New Thomas trial opens with advantage to RIAA

By | June 15, 2009, 11:13am PDT

Reporting from the new Jammie Thomas-Rasset trial, Marc Bourgeois notes that jury selection is just about complete at this writing and that the jury is overall younger than the last one, surely good news for the defendant.

Even so, it’s an uphill battle for Thomas-Rasset, Ars Technica notes. Thomas-Rasset’s pro bono lawyer, Kiwi Camara, tried and failed to throw two huge procedural logs on the RIAA’s tracks.

First he tried to block evidence from MediaSentry that they actually downloaded files from Thomas-Rasset. Judge Michael Davis last week denied the motion because MediaSentry is not subject to Minnesota’s private detective registration laws, the federal pen register law doesn’t bar the recording of IP adddresses, and one has no expectation of privacy when using a peer-to-peer program (since the whole point is to communicate with other users about what files you have and which you want.)

Thomas-Rasset had originally failed to state a fair use defense, and the judge knocked down Camara’s attempt to raise it on the eve of trial.

That left the most promising avenue — the fact that the RIAA had failed to produce certified copies of their copyright registrations. The judge allowed this objection, but RIAA was able to procure the certified copies from the Copyright Office at the last moment.

When Judge Davis threw out the original verdict because he had improperly allowed a jury instruction stating that Thomas is guilty if she had made available the files, many of us had high hopes that she would ultimately prevail here.

But with the ruling that the MediaSentry evidence of downloading can come in, RIAA should be able to prove actual distribution.

One last bit of hope, but it’s a long shot. Camara is urging the judge to find that even if Thomas-Rasset is guilty that the statutory fines Congress passed are unconstitutional. That’s an argument for the court of appeals. The U.S. District Court judge won’t make that determination, in all likelihood.

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Disclosure

Richard Koman

http://government.zdnet.com/?page_id=3731

Biography

Richard Koman

Richard Koman is an attorney admitted to practice in California. As a technology writer since the mid-1980s, Richard Koman has documented the role of computing in the transformation of the graphic arts, the growth of the Web and the birth of the peer-to-peer phenomenon. He worked as a book and web editor for O'Reilly Media throughout the 1990s, editing several influential websites and numerous best-sellers. As a lawyer, as well as a tech writer, he brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

I don't think so.
Beat a Dead Horse 16th Jun 2009
The people want what the Artists offer - the problem is that it is usually only available through the RIAA. If I could go to a band's website and buy a CD for, let's say twice the money that the band would get from the RIAA for the same sale, then I would do so. I just checked on one of my favorite bands and their latest CD is available on their website for $17.99. The same CD is currently available at Amazon for $9.99. What if the band sold it to me for $5.00 and the RIAA got nothing? Sounds like the band would win and I would win; the only loser would be the RIAA.
0 Votes
+ -
No hold....
Mectron 15th Jun 2009
1. Mediacentry cannot be thrusted to produce evidence. it as a LONG criminal record and optain most of its so called proof illegally.
2. A log file produce by such shady (and court proven) criminal corpoation (RIAA, Mediasentry), cannot be valid in court. the chance that it is falsified is almost 100%.
3. The RIAA have no proof of wrong doing. (beside a obviously falsified text file with a bunch of rancom IP address)
4. The RIAA illegally optained the name of a RANDOM internet user so they can STEAL money from him.

in other worlds: Case Dismiss

is there is still at least ONE non corrupted judge in the USA?
0 Votes
+ -
I have no idea what it is you have been reading but it's not fit to line a bird cage, throw it out and learn about the real laws.

Hint, start with the DMCA.
0 Votes
+ -
What a load of horse manure
GuidingLight 15th Jun 2009
If you have done anything with that post, it would be to point to the fact that you have virtually no understanding of the legality of things.

At least I am thankfull I take no legal advice from you happy
0 Votes
+ -
I quit paying for music when the despicable RIAA started suing. I then relized that the "suits" (middle men) made all the money, not the artists. The "suits" can rot in Hell!!!
0 Votes
+ -
I'm not hoping she prevails.
ye 15th Jun 2009
While I have issues with some of the RIAA's tactics I have no issues with anything they've done here. IMO she's guilty and needs to be punished.
0 Votes
+ -
That's a fair cop, but...
superbus 15th Jun 2009
To the extent she was punished? That's life destroying. No one's life should be destroyed because she was stupid about downloading music. The RIAA is looking for someone's head to stick on a stake, and they finally got someone dumb enough for the job.

I think there should be some compensation if she is found guilty, but she should not have to pay that cartel for the rest of her life. Not that much money.
0 Votes
+ -
How about?
john.lemme@... 16th Jun 2009
10x damages? ($10/track)

She was convicted of "making available" 24 songs. That would be a $240 fine. That's like a speeding ticket.

And if you put your entire 5,000 song library out there for people to download the fine would be $50,000. Painful, but not life-destroying. (And if you share your entire library you're either clueless or being deliberately civilly disobedient.)

If you're selling the tracks you're actually taking money from someone else's pocket, and then it's a different ballgame. But for simple sharing, $10/track feels about right. (Which is why the RIAA would never go for it.)

0 Votes
+ -
I parted way with the RIAA
deowll 16th Jun 2009
When they bought Congress and it impossed Draconian punishments.

Downloading ought not be a felony.

Uploading on the other hand means you are handing out a lot of free copies. Still the most I would go for is 7 times what the music would sell for.
0 Votes
+ -
Good for you. But...
No_Ax_to_Grind 15th Jun 2009
The vast majority of people WANT what RIAA offers, some so badly they steal it.
0 Votes
+ -
I don't think so.
Beat a Dead Horse 16th Jun 2009
The people want what the Artists offer - the problem is that it is usually only available through the RIAA. If I could go to a band's website and buy a CD for, let's say twice the money that the band would get from the RIAA for the same sale, then I would do so. I just checked on one of my favorite bands and their latest CD is available on their website for $17.99. The same CD is currently available at Amazon for $9.99. What if the band sold it to me for $5.00 and the RIAA got nothing? Sounds like the band would win and I would win; the only loser would be the RIAA.
0 Votes
+ -
RIAA sues children!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Not cetain the judge is right on one point.
No_Ax_to_Grind 15th Jun 2009
"First he tried to block evidence from MediaSentry that they actually downloaded files from Thomas-Rasset. Judge Michael Davis last week denied the motion because MediaSentry is not subject to Minnesota?s private detective registration laws, the federal pen register law doesn?t bar the recording of IP adddresses, and one has no expectation of privacy when using a peer-to-peer program (since the whole point is to communicate with other users about what files you have and which you want.)"

Strange because I read that and it seems contradictory. They did nothing wrong by offering the content in order to capture the IP address, but then say no one can expect any level of privacy on a P2P network.

Soooo, if I went to say a bike swap meet, had a few V-Twin engines set up on a table with a sign saying help yourself, I should be able to take photos to ID the people that take an engine and claim they stole from me?

Seems a very strange decision to me...
0 Votes
+ -
Imaginary Property
john.lemme@... 16th Jun 2009
Any comparison of a tangible good to a copyright is invalid. If the engines were yours you couldn't accuse the people of stealing. And if the engines were mine YOU'D be guilty of stealing. (And the people who helped themselves would have to return them to me.)

But in this case wouldn't MediaSentry have had to try to download them from Thomas' computer? If MS made them available and Thomas downloaded them then she couldn't have been charged with making them available, right? (Despite this being the internet, I'm not being snarky. You may have a better grasp of this trial than I do.)
0 Votes
+ -
While both sides have had time to hone their arguments, the law as it is written is still heavily slanted in the favor of the media cartel.

I had hoped after the first verdict that there would be some public backlash against the law itself, but there is faint hope of it as the cartels keep the bribe money flowing liberally in Congress.

In the meantime, artists are slowly starting to adopt alternatives to letting the cartels rob them, and some are trying to find new ways to make connections with customers in a fair and mutually beneficial manner.

I don't disagree with copyright in principal, just with the underhanded tactics of the media cartels. They removed the balance that made copyright mutually benefit to public and private interests, and broke the social contract that was the basis of our intellectual property laws. As long as that imbalance remains, I have no sympathy for the cartels or anyone who takes advantage of the current crooked laws.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix