p2pnet - rss feed: RIAA victim Jammie Thomas will appeal
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- To no one’s surprise, Jammie Thomas, aka Tereastarr, and her lawyer, Brian Toder, will appeal the finding by a Minnesota jury which levied $220,000 in damages against her after deciding she was guilty of sharing copyrighted music online.
“We’re going on one single issue - whether simply making recordings available is in and of itself an infringement,” Toder told p2pnet this morining.
He was back in his office after spending the weekend “away from cellphones” on his tree farm near the Canadian border.
“There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says.
“Were doing this so some decent law can be formed and relied on.
“The labels won the trial but they set themselves up for an appeal which can throw a wrench in this machine of theirs.”
Meanwhile, “Jammie Thomas agreed to let me help her set up this website to let her accept paypal donations: freejammie.com,” says Elizabeth J in a p2pnet Reader’s Write, going on:
Now you can send donations directly to Jammie Thomas, sued by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) for alleged music pirating and illegal sharing of songs. She was fined $220,000. She is a 30-year-old single mom from Brainerd, MN with an annual income of $36,000.
On her MySpace blog, “Thank you, thank you everyone for your support,” says Jammie, going on:
I have been in contact with Ms. Elizabeth J about putting a counter on the Free Jammie website, but until it can happen and when it does, I will post the amount raised here, in my blog and also as a comment on that site as well. As of right now, your generosity has raised $957. I cannot thank you enough for everything. Not to sound too sappy, but it makes me cry thinking how much you all support me.
If you’re wondering what is happening with this money, it is being placed into a trust account in my name, held by Batman’s lawfirm, so the RIAA cannot attack it as an asset. I don’t know the legal specifics, but that’s the gist of it.
Now, on to the awesome news I proclaimed. First, I must tell you a few details. I was interviewed on CNN this morning concerning this suit. My attorney was with me and we were expecting the basic questions: how are you feeling about this? how has this affected you? so on and so on. Well, my attorney, who has told me to remain mum concerning an appeal due to bargaining chips and whatnot, floored me today.
During the interview, he was asked what the next step is. I figured he would give the same answer I have given many, many times already in numerous interviews; “we’re still strategizing about what our next options are.” Standard lawyer speak if you will. But surprise, surprise, my attorney announced, on national television, with the RIAA watching I’m more than certain, we’re going to appeal!!! That’s right, you read that correctly: WE’RE GOING TO APPEAL!!! I could have kissed Batman when I heard that.
He explained how we’re going to take the RIAA’s theory of making available and appeal it. He also explained how if we win, this would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks!!! Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared and by someone other than their own licensed agent (read MediaSentry).
I’m so giddy right now, I can barely sit still. This is the best news I’ve gotten in the last couple of weeks. Plus, I’m more than certain I will have updates for you in the next couple of days. Stay tuned everyone, cause I’m taking you all along for the ride.
No need for me to say Stay Tuned.
(And Happy Thanksgiving to fellow Canadians 
)
Also See:
$220,000 in damages - Hit the RIAA and Big Music where it hurts!, October 5, 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 8th, 2007 at 11:04 am
I realy hope Batman is a good lawyer!
and i hope US get more freedom and music industry starts to move with the world and not against it!
first step would be to drop stupid organisations leeching money and harrassing their own customers…
no more buying worthless CDs and throwing them in the trash after 5 minutes, and no more artists doing old stuff over and over again pumping out bad CDs with premium prices..
stream line the money flow, use P2P for distribution, use direct donation and drop all the money leeching middle hands. if your tune is good you will know it and make the money you deserve for it!
anyone can donate any amount they want easy and fast, uber fans will donate more while others might only donate little, eventualy it equals out and you get a “normalized” profit from your music!
and bad artists die from natural selection by well being bad..!
October 8th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas.
““There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says.”
Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the “make available” argument:
Because the right to “authorize” is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the “authorize” language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005).
In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless.
In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also.
—-end of opinion quote
If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com.
October 8th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
CORRECTED —-end of opinion quote
An open letter letter to attorney Brian Toder and Jammie Thomas.
““There’s never been a single case where that’s been squarely an object of appeal,” he says.”
Not so I believe. In a case where I was a plaintiff, United the States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit said in an opinion that thrashes the “make available” argument:
Because the right to “authorize” is literally one of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the authorizing person could (as a matter of language) be treated as an infringer subject to statutory damages even if no listed infringing act (for example, performance) actually occurred. Yet the legislative origins of the “authorize” language in the statute arguably support a narrower reading, and most (perhaps all) courts that have considered the question have taken the view that a listed infringing act (beyond authorization) is required for a claim. See II Goldstein, Copyright § 6.3.2, at 6:44 (2d ed. 2005).
—-end of opinion quote
In ur case, the problem was that a music publisher authorized several radio station to use hundreds of songs they did not own (we were the owners) during several years in EXHANGE FOR MONEY. Said unlawful authorizations we done through a blanket license. We testified tha many songs were indeed performed over the radio stations but the testimony was considered as worthless.
In the case of Jammie Thomas, making available is analogous to the licensing in our case. If in our case, without proof of actual performance meant no infringement claim could proceed then in the Thomas case, without proof of copying no infringement claim could proceed also.
If you wish the entire court opinion and/or our appeal for your research, just e-mail me at venegas.rafael@gmail.com.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:21 am
I’m sorry to hear about the decision that the courts made, BUT, she knew what she was doing while she was doing it. She accepted the consequences as she was sharing music, and by doing so put herself and her kids in danger of this decision and financial instability . No doubt the record companies would have offered a smaller amount for her to pay in settlement, that she would have denied (since many of my friends have been in the same situation) So should we sympathize with a women who knowingly risked stealing music, and then the welfare of her own kids by suing the record companies knowing that by doing so she risks paying well over 50 times more then she would have paid originally? I’m sorry but my answer is NO. If I were in the same situation I would have settled instead of risking not being able to provide for my kids, and then in turn using them for a sympathy vote.
When you really think about it, the record companies are not stupid, they are not out to make enemies, they are just out to provide compensation for the work of the artists we want to listen to.
I’m sorry if I offend people with this opinion, but thats what it is, an opinion.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:39 am
To the previous poster.. you got to be kiddn me?!?! These record company executives and lawyers are only out for their own agendas and that is to make as much money as they personally can. They don’t care about the artists, if they did the contracts, the royalties, etc. would not be so one sided.
I would never condone stealing from the artists; these record company executives and lawyers are doing the same thing they are attacking others for on a much larger scale. Where do you think the money for these lawsuits is going? to the artists; not likely. Where do you think they are getting the money to fund these lawsuits? from the stolen royalties and money from the artists.
BTW, and which record company or law firm do you work for?