|
|
| The Commentary | The Outcome |
RIAA Ready For a Jury This Time?by George Ziemann -- Sept. 13, 2007 Author's Note -- All the legal documents pertinent to this discussion can be found at Ray Beckerman's blog, Recording Industry vs The People. It looks like Jammie Thomas is next in line to join Patricia Santangelo, Debbie Foster, and Tanya Andersen in the winner's circle. Thomas' jury trial is scheduled for October 1. If it actually takes place, it would be the first, so my money is on the RIAA dropping the case at the last minute because, once again, they have no real evidence of anything. Thomas' case has a new twist, as the RIAA asked to stipulate prior to the trial that a) they are the copyright holders of the songs in question, b) the copyrights are all proper, and c) Jammie Thomas was not authorized to distribute them. After all, your average RIAA troll will tell you, Jammie Thomas certainly isn't the copyright holder, so let's not waste court time to prove it. Eric Bangeman over at ars technica points out that the RIAA's court-filed claims of ownership don't match the copyright registrations on record. Somehow this takes him to the conclusion that the RIAA is trying to avoid a trial. It seems to me that the RIAA is merely trying to bypass coughing up the copyright registrations as evidence because the last time they were ready to do that (when suing mp3.com), the artists seemed to have a problem with it. In fact, it was the impetus for the formation of the Recording Artists Coalition. Surprisingly, some of the artists seem to think that since they have to bear all the costs of producing the recordings, maybe they ought to own them when all is said and done. If the checkbox that says "work for hire" is checked and the labels' ownership of the songs in question is established in a court, it will be much easier for the labels to take permanent ownership of the recordings. I think that they're not trying to avoid a trial as much as they are trying to avoid a challenge by the artists that could derail their entire case. The only party entitled to bring a copyright infringement case is the registered owner of the copyright. If said ownership comes into question, then the RIAA's right to accuse someone of infringement comes into question as well. Of course, the RIAA's ability to prove said accusations have always been in doubt. They haven't done it yet. Now at least one judge has dismissed an uncontested case (the defendant didn't even show up) because he had the clarity to notice that the RIAA boilerplate filings are bogus. Senior District Court Judge Rudi M. Brewster of the US District Court for the Southern District of California said, "Plaintiff here must present at least some facts to show the plausibility of their allegations of copyright infringement against the Defendant. However, other than the bare conclusory statement that on 'information and belief' Defendant has downloaded, distributed and/or made available for distribution to the public copyrighted works, Plaintiffs have presented no facts that would indicate that this allegation is anything more than speculation." But we always knew that. RIAA's First Jury Trial Set for Oct. 2by George Ziemann -- Sept. 27, 2007 The Facts (from Recording Industry vs The People)
What I Think There are still five days left for the RIAA to change its mind about taking a case to trial wherein "the RIAA has no evidence". Just like every other case they bring to court. I'm hoping their ego gets the best of them and they actually go through with a trial. I want to hear (or at least read the transcript of) Cary Sherman testifying in court, under oath, because perjury is gonna take place. Even better, due to the foresight of Judge Davis, the jury will get to hear why suits from the labels are the owners of the all the copyrights and not Gun N Roses, Vanessa Williams, Janet Jackson, Journey, Godsmack or Sheryl Crow, who I know will be especially pleased to have her work proven to be a "Work for Hire," considering the testimony Sheryl gave to the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 25, 2000.
The Long Shot From Napster to Jammie Thomas, the RIAA has consistently taken the path best defined as the ever-changing answer to the question, "What's the stupidest thing we can do next?" Today's answer is "Lose the first case." Some of us have been waiting a long time to see this day. If they do lose, then it will be that much easier for Tanya Andersen to take them all to the cleaners, which she's probably going to do anyway. RIAA Earns Pre-Trial Penalty in Virgin v Thomasby George Ziemann -- Oct 2, 2007 The case of Virgin Records and the rest of the music cartel against Jammie Thomas begins today in Duluth, with the RIAA managing to shoot themselves just above the left ear before they even get to jury selection. As anyone who's ever watched Law and Order or CSI knows, there's a "discovery" period, during which the plaintiff (RIAA, in this case) has to cough up all the evidence against the defendant, so that the defense has an opportunity to explain it. The discovery period for Virgin v Thomas ended seven months ago. Since you have to be the registered copyright owner to bring an infringement case, the RIAA really needed to offer evidence that they owned the songs in question. What Thomas' attorney got was a list of 27 titles, who owned them, and copies of copyright registrations. One small problem, 14 of those songs (more than half) were registered to someone other than the parties bringing the lawsuit. Two weeks ago, the RIAA arrogantly showed up with 784 pieces of paper that they claim will show how possession of the copyrights was transferred to the current owners. Thomas' attorney called "foul" because these documents should have been provided long ago. On Oct. 1, the judge agreed. Now the RIAA is precluded (banned) from admitting any of the entire stack of new documents. This will make the question of ownership of more than half the songs referred to in the case even more difficult for the RIAA to establish. Now they're stuck with their own disinformation and half-truths. Oh yeah, this is gonna be good. Oct 2 -- Day 1 -- Case renamed Capitol Records v Jammie Thomas because the RIAA dropped the only Virgin Records tune from the case. Jury was selected and RIAA immediately started introducing half-truths (making even one copy of a song you legally purchased is theft) and conjecture ("the defendant distributed the songs to 'millions of others' on the Internet"). Another problem for the RIAA -- Thomas had a problem with her hard drive and had it replaced a month before she found out she was being sued by the RIAA. Day 2 -- The RIAA's Cary Sherman is deemed "not relevant" by the judge, confirming what many of us had known for some time. Thomas confesses to the horrendous crime of liking music. RIAA-hired forensic expert, Doug Jacobson, admits, "The IP address does not identify an individual." The RIAA, having no real facts or evidence left to introduce, rested its case. The defense said, "That's all you've got? No witnesses, your honor. The defense rests, too." (Okay, that wasn't a real quote, but that's how James Woods would have done it.) Closing arguments are tomorrow, which the judge has limited to 30 minutes from each side. The jury could be finished deliberating before lunch. |
WTF?!?
|