RIAA wins a lawsuit

[The Notorious LOL]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/49445


Im still lost on this. How come no one is saying "prove those songs were on my PC, prove the songs titled as such were in fact the songs, and prove it was me"


basically the legal tactic is similar to looking into someones window, seeing a TV that looks like one you had stolen, and telling them they owe you money.

[JohnnyChavello]

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/49445


Im still lost on this. How come no one is saying "prove those songs were on my PC, prove the songs titled as such were in fact the songs, and prove it was me"

Those are all things the RIAA has an obligation to prove in order to win the case, but the burden of proof in a civil lawsuit is not 100%, or even beyond a reasonable doubt. All the RIAA has to show regarding your question, is that a preponderance of the evidence supports the conclusion that the songs were on her PC, that they were the songs the RIAA claimed they were, and that she was the person who distributed them on Kazaa.

It wouldn't be too tough to handle that. First, she would have had to turn over her hard drive during pre-trial discovery, which would've established that she had the songs on her computer. Second, a record of her activity on Kazaa could establish uploads from her computer containing those files - the files they now know are their copyrighted songs. This evidence is substantial enough to put the burden on her to establish that someone else hijacked her computer and distributed the songs. Apparently she tried to do this and wasn't even close to being successful.

By the way, it makes me sick that the RIAA is choosing to force otherwise law abiding citizens and families into bankruptcy in order to get an upper hand on file sharing, but think long and hard before running amok through these networks poaching every song, album and movie you've ever heard of.

[Bob]

also it was a jury trial

[JohnnyChavello]

also it was a jury trial

What do you mean?

[Bob]

i mean i don't trust juries to deliver justice

[JohnnyChavello]

i mean i don't trust juries to deliver justice

Juries don't determine the law, they're required to decide particular facts. Based on their determination of the facts, the case comes out one way or the other. If their findings of fact are unreasonable according to the weight of the evidence, judges are allowed, under certain conditions, to overturn those findings.

I know that people have really strong feelings on what the law should be, but courts have to apply the law as it stands. It's pretty clear, unfortunately so for everyone getting railed by the RIAA, that downloading and distributing copyrighted material is infringement.

[Bob]

Juries don't determine the law, they're required to decide particular facts. Based on their determination of the facts, the case comes out one way or the other. If their findings of fact are unreasonable according to the weight of the evidence, judges are allowed, under certain conditions, to overturn those findings.

I know that people have really strong feelings on what the law should be, but courts have to apply the law as it stands. It's pretty clear, unfortunately so for everyone getting railed by the RIAA, that downloading and distributing copyrighted material is infringement.

yeah i mean i'm in law school, i'm currently working for a court, i have a general understanding of how juries work

that said i don't trust them (http://www.beastieboys.com/bbs/showthread.php?t=81687)

[JohnnyChavello]

-in 2003, a 17 year old black male (honor roll student, prom king, clean record i believe) has consensual oral sex with a 15 year old girl at a party

-he was sentenced under an old georgia law, which makes oral sex with a minor a felony with a mandatory minimum 10 year sentence, plus he's now a registered sex offender for the rest of his life[/url]

I've heard of that case also, and it's one of many reasons Georgians have to be ashamed of their legal system, but I don't understand why you place the blame on the jury. As you say, jury nullification almost never happens because the defense is ordinarily not allowed to disclose the option to the members of the jury. So, the law says its a felony, the defendant admits to violating the law, or is proven to have violated the law, and the jury is told it has no option but to apply the law to the facs of the case. It ain't their fault, it's the fault of the self-righteous Bible beaters in Georgia who decided that non-procreative sex should be a crime.

[TurdBerglar]

i don't think someone's life should be determined by a handful of schmucks

[yeahwho]

The consumer has to pay for the ignorance of the music business. By not embracing the internet immediately in the early 80's they have completely lost focus.

The bands of the future will probably be much smarter. Radiohead is fucking awesome by offering their album at "peer cost".

The whole idea of fining a woman that much money for such an easily accessible software program with an incredibly complicated set of "user agreements" is insane. The fucking corporate lawyers have made an ass of the justice system and our own citizenship in general.

[Bob]

i don't think someone's life should be determined by a handful of schmucks

i hate it when i agree with you on political things but yeah, that's pretty much what i think too, right down to the word "schmuck"

get 12 schmucks in a room (specially selected for their ignorance on the matter at hand) and say "you're not leaving until you all agree on something" and that's justice

fuck it, i'd rather trust a judge

[TurdBerglar]

honestly i'd do whatever it would take to get me out of that room as fast as possible. like i give a shit about that person sitting in that chair.

[ET]

Supposedly one of the former jury members was dismissed after admitting to downloading songs online? Also, the defendant was Native American. First you steal her land and now you're going to throw her in jail for allegedly downloading some Duran Duran songs? Good job, whitey!

[Loppfessor]

^No way that's true.....everyone knows Indians hate Duran Duran

[yeahwho]

Jammie Thomas, the woman who lost this case is now appealing. The appeal should be pretty interesting. Many are saying she will turn into a real public relations nightmare for the RIAA.

Here is a news story about her case from an interview in Wired,

Defendant knocks Web illiterate juror in RIAA case (http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9795095-7.html?tag=nefd.pulse)

Jammie Thomas is hard to rattle

She doesn't raise her voice or get angry when a reporter asks her to read a story where she is called a "liar" by a member of the jury that found her guilty of copyright violations and ordered her to pay the recording industry $220,000 in damages.

She calmly reads the quotes by juror Michael Hegg, from Duluth, Minn., that appeared Tuesday in a story by Wired.com. She then draws a bead on where Hegg said he is a father, former snowmobile racer and has never been on the Internet.