10 law profs back RIAA victim Jammie Thomas
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- The RIAA has had another bad day.
When 12 Duluth, Minnesota, civil jurers decided Jammie Thomas had to pay $9,250 for each of 24 songs Warner Music, EMI, Vivendi Universal and Sony BMG’s RIAA claimed she’d infringed by sharing them online, the Big 4 trumpeted the ruling as a vindication of their ongoing attacks against their own customers.
Thomas, a single mother of two, is still the only one of the RIAA victims to actually go to court.
She’s pictured here with her then lawyer, Brian Toder, shortly after the decision was announced.
The mainstream media around the world had a field day, gleefully picking up the Thomas decision up, blasting it far and wide. Only a few partisan news sources questioned it.
But when judge Michael Davis (background), who’d presided in the case, admitted he’d committed a “manifest error of law” in telling the jury the, “act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without licensefrom the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown,” there was barely a peep from the mainstream press.
“Thomas has consistently denied RIAA accusations that she was an illegal online distributor of copyrighted music,” p2pnet posted, continuing:
“Significantly Davis, ruling on the only case the RIAA has so far managed to get into court despite the 40,000 subpoenas it’s fired at equally innocent men, women and children across America, brought up the Jeffrey and Pamela Howell case which effectively destroyed the RIAA’s theories of ‘making available’ and ‘offering to distribute’ theories.
He also specifically invited “interested parties” to submit amicus briefs.
Now 10 US law professors have taken him up on that, says Wired.
They state >>>
We understand that the Court has recognized a possible error in a jury instruction given in this action, and that it has solicited responses from amici to the following question: “whether the Court committed a manifest error of law in instructing the jury that ‘ t]he act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
We respectfully submit that the correct answer to this question is ‘yes’………
They professors are: Annemarie Bridy, University of Idaho; Michael W. Carroll, Villanova University; Ralph D. Clifford, Southern New England School of Law; Thomas F. Cotter, University of Minnesota; Jon M. Garon, Hamline University; Stephen McJohn, Suffolk University; Tyler T. Ochoa, Santa Clara University; Niels B. Schaumann, William Mitchell College of Law; and Christopher Sprigman, University of Virginia.
Stay tuned.
.
.Stumble It!
Jammie Thomas – Jammie Thomas: her story in her own words, November 2, 2007
pay $9,250 – RIAA vs Jammie Thomas: RIAA wins, October 4, 2007
Brian Toder – Thomas lawyer Toder praises RIAA’s Gabriel, May 7, 2008
manifest error of law – Jammie Thomas judge cops to ‘manifest error’,” May 15, 2008
Wired – Professors Siding With Jammie Thomas in RIAA Case, June 18, 2008
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.
June 20th, 2008 at 9:14 am
I respectfully submit that the correct answer to this question is BOYCOTT THE RIAA!
June 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am
We understand that the Court has recognized a possible error in a jury instruction given in this action, and that it has solicited responses from amici to the following question: “whether the Court committed a manifest error of law in instructing the jury that ‘ t]he act of making copyrighted sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to-peer network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of whether actual distribution has been shown.”
We respectfully submit that the correct answer to this question is:
JAIL ALL THE MUSIC EXECUTIVES AND THEIR LAWERS NOW AND BURN TO THE GROUND THE RIAA AND MPAA HEADQUARTER!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:01 am
@Reader’s Write June 20th, 2008 at 9:39 am
Don’t you think THAT is indeed a bit a vexatious litigation stategy?
Someone give “RIAA-Burger-King”-Eve a call to ask her for her assesment of the “vexatiously factor” of your proposal!
June 20th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
With this new admission, a new trail could be asked for. On the grounds that false instruction was give to jurrors. I hope her lawyer is smart enough to ask for a new trial.
She may get this overturned if the jurors are not arm twisted as in the last case to come to a guilty verdict if there were songs in her shared folder…regardless of if no one downloaded a thing!
June 20th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
They should respectfully submit to be the jury in this new case.
June 21st, 2008 at 3:59 am
I submit that the other 20,000 who’ve already settled out of court ought to apply for a trial also. Making available is not illegal. They cannot possibly prove fraud or theft if no distribution has occurred. (Of course, distribution is merely uploading/sharing anyway) I understand however that it’s up to the defendant to disprove, which would be impossible for anyone. “I’ve never used a p2p app”; “You could’ve deleted and wiped it off the drive. Next excuse…unproven innocence”
June 21st, 2008 at 4:51 am
“I submit that the other 20,000 who’ve already settled out of court ….”
I very much doubt it’s near as many as that.
Cheers!
June 24th, 2008 at 9:51 am
I very much doubt it’s near as many as that.
No Actually with have infiltrators in th eplace that told us it is only few thousand who settle.
Bassically if they bother you tell them to go to hell and basically this is what they will do.
They will proceed only if you are perceive as weak.
Just deny everything no matter what and be man with them very mean. They freak out just like the bullies they are and will leave you alone. Show them that you are not intimidated and that you will NEVER PAY THEM ANYTHING! PERIOD!
June 25th, 2008 at 4:27 am
With an asshole judge like this one anything can happen.
Obviously rhe defendants in this case did not present any evidence of actual copying because the asshole judge and jury would have used that evidence to convict Jammie Thomas.
A new trial must be avoided because that will allow new evidence to be introduced and federal judge assholes and juries have a habit of swallowing any “evidence” a slick lawyers presents, wether real or fabricated. On appeal, evidence not presented at trial cannot be used for anything. Appeal is the route to take.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:02 am
The judge Michael Davis probably got few hundred thousand $ form the RIAA to get this verdic and the jury few thousand each.
Now Davis try to get more by starting another trial. or the RiAA did not pay him so he is piss-off!
July 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
I suspect judge Davis is getting nervous about inquiries into his family connections
with the RIAA.
July 8th, 2008 at 6:43 am
What family connections does Judge Davis have in the RIAA?
August 4th, 2008 at 7:10 am
This is what happens when you have moronic judges presiding over a case. They know nothing of technology, and thus are unable to make and intelligent and lawful decision. Manifest? absolutely. It’s manifest even to the layman, but this judge was too idiotic to see it.
August 17th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
” What family connections does Judge Davis have in the RIAA? ”
Some are really proud to have a famous musician in the family