the first one dared to argue got a death penalty. For me, just forget about RIAA and its companies, try some nice online games instead.
October 5th, 2007 at 1:19 am
n00b
October 5th, 2007 at 3:16 am
I see this lawsuit’s result as totally irrelevant. The problem discussed here centered on minor details (could it be proved that it was her and not somebody else, perhaps her son, that donwloaded/shared music?). Even if she won, the RIAA would just be after others whom they could prove guilty more easily. I feel it is a bit childish to point at failures in lawsuits (such as suits against dead persons) since any massive number of lawsuits will inevitably result in such errors.
Now the real problem I see is the way the whole music indudstry is set up and running. I am not a specialist at all but I have a feeling, correct me if I’m wrong, that the biggest part of your $$ spent on a CD will not reach the artist/composer and will not be used to cover production costs, which are quite small with the economies of scale. It goes to the big 4 and other companies, which created such conditions that it is increasingly difficult for anybody with the talent and ambition of becoming a world star to try and do it without these sharks on their backs. It is this which I see needs to be tackled and initiatives of emerging or already known artists for direct sales (see the Radiohead initiative described in one of the articles on this site) deserve the most support possible. If artists will styart believing they can do without the shark industry, prices for their CDs/legal online downloads will drop sharply. File-sharing will not disappear as such, but it will be negligeable (mainly kids and students, before they have any kind of money to pay).
Just my 2 cents.
October 5th, 2007 at 6:22 am
I think this is a wake up call for all you Illiterate computer users. Limewire usually starts up with your computer and is working in the background..very few people like her probably knew this.
So having 1702 files in her shared folder is just nuts.
You should copy files to another folder or to cd/dvd then wipe all the traces clean in your shared folder……Time to learn how to Delete files permanently with programs like “Evidence eliminator” and “clean disk security” and when to keep your shared file very low, i keep less then 20 mostly really obscure 60’s northern soul, stuff almost nobody will download.
=======================
could it be proved that it was her and not somebody else, perhaps her son, that donwloaded/shared music?
October 5th, 2007 at 7:43 am
So Jammie Thomas lost today. $222,000 fine? A single mother on a very low income? How an earth do you justify that?!
If she had robbed cd’s with the same amount of songs from a shop and shared them with her friends, would she have been fined this much? Back in the ’80’s we copied eachothers tapes all the time. What has changed other than the format?
So big companies are losing money. It happens every day. ALL companies need to change and diversify to grow in a changing world. That $222,000 fine will just go to pay some fat exec’s bonus while poor Jammie must live in poverty for the most part of her life because she had the cheek to share some music.
November 5th, 2007 at 12:06 am
They’re setting an example. Jammie Thomas doesn’t matter. They’re hoping to scare would-be sharers into not sharing. In that sense, the $222,000 is completely justified. Ms. Thomas needs to abide by the law. If this law is so unjust, why don’t you ask your representative and senators to repeal it?