RIAA trial verdict is in: jury finds Thomas liable for infringement

[Rickten]

i'm currently taking a business law class in graduate school. My professor is an attorney with 20 years experience in California with a law degree from notre damn and he admitted that he boots anyone he can with a technical degree such as engineering, biology, animal science, etc just because they are harder to manipulate into seeing things the way he wants. Sad times. I think I would rule the same way because the evidence was pretty damning from what I've read but the damages awarded is an absolutely ridiculous number.

 

[frostedflakes]

Man that sucks, guess she should have settled for a few thousand. :/

Also from what I understand she had 1700+ songs in her shared folder, but they are suing for damages on 24 songs because that is all they could prove she was sharing (i.e. when they logged her info only these songs were being uploaded). Their defense wasn't that the RIAA couldn't prove the songs were being shared, but that they couldn't prove it was her sharing the songs, as an IP address only identifies a computer, not a person.

But yeah, she was pretty obviously guilty as hell. She used the same alias all over the net, but the alias on Kazaa wasn't her? Come on. Still $220k seems really harsh, it's sad to know that her and her children's lives are probably going to be ruined by what I would consider to be a pretty trivial offense.

 

[Stiganator]

In cases like this the worst penalty should be 5x the market value of the item in question. So 5*24 itunes purchases. 120 bones.

 

[jagec]

I guess the lesson here is that legally speaking, your safest bet for getting free music is to steal cars, sell them, and buy CDs.

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: jagec
I guess the lesson here is that legally speaking, your safest bet for getting free music is to steal cars, sell them, and buy CDs.

Or just straight up steal CDs from cars.

 

[ForumMaster]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

 

[TheVrolok]

Marked for later.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: NeuroSynapsis

Originally posted by: fh99
You need to work on your C&P skill set.

my what?

you fail at the copy paste!



its time to boycott the riaa!!

goddamned incompetent juries run amuck..

no one could claim that this was justice with a straight face.

 

[Syringer]

Not surprised the jury ruled that way. They probably consisted of a bunch of 40-50 year old people who were asked "have you ever illegally downloaded music before?" and those who have probably weren't allowed to serve on there.

If it were a jury of 20 year old college students the decision might've been different.

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Wait a minute...they sued this person for downloading 24 songs? That can't be right.

Actually she was sharing close to 2000 songs.

 

[JackBurton]

As I posted on DailyTech, this should have been an easy defense for the defendant...

Your honor, I don't know about you, but I was brought up to share. And my teachers always said, if you don't have enough for the entire class, then put it away. Well I've grown up now, and I DO have enough for the class. As a matter of fact, I have enough for EVERYONE. I also like to ask you, "what would Jesus do?" Jesus fed a starving crowd by magically duplicating bread and fish for everyone to eat. Would you sue Jesus for copyright infringement for multiplying bread and fish without the consent of the bread and fish store owners? He wasn't authorized to make copies. And I'm sure the bread and fish store owners would claim they lost millions of shells (or whatever they used back then for money) due to Jesus' "illegal" duplication tricks. I for one think Jesus with his magical powers did more good than harm for those people. And if you rule against my client, it would be like ruling against Jesus. So ladies and gentlemen of the jury, ask yourself one thing, do you WANT to burn in hell? I think not.

Thank you your honor. I rest my case

That's the kind of logic you need to use with these moronic jurors. I call it "The Jesus Defense."

 

[Wreckem]

Originally posted by: Rickten
i'm currently taking a business law class in graduate school. My professor is an attorney with 20 years experience in California with a law degree from notre damn and he admitted that he boots anyone he can with a technical degree such as engineering, biology, animal science, etc just because they are harder to manipulate into seeing things the way he wants. Sad times. I think I would rule the same way because the evidence was pretty damning from what I've read but the damages awarded is an absolutely ridiculous number.

Most trial lawyers who are representing the plantiffs will try and get as many college educated(doesnt matter the degree) kicked out of the jury pool.

 

[Xavier434]

Was she guilty? Yes. Did she deserve that punishment? Hell no.


It's really simple. All you have to do is make a gargantuan list of cases where defendant was found guilty and had to pay substantially less money for damages than this case. Then you just need to filter those cases so that you are left with the ones where the vast majority of Americans would agree that the crime committed is far less severe than this case.

There you have it. This is truly screwed up.

 

[ViviTheMage]

Is this the first case that someone was actually fined ?

 

[ElFenix]

reading the comments here makes me weep about the average american's lack of knowledge about the legal system.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

if you're destroying evidence you could get sanctioned with a jury assumption that the evidence you destroyed was the worst possible against you. if you've made it impossible for them to gather evidence by your own bad acts, there is a good chance they're not going to have to prove much. doesn't sound like she got an instruction against her, as she did argue that the reason she replaced her hard drive was that it was malfunctioning.

and the fact that her IP and the MAC of her cable modem were associated with a kazaa user allows a pretty reasonable assumption that kazaa was installed on her computer (the only one attached to the modem). that counts as proof.

additionally, the fact that she used the user name for various other things allows a pretty reasonable assumption that the kazaa user name was her user name. again, that is proof.

 

[silverpig]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
reading the comments here makes me weep about the average american's lack of knowledge about the legal system.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

if you're destroying evidence you could get sanctioned with a jury assumption that the evidence you destroyed was the worst possible against you. if you've made it impossible for them to gather evidence by your own bad acts, there is a good chance they're not going to have to prove much. doesn't sound like she got an instruction against her, as she did argue that the reason she replaced her hard drive was that it was malfunctioning.

and the fact that her IP and the MAC of her cable modem were associated with a kazaa user allows a pretty reasonable assumption that kazaa was installed on her computer (the only one attached to the modem). that counts as proof.

additionally, the fact that she used the user name for various other things allows a pretty reasonable assumption that the kazaa user name was her user name. again, that is proof.

None of those things constitute proof. Evidence yes, but not proof. It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened.

 

[flashbacck]

.
n/m

 

[NicColt]

Here is the problem with this entire affair...

The problem was not that she downloaded the files, is that she then made them available for distribution.

The re-distribution of copyright is where you get into problems.

 

[NicColt]

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: ElFenix
reading the comments here makes me weep about the average american's lack of knowledge about the legal system.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

if you're destroying evidence you could get sanctioned with a jury assumption that the evidence you destroyed was the worst possible against you. if you've made it impossible for them to gather evidence by your own bad acts, there is a good chance they're not going to have to prove much. doesn't sound like she got an instruction against her, as she did argue that the reason she replaced her hard drive was that it was malfunctioning.

and the fact that her IP and the MAC of her cable modem were associated with a kazaa user allows a pretty reasonable assumption that kazaa was installed on her computer (the only one attached to the modem). that counts as proof.

additionally, the fact that she used the user name for various other things allows a pretty reasonable assumption that the kazaa user name was her user name. again, that is proof.

None of those things constitute proof. Evidence yes, but not proof. It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened.

I don't think you need %100 proof, just beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[ddeder]

If she was going to lie anyway...

Why not claim to have had a wireless router connected to the modem during the timeframe in question? "Judge, I had an unsecured wireless network. Some guy kept parking out front with his laptop. He must have done it!".

Unless they have the MAC address of the NIC, how could they prove otherwise?

Maybe the guy in the car knew her name and used it to create a Kazaa account to make it look like it was her.

Hell, with the number of unsecured wireless networks out there, who knows who is downloading what on any network?

Comments?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: silverpig
None of those things constitute proof. Evidence yes, but not proof. It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened.

By that standard NOTHING is proof.

 

[ddeder]

"It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened."

This is not very plausible. But the unsecured wireless network angle really is plausible...

 

[murban135]

Originally posted by: NicColt

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: ElFenix
reading the comments here makes me weep about the average american's lack of knowledge about the legal system.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

if you're destroying evidence you could get sanctioned with a jury assumption that the evidence you destroyed was the worst possible against you. if you've made it impossible for them to gather evidence by your own bad acts, there is a good chance they're not going to have to prove much. doesn't sound like she got an instruction against her, as she did argue that the reason she replaced her hard drive was that it was malfunctioning.

and the fact that her IP and the MAC of her cable modem were associated with a kazaa user allows a pretty reasonable assumption that kazaa was installed on her computer (the only one attached to the modem). that counts as proof.

additionally, the fact that she used the user name for various other things allows a pretty reasonable assumption that the kazaa user name was her user name. again, that is proof.

None of those things constitute proof. Evidence yes, but not proof. It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened.

I don't think you need %100 proof, just beyond reasonable doubt.

I believe this was a civil case, so it was just a preponderance of the evidence.

 

[Darwin333]

Originally posted by: NicColt

Originally posted by: silverpig

Originally posted by: ElFenix
reading the comments here makes me weep about the average american's lack of knowledge about the legal system.

Originally posted by: ForumMaster

Originally posted by: tfinch2
Good. Those "Someone used her name and IP address" arguments piss me off.

maybe, but from what i understand from reading on Dailytech, the RIAA never even had to prove that she had Kazaa installed or that it was her username. i'm not saying she's not guilty, but a quarter milllion dollars is way too much.

if you're destroying evidence you could get sanctioned with a jury assumption that the evidence you destroyed was the worst possible against you. if you've made it impossible for them to gather evidence by your own bad acts, there is a good chance they're not going to have to prove much. doesn't sound like she got an instruction against her, as she did argue that the reason she replaced her hard drive was that it was malfunctioning.

and the fact that her IP and the MAC of her cable modem were associated with a kazaa user allows a pretty reasonable assumption that kazaa was installed on her computer (the only one attached to the modem). that counts as proof.

additionally, the fact that she used the user name for various other things allows a pretty reasonable assumption that the kazaa user name was her user name. again, that is proof.

None of those things constitute proof. Evidence yes, but not proof. It is entirely plausible that someone broke into her house, got kazaa, used the username they found on the windows start menu and downloaded songs. Extremely unlikely yes, but it COULD have happened.

I don't think you need %100 proof, just beyond reasonable doubt.

If I am not mistaken, this is a civil case.

"The burden of proof in a civil case is lower than in a criminal trial. Instead of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" ? the criminal standard ? jurors or judges render a verdict on the basis of the "preponderance of the evidence." "

 

[TheAdvocate]

I'm not reading all of that. Did she profit from the distribution?

I'd have a real problem awarding serious damages (as a juror) unless she did.