Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brainerd, Minnesota did what no other defendant in a file-sharing lawsuit has done: she took her case to trial. Other cases thus far have been settled out of court by defendants eager to put the case to rest and avoid legal bills. Average settlement fees have been $3,500. In 2007 a federal court in Duluth found the defendant guilty of sharing 24 songs on Kazaa, and therefore liable for damages to the bad tune of $222,000. Since then, Thomas-Rasset has been granted a retrial because a judge made a mistake in telling the jury that it had no bearing on the case whether the songs had been downloaded from the defendant. Now it is said that the law requires proof that the files were actually shared with others.
As noted in this previous post, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is no longer pursuing cases against people they believe are guilty of file sharing. Instead, alleged copyright pirates will be targeted via their ISPs, who may cut off service altogether. This is partially the result of a widely held public belief that cases like this should not be brought against the public by the recording industry. In the news article that inspired this post, the file sharing court case debacle was called a “public relations nightmare” for the recording industry, which is apparently viewed as a Big Corporate Bad Guy beating up on individuals like single moms and college students who don’t have the resources to fight. Thomas-Rasset is a mother of four and also says she is financially strapped, but in this case it doesn’t matter, as she has an impressive legal team fighting for her pro bono. Her head lawyer, K.A.D. Camara, said he is taking the case in order to “turn Thomas-Rasset's retrial into a trial against the RIAA, both before the jury and in the court of public opinion. A win by the defense, he said, could undermine the other music-sharing cases.” Camara is already using inventive pre-trial tactics against the RIAA. One that has been successful so far is demanding that the RIAA present certified copies from the U.S. Copyright Office to prove ownership of the material. This has never been a requirement in the past, and was called a “new headache” for the industry.
RIAA’s spokeswoman predicts victory in the upcoming retrial, calling the RIAA “confident” that they will prevail. But with Thomas-Rasset’s eager and crafty legal assistance and with the court of public opinion already in her favor, it will be interesting to see how this—possibly one of the “last dinosaurs” of the file-sharing cases—will turn out. Quotes and factual information were taken from this article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I remember that when this type of " piracy" came to the forefront it seems that the people being punished were youngsters,who were doing it for personal use.
As a person who work for a company that provides HSI to individual customers and businesses, I wonder is it fair to go after ISP addresses.
Hi s. You know about the rules/regs of the ISP and I don't, but if they were suing me, I'd rather have my ISP cancel me and just move on to another one than have to pay huge fines or court decisions of hundreds of thousands. I see both sides. While I don't think they should go after big money from the individual with no money who is doing it for personal use, I also think you can look at the fledgling recording artist as a "little guy" and see how they're being robbed in a way.
Okay Lisa. Thanks for the additional insight although I think it's still a very tricky proposition. Guess we will have to see what happens.
Post a Comment