Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; Third P2P verdict for Jammie Thomas: $1.5 million:
"The first P2P case to come to trial in the US has lasted five years and now has three verdicts, this one coming after just two hours of deliberation. Jammie Thomas-Rasset must pay $62,500 for each of the 24 songs at issue in the case, for total of $1.5 million."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/the-first-p2p-case-to.ars
Showing posts with label Judge Michael Davis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Judge Michael Davis. Show all posts
Monday, November 8, 2010
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
"It is Groundhog Day": Third Jammie Thomas P2P trial begins; ArsTechnica.com, 11/2/10
Nate Anderson, ArsTechnica.com; "It is Groundhog Day": Third Jammie Thomas P2P trial begins:
"The reference, to the Bill Murray film in which the main character continually repeats one particular day, makes particular sense in this case. Thomas-Rasset was the first of the RIAA's litigation targets to take her case all the way to a trial and a verdict, but Judge Davis has twice tossed the results. In the first trial, a bad jury instruction was to blame; in the second, the jury returned a shocking $1.92 million verdict that Davis slashed to $54,000, calling it "monstrous." Neither side was pleased, however, and the recording industry asked for yet another trial, this one on damages alone."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/third-jammie-thomas-p2p-trial-begins-it-is-groundhog-day.ars
"The reference, to the Bill Murray film in which the main character continually repeats one particular day, makes particular sense in this case. Thomas-Rasset was the first of the RIAA's litigation targets to take her case all the way to a trial and a verdict, but Judge Davis has twice tossed the results. In the first trial, a bad jury instruction was to blame; in the second, the jury returned a shocking $1.92 million verdict that Davis slashed to $54,000, calling it "monstrous." Neither side was pleased, however, and the recording industry asked for yet another trial, this one on damages alone."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/11/third-jammie-thomas-p2p-trial-begins-it-is-groundhog-day.ars
Monday, June 21, 2010
Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award; Wired.com, 1/22/10
David Kravets, Wired.com; Court Reduces ‘Shocking’ File Sharing Award:
"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”
A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.
“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”
The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”
Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”
The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.
Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.
“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.
The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.
Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.
The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.
More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.
One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"
"A federal judge on Friday reduced a $1.92 million file sharing verdict to $54,000 after concluding the award for infringing 24 songs was “shocking.”
A federal jury in June found Jammie Thomas-Rasset liable in what at the time was the nation’s only Recording Industry Association of America file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. The Minnesota federal jury dinged her $1.92 million for infringing 24 songs. She asked the judge to set aside or reduce that $80,000 per song in damages.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis agreed on Friday, and said the RIAA may have a retrial if it does not accept his ruling.
“The need for deterrence cannot justify a $2 million verdict for stealing and illegally distributing 24 songs for the sole purpose of obtaining free music,” Davis wrote. “Moreover, although plaintiffs were not required to prove their actual damages, statutory damages must bear some relation to actual damages.”
The decision came days after the Obama administration supported $675,000 in damages a jury levied against a Boston file sharer in the nation’s second and only other file sharing case against an individual to go to trial. Among other things, the administration said the large July award would “deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights in an environment where many violators believe they will go unnoticed.”
Davis added that $1.92 million in damages “for stealing 24 songs for personal use is simply shocking.”
The new damages amount to three times the minimum of $750 damages the Copyright Act allows. The maximum is $150,000 per infringement, at a judge or jury’s discretion.
Thomas-Rasset, now 32, said she doesn’t have the money to pay even that reduced judgment, and that her house in Brainerd, Minnesota is homesteaded and protected from a judgment. The mother of four said she is a “very low- to middle-income” earner who works for a local Native American tribe.
“It’s not like I have a money tree in the backyard,” she said during a brief telephone interview.
The RIAA said it was reviewing the decision and was not prepared to comment.
Here’s Thomas-Rasset’s original $1.92 million playlist.
The decision, if it survives, may not have much weight in the file sharing world.
More than a year ago, the record labels announced they were winding down their nearly 6-year-old litigation campaign against individuals and instead were lobbying internet service providers to adopt a program to disconnect music file sharers.
One case in Boston still on the books concerns Joel Tenenbaum, the nation’s only other individual to go to trial against the RIAA. Most of the 30,000 cases the RIAA brought against individuals were settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.
Among other things, he is urging the federal judge in his case to reduce the $675,000 July jury verdict to $22,500, the minimum of $750 for 30 tracks.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner, who is presiding over Tenenbaum’s case, is not obligated to follow Judge Davis’ decision."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/judge-reduces-shocking-file-sharing-award/#ixzz0rXeYuqXF"
First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day; Wired.com, 6/21/1
David Kravets, Wired.com; First RIAA File Sharing Trial Morphs Into Groundhog Day:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
"The nation’s first file sharing copyright infringement trial has morphed into a legal Groundhog Day.
In a bid two avoid a third trial — after two mistrials — the Minnesota federal judge presiding over the 4-year-old Jammie Thomas-Rasset case wants the Recording Industry Association of American and the defendant to negotiate a settlement.
But, as Thomas-Rasset’s attorney, Joe Sibley, said in a telephone interview Monday, a settlement is not likely to happen. The reason is both sides are a universe apart on what it would take to avoid a third trial.
That’s why there were two trials: neither party would budge during court-ordered negotiations: Under the latest failed negotiations, Thomas refused in January to pay anything. The RIAA wanted $25,000 for the 24 tracks two federal juries concluded she pilfered on Kazaa. That offer came after a second Minnesota jury had awarded $1.92 million, and the judge reduced it to $54,000 a year ago.
“There is nothing we have to offer they would be willing to accept,” Sibley said Monday. He added that Thomas-Rasset might agree to settle for the statutory minimum $750 a track.
“We’ve always hoped Ms. Thomas would accept responsibility and join us at the settlement table — especially after a judge and two different juries affirmed her clear liability. But her approach so far … does not make for productive settlement discussions,” RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said via an e-mail.
The Copyright Act allows a jury to award damages of up to $150,000 per purloined download. The Obama administration supported the nearly $2 million judgment.
U.S. District Judge Michael [Davis] [sic] declared the $1.92 million verdict “shocking” and said damage awards “must bear some relation to actual damages.”
Davis’ decision was the first time a judge has reduced the amount of damages in a Copyright Act case.
A third trial, scheduled for Oct. 4, would involve a jury assuming the woman’s liability and affixing a new damages figure.
Because of the posture of the case, the parties could not directly appeal the judge’s decision last year lowering the jury’s verdict. Assuming the judge reduces the damages again after the October trial, the appeals courts would be more inclined to take the case to avoid another day of legal ground hog, legal experts said.
Among the big bones of contention that would be addressed on appeal, Sibley claims damages under the Copyright Act are unconstitutionally excessive. The RIAA claims the judge did not have the power to lower a Copyright Act jury award.
Thomas-Rasset, of Brainerd, Minnesota, famously lost her first trial in 2007, resulting in a $222,000 judgment. But months after the four-day trial was over, Judge Davis declared a mistrial, saying he’d incorrectly instructed the jury that merely making copyrighted work available on a file sharing program constituted infringement, regardless of whether anybody downloaded the content.
He ordered both sides to the settlement table, where no deal was reached.
The only other file sharing case to have gone to trial resulted in a Boston jury in July awarding the RIAA $675,000 for 30 songs. A decision is pending on whether that award should be reduced.
Most of the thousands of RIAA file sharing cases against individuals settled out of court for a few thousand dollars."
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/06/filesharing-groundhog-day/#ixzz0rXbVpz00:
Monday, June 22, 2009
What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?; Ars Technica, 6/21/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; What's next for Jammie Thomas-Rasset?:
"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the massive $80,000 per song judgment handed down against her. We take a look at the possibility of paying the award, settling, declaring bankruptcy, reducing the award, appealing the case, and changing the law...
Judge [ Michael] Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" Congress to "amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐to-peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court."
University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.
In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."
One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.
Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
"Jammie Thomas-Rasset has at least six options for moving forward after the massive $80,000 per song judgment handed down against her. We take a look at the possibility of paying the award, settling, declaring bankruptcy, reducing the award, appealing the case, and changing the law...
Judge [ Michael] Davis feels the same way and has already "implored" Congress to "amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐to-peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court."
University of California law professor Pam Samuelson, an expert on statutory damages and copyright law, also called for reform in a fascinating paper released in April 2009.
In reference to the first Thomas-Rasset judgment, Samuelson concluded, "Some jurors in the Thomas case wanted to award $750 per infringed song, while others argued for $150,000 per song; why they compromised on $9250 per song is a mystery. In today’s world where the average person in her day-to-day life interacts with many copyrighted works in a way that may implicate copyright law, the dangers posed by the lack of meaningful constraints on statutory damage awards are particularly acute."
One key suggestion for reform: allowing judges to revise damage awards to below the current $750 minimum threshold in such cases.
Had the amount been a "mere" $750 a song, for an $18,000 total fine, the Thomas-Rasset case would have offered little incentive to reform the law. But when the first of the RIAA's 30,000+ actions goes to trial and the plaintiffs emerge with a $1.92 million award... legislators may take notice."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/whats-next-for-jammie-thomas-rasset.ars
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep; Ars Technica, 6/16/09
Nate Anderson via Ars Technica; Jammie Thomas takes the stand, admits to major misstep:
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
"Did she do it? That's for the jury to decide. But the bigger question is whether the process itself—the threat of life-altering damage awards, the hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, the time and exposure of a federal trial—is truly a proportional, equitable response to online copyright infringement?
Not even the judge who must preside over this case believes that the answer to that question is "yes." Writing an unusually pointed order granting Thomas-Rasset a new trial last year, Judge Michael Davis, Chief Justice of the Minnesota District Court, wrote these extraordinary words:
While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far‐reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs—the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000—more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent...
The Court would be remiss if it did not take this opportunity to implore Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer‐ to‐peer network cases such as the one currently before this Court. The Court begins its analysis by recognizing the unique nature of this case. The defendant is an individual, a consumer. She is not a business. She sought no profit from her acts... The Court does not condone Thomas’s actions, but it would be a farce to say that a single mother’s acts of using Kazaa are the equivalent, for example, to the acts of global financial firms illegally infringing on copyrights in order to profit...
Despite his opinion, Davis may well preside over another guilty verdict this week; if so, he won't be able to throw it out thanks to a "making available" jury instruction this time around—a fact that perhaps accounts for his perpetual grumpy frown during the trial."
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-takes-the-stand-admits-to-major-misstep.ars
Monday, June 15, 2009
Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs; Associated Press, 6/15/09
Steve Karnowski via Associated Press; Music cos. vow to show Minn. woman shared 24 songs:
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
"This case remains the only one out of more than 30,000 similar lawsuits the industry has filed that has made it to trial. The vast majority of the other defendants settled for an average of about $3,500 rather than risk huge judgments and legal bills. [Jammie] Thomas-Rasset's first lawyer put in nearly $130,000 worth of time for which she couldn't pay. Her new lawyers, [Kiwi] Camara and Joe Sibley, of Houston, took the case for free.
Thomas-Rasset lost her first trial in 2007 when jurors awarded the companies $222,000. But U.S. District Judge Michael Davis later concluded he made a mistake in his jury instructions and ordered the retrial.
This time, Davis is expected to instruct the jurors the record companies need to prove that someone actually downloaded the music Thomas-Rasset allegedly made available over the Internet on the Kazaa file sharing service. Last time, he told the jury the plaintiffs didn't have to prove anyone downloaded the copyright-protected songs.
The companies suing are subsidiaries of all four major recording companies, Warner Music Group Corp., Vivendi SA's Universal Music Group, EMI Group PLC and Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment.
Thomas, a mother of four and employee of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe tribal government, allegedly used Kazaa, a "peer-to-peer" file sharing service in which users make files on their own computers available for downloading by other users. Although the industry contends she made more than 1,700 songs available, for simplicity's sake it's trying to prove copyright violations on just a representative sample of only 24, including songs by Gloria Estefan, Sheryl Crow, Green Day and Journey."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5h5cPHcxNbw61wli6CVCczuXJYgyQD98RETQG0
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Trial transcript of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas now available online, Ray Beckerman's Recording Industry vs. The People Blog, 12/28/08
Via Ray Beckerman's Recording Industry vs. The People Blog: Trial transcript of Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas now available online:
"We are pleased to announce that the complete transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial, which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas, is now available online:
Transcript, October 2, 2007, pp. 1-278
Transcript, October 3, 2007, pp. 280-543
Transcript, October 4, 2007, pp. 544-643"
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#259200380767823862
"We are pleased to announce that the complete transcript of the Duluth, Minnesota, jury trial, which took place October 2, 2007, to October 4, 2007, in Capitol Records v. Thomas, is now available online:
Transcript, October 2, 2007, pp. 1-278
Transcript, October 3, 2007, pp. 280-543
Transcript, October 4, 2007, pp. 544-643"
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008_12_01_archive.html#259200380767823862
RIAA appeal in Jammie Thomas case refused, Ars Technica, 12/29/08
Via Ars Technica: RIAA appeal in Jammie Thomas case refused:
"Saying that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was quite clear on the matter, [federal judge Michael] Davis refused to allow the appeal in a December 23rd order. "While Plaintiffs can point to a number of courts from other jurisdictions that have disagreed with this Court's conclusion," he wrote, "the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly held that actual distribution is required."
With the "interlocutory" appeal denied, the RIAA will have to wait until a final judgment has been issued before filing an appeal. That means a complete retrial first; given the RIAA's new moves toward "graduated response" deals with ISPs and the cessation of its widespread legal campaign, it's not clear that the industry will be willing to gear up for yet another high-profile trial against Thomas."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081229-riaa-appeal-in-jammie-thomas-case-refused.html
"Saying that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was quite clear on the matter, [federal judge Michael] Davis refused to allow the appeal in a December 23rd order. "While Plaintiffs can point to a number of courts from other jurisdictions that have disagreed with this Court's conclusion," he wrote, "the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has explicitly held that actual distribution is required."
With the "interlocutory" appeal denied, the RIAA will have to wait until a final judgment has been issued before filing an appeal. That means a complete retrial first; given the RIAA's new moves toward "graduated response" deals with ISPs and the cessation of its widespread legal campaign, it's not clear that the industry will be willing to gear up for yet another high-profile trial against Thomas."
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081229-riaa-appeal-in-jammie-thomas-case-refused.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)