“Another manifest error of law ?
One of his Jury instructions ONCE AGAIN is not rooted in any law.
“Instruction 18
The act of downloading sound recordings on a per to peer network Without license from the copyright holders,
violates the copyright owners’ exclusive reproduction right. ”
This act is allowed by the AHRA for the purpose of personal, not for profit use, that is why the RIAA no longer sues for
downloading, they sue for distribution. Since she is being sued for distribution this does not belong here and is NOT
an agreed on defacto LAW.
Judge Davis’ instructions give the jury no choice but to find her guilty, if not of distribution, but of downloading, in a roundabout
way.”

This is what I think happened to Jammie at the first trial, and the SAME THING happened again, at the first trial, she admitted to copying CDs so the jury had no choice but to find her guilty so again.
And this time she was found to have downloaded the songs, so the jury had no choice but to find her guilty.

Here my (downsized) post about the first trial:
Reader’s Write Says:
January 7th, 2008 at 10:23 am
In my opinion, whether or not she shared files or had any on a shared drive had nothing to do with the Guilty verdict.
The Judge told the Jury that if she reproduced a copy without a lisense it was infringement . (the judge likely got this idea from Pariser’s mis-speak, taking her word for it that it was true and did not take Fair Use into consideration.)
Jammie admitted she made copies without authorization. (quite possibly under the Fair Use provision)
here are the instructions the Judge gave the Jury:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/jury_instructions.pdf
“JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13
Each plaintiff claims in this case that the defendant
violated its exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute
its copyrighted works. One who either reproduces or
distributes a copyrighted work during the term of the
copyright infringes the copyright, unless licensed by the
copyright owner.”

They have had the jury nail her TWICE – by instructing them incorrectly.

Shame on you Judge Davis.

Aerosmith “Cryin’”
Bryan Adams “Somebody”
Def Leppard “Pour Some Sugar on Me”
Destiny’s Child “Bills, Bills, Bills”
Gloria Estefan “Here We Are”
“Coming Out of the Dark”
“Rhythm Is Gonna Get You”
Goo Goo Dolls “Iris”
Green Day “Basket Case”
Guns N’ Roses “Welcome to the Jungle”;
“November Rain”
Janet Jackson “Let’s Wait Awhile”
Journey “Faithfully”;
“Don’t Stop Believing”
Linkin Park “One Step Closer”
No Doubt “Bathwater”
“Hella Good”
“Different People”
Reba McEntire “One Honest Heart”
Richard Marx “Now and Forever”
Sarah McLachlan “Possession”
“Building a Mystery”
Sheryl Crow “Run Baby Run”
Vanessa L. Williams “Save the Best for Last”

No loss. They’re crap anyway.

Sure; nice try. Noone downloads Janet Jackson tunes. The triall should have ended at the point where the list of tunes was brought forward as evidence; with the whole court rolling about laughing.

$15 keyboard X 80,000 = $1,200,000 you owe me !!!

stw:)

OMG! Why didn’t you put a warning on that image link?!…
…that was friggin’ traumatic!
8 (

If any of you think this money, or however much they wind up scraping from this poor woman for the rest of her life, is gonna find it’s way into the hands of The Artists who created that material you are as ignorant as you can be.

Now The RIAA can encourage theft of their products….this sets the precedent: getting paid 1 million times what the MP3 is worth by a Kangaroo Court is much better than having to work for it.

The only way to fight this is to become a smarter record buyer… support Independent direct download services only.

brendan b brown
wheatus,com

stw

“Aerosmnith” should be “Aerosmith”

“Sarah McLaughlan” should be “Sarah McLachlan”

“Here and we are” should be “Here we are”

Just copy each artist and song title and paste it into Binsearch’s search box.

One of his Jury instructions ONCE AGAIN is not rooted in any law.

“Instruction 18

The act of downloading sound recordings on a per to peer network Without license from the copyright holders,
violates the copyright owners’ exclusive reproduction right. ”

This act is allowed by the AHRA for the purpose of personal, not for profit use, that is why the RIAA no longer sues for
downloading, they sue for distribution. Since she is being sued for distribution this does not belong here and is NOT
an agreed on defacto LAW.

Judge Davis’ instructions give the jury no choice but to find her guilty, if not of distribution, but of downloading, in a roundabout
way.

This error of law is less obvious than the one from the first trial and shows, not a desire to be just, but to still give the
RIAA the same result in a fashion better suited to cover judges davis’ ass.

The Judge is working in biased fashion with the well monied RIAA.

Cheers!

stw

Of course my BitTorrent application’s (Vuze) IP filters will be enabled and active.

On only occasion have I ever seen any persistent activity by the RIAA’s enforcers, MediaSentry
or MediaDefender, and that was a torrent of a recent Rod Stewart release, which got pulled from
Mininova shortly after it was posted. Maybe this one will garner similar attention by them.

‘Logic’ isn’t favoured by the cartels.

Cheers!