p2pnet - rss feed: DoJ backs RIAA in Jammie Thomas case
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- In the Bush administration’s most blatant support of the commercial music industry yet, the US Department of Justice has stepped in on behalf of Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA in the Jammie Thomas case.
The DoJ is filing a brief defending the constitutionality of the $9,250-per-song-file jury verdict, says Recording Industry vs The People.
America’s top law agency tries to justify the amount by claiming the damages awarded aren’t, “so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense or obviously unreasonable”, and that it’s, “impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the internet,” says Ray Beckerman.
Thomas is the Minnesota mother who was the first of the 30,000 innocent men, women and children to actually be hauled into court by the RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America).
A jury decided her alleged file sharing was worth almost a quarter of a million dollars.
“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,” said Britain’s prestigious The Times of the case.
It went on, “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’.”
p2pnet posted, “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.
Stay tuned.
Jammie Thomas case - Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words, November 2, 2007
Recording Industry vs The People - US Department of Justice files brief defending constitutionality of $9250-per-song-file jury verdict in Capitol v. Thomas, December 4, 2007
The Times - I won’t surrender to download bullies, says mother fighting the music giants, October 4, 2007
p2pnet - Jammie Thomas vs the RIAA: Day II, October 3, 2007
Want to help p2pnet stay online? Please click here.
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 the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
December 4th, 2007 at 10:10 pm
Some thoughts:
* So if calculating the damages is impossible, that automatically means we should apply a penalty that is in gross disproportion to the normal cost of acquisition of the product theoretically being distributed illegally upon finding guilt? That makes no sense, especially considering the fact that there is not enough evidence to point at the possibility of >900 complete downloads of each song successfully taking place.
* This case isn’t about Constitutionality. It’s about some really nasty jury instructions that run counter to both the text and the spirit of the law that grants copyrights. Constitutionality isn’t the focus, though it may come into play at some point.
* We have yet to determine how an IP address tags the owner of the connection with responsibility for all things that happen on that address; if someone was to borrow your car and use it to rob a bank without your knowledge, are you responsible for the robbery somehow?
December 4th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
I might be crazy, but what the hell does this case have to do with the DOJ? They are after all a government department. This is a civil case, so they shouldn’t be getting involved. A clear breach of mandate, one which should be investigated.
December 5th, 2007 at 5:28 am
The gov is involved because the defendant challenges the constitutionality of some laws.
GOV has something to say if their laws are challenged in america i guess
December 5th, 2007 at 7:18 am
“A PAPER HOLDS ANYTHINGYOU PUT ON IT”
“impossible to calculate the damages caused by a single infringement, particularly for infringement that occurs over the internet,”
Beautiful. Then damages should not be claimed at.
An IP lawyer in a case I was involved, recently claimed in a deposition that he asked for US$6 million in damages award for the infringement of two songs on 2,000 CDs sold because “A PAPER HOLDS ANYTHINGYOU PUT ON IT”.
BTW, the IP lawyer sued me for defamation because I wrote in a story that he did a flimsy piece of work, based on his absurd and useless damages claim on I case I was giving an opinion.
Now we know how the damage claiming business works.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
The federal governenemt is no longer the governement of the people and should be dismissed according to the US constitution.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:35 am
They can pull any asinine $XXXXXX per song damages they want out of some stinky hole. It would appear to be a case of trying to get blood from a turnip. The bigger the idiotic “incalculable” number, the more farcical the RIAA’s whole methodology becomes.
December 5th, 2007 at 11:36 am
If they insist on this siliness just go Bk chapter 7. Plain and simple! The RIAA and their rogues company will get zip!
December 5th, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Why should they have to claim bankruptcy and destroy their credit for seven years when the ruling was based on jury instructions that essentially amount to the judge creating the law ad hoc on the bench? That’s flat-out wrong any way you slice it. If the judge had instructed the jury in a fashion that respected the law being addressed rather than changing it, it wouldn’t be such a big deal, but this whole case is ridiculous.
December 6th, 2007 at 11:35 am
What a surprise, the DOJ under Bush files a brief favoring corporations over an individual. Every time I read a news blurb about the doj filing a brief recently it has ALWAYS been in the favor of the corporation.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:09 am
What I wanna know is how long before the DOJ wants filesharers locked up in Guantanomo Bay…I mean after all we are worse than terrorists you know.
December 7th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
anom says: “What I wanna know is how long before the DOJ wants filesharers locked up in Guantanomo Bay…I mean after all we are worse than terrorists you know.”
It seems to ridiculous that it couldn’t possibly happen; but in todays’ climate where government supports whoever has the most money, It most certainly could happen; welcome to the police state that is america!