Jammie Thomas v RIAA jury instructions
p2pnet news view RIAA | P2P:- We now have a copy of the jury instructions in Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset.
The instructions do not define or explain what a distribution is, ie, they do not instruct the jury that plaintiffs have to prove a dissemination of copies to the public, or that there must have been a sale or other transfer of ownership, or a lease, rental, or lending.
In view of how we got to this point, I’m a bit surprised at that.
Ray Beckerman – Recording Industry vs The People
June, 2009
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.
June 18th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
“JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 18
The act of downloading copyrighted sound recordings on a peer‐to‐peer
network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the copyright
owners’ exclusive reproduction right.”
is that true in the sense of Fair Use?
June 18th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Exactly, what if you don’t agree with the “Jury Instructions?” Here’s an order from a Judge saying the above is true, but what if it’s NOT TRUE???? I don’t think the jury was fairly instructed… again!
June 19th, 2009 at 5:35 am
@Reader’s Write – Maybe, maybe not. It would have to be tested in court with a defendant who claims they engaged in Fair Use. It’s irrelevant in this case because Jammie and her lawyers made no such claim. In order to claim Fair Use, she would’ve had to admit to deliberately possessing the files. Instead, she denied everything. What choice did she have?
June 19th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
“Instead, she denied everything.”
Maybe she simply didn’t remember. Who remembers every mundane task they do every day?
Especially if it’s music you really don’t like, once you’ve heard a few bars. She may have just left it on her hard drive with all the other “junk” files.
No lost sale if she would not have ever purchased it in the first place,
and no lost sale if there were no subsequent sharers.
It might be considered Fair Use in that case….but Judge Davis did not explain Fair Use to the jury.
Judge Davis might not even know what Fair Use is himself!
June 19th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
According to:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
“Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review.”
Maybe she was just “reviewing” these songs, didn’t like them, forgot about them, went out for lunch and that’s where it should have ended.