RIAA case goes to trial in my hometown!

[Naethyn]

Duluth, MN — Since filing the first of over 20,000 file-sharing lawsuits in 2003, the RIAA has seen every one of them either dismissed or settled—almost all in favor of the record industry. That's going to change Tuesday, as a jury trial in Virgin Records America, et al v. Jammie Thomas is set to begin in Duluth, Minnesota.
Related Stories

* RIAA spends thousands to obtain $300 judgment
* RIAA's final tab for Capitol v. Foster: $68,685.23
* RIAA backtracks after embarrassing P2P defendant
* DoJ may lend the RIAA a hand in file-sharing case

Throughout their legal campaign, the record labels have done what they can to get judges to decide the case in their favor before trial. Last month, the RIAA asked the judge in this case for summary judgment on three issues: that the record labels own the copyrights, that the copyright registrations are in order, and that Thomas was not authorized to copy or distribute the songs allegedly found by SafeNet on her PC. Judge Michael J. Davis denied the RIAA's motion for summary adjudication, setting the stage for the trial.

In many ways, the case mirrors the other contested file-sharing cases. But Thomas' defense is focusing on what it sees as a key weakness in the RIAA's case, the ownership of the copyrights to the 26 songs allegedly found by SafeNet. The RIAA submitted screenshots of the shared folder SafeNet discovered on KaZaA, stipulating that the plaintiffs owned the copyright to the songs. One problem: the documentation provided by the RIAA doesn't appear to support the claim.
Song Copyright holder according to the RIAA Copyright holder according to the certificate of registration
"Appetite for Destruction" UMG Recordings The David Geffen Company
"The Comfort Zone" UMG Recordings Polygram Records
"Control" UMG Recordings A&M Records, Inc.
"Frontiers" Sony BMG CBS, Inc.
"Let it Loose" Sony BMG CBS, Inc.
"Get a Grip" UMG Recordings Geffen Records
"Hysteria" UMG Recordings Mercury Records
"If You See Him" UMG Recordings MCA Records Nashville

According to Brian Toder, Thomas' attorney, the labels produced no additional evidence to support the claims of copyright ownership during the course of discovery. Two weeks before trial, but several months after they were supposed to be produced in discovery, the labels produced another 784 pages of documentation they say they need to demonstrate copyright ownership. Judge Davis ruled Monday that the RIAA cannot introduce it as evidence.

For the RIAA, the issue is clear-cut. Jammie Thomas, a single mother living in Brainerd, Minnesota, was the Charter subscriber associated with the IP address 24.179.199.117 on February 21, 2005, which is when SafeNet discovered tereastarr@KaZaA logged onto KaZaA with over 1,700 recordings in a shared folder. According to the RIAA, Thomas has used the "tereastarr" nickname online for "many years," leading them to believe that she was indeed responsible for "distributing" the recordings.

Not long after receiving a settlement letter from the labels, Thomas also had the hard drive in her PC replaced by Best Buy, which the RIAA says was done in an attempt to intentionally conceal her infringement. An RIAA spokesperson told Ars on Monday that the group plans to move forward with its claims, and that it tries "to be fair and reasonable" in resolving all of its file-sharing cases "quickly and out of court."

The trial will begin at 9 AM CST Tuesday morning, with much of the first day expected to consist of oral arguments, jury selection, and possibly testimony from a couple of people from the plaintiff's witness list, which includes RIAA president Cary Sherman and expert witness Dr. Doug Jacobson, whose credibility has been called into question in other file-sharing cases. Ars Technica will be on hand for the trial and will be quick to report on the events of each day.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071001-file-sharing-on-trial-first-riaa-case-goes-to-trial-on-tuesday.html


He won't lose this case. If all they have is his name subscribed to the IP there is no actual proof he did the crime. He is also not directly responsible for the content downloaded as this same thing can happen from any public computer. In fact, in recent news the RIAA is being counter sewed many times! I bet he gets money out of this. That or they will bully him into submission.

[Ouchyfish]

How can they punish anyone since they can obviously catch almost all of the people guilty of this yet choose not to?

[Harrison]

I hope they get spanked in court and look like the fucking retards they are.

[Martrae]

It amuses me that Naethyn supposedly read this article but can't even get the defendant's gender right.

[brinstar]

fuck the riaa

[Ouchyfish]

It amuses me that Naethyn supposedly read this article but can't even get the defendant's gender right.

[Naethyn]

Duluth court to host recording industry lawsuit against alleged illegal downloader

Duluth News Tribune - 10/01/2007
What may be the first jury trial of a Recording Industry Association of America lawsuit alleging illegal downloading and sharing of music is set to begin this week in U.S. District Court in Duluth.

Virgin Records America and its co-plaintiffs claim that Jammie Thomas of Brainerd distributed at least 26 copyrighted works for free over the internet.

Thomas’s attorneys, in a statement filed with the court, said she “did not download anything from KaZaA or any other peer-to-peer network” and question if the plaintiffs own the copyrights they allege are theirs.

According to court documents, the plaintiffs claim that on Feb. 21, 2005, their investigator detected a person distributing 1,702 digital audio files, including at least 26 copyrighted works. The plaintiffs filed a “Doe” lawsuit and obtained a subpoena, forcing Charter Communications to identify Thomas as the subscriber to the Internet Protocol address the plaintiffs claim had distributed the audio files .

The RIAA, which represents record companies, claims that the music industry is losing billions of dollars for the illegal copying of music. It has been trying to stop the downloading and sharing of copyrighted music by threatening people with lawsuits. The RIAA offers a discounted settlement rate for people who respond to pre-litigation letters. It the person doesn’t respond, the RIAA will file a lawsuit and give the person a second chance to settle for a higher discounted rate.

In this case, the plaintiffs are asking the court for an award for damages, costs and attorney fees, and a permanent injunction.

U.S. District Court Judge Michael J. Davis will preside over the trial, which is expected to last several days.

Pre-trial motions are expected today. The trial is scheduled for Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. It will resume Oct. 9, if neecessary.

Duluth jury hears 4 witnesses in illegal downloading lawsuit
Steve Kuchera
Duluth News Tribune - 10/02/2007
A music industry employee testified this afternoon that she has seen thousands of people lose their jobs because of Internet piracy of copyrighted songs.

“It kills the company,” Jennifer L. Pariser of Sony BMG Music Entertainment and Arista Records said in U.S. Federal Court in Duluth.

Pariser was the first witness in the Recording Industry Association of America lawsuit against Jammie Thomas of Brainerd. RIAA claims that Thomas pirated a number of songs. RIAA is suing Thomas specifically over 25 songs. Nationally, this is the first time such a case has come before a jury. It is being heard by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis.

“I never downloaded anything,” Thomas told reporters outside of the courthouse during lunch. Thomas. "I have CDs of everything I listen to."

During her early testimony, Pariser testified about the songs that a company working for the recording industry found being shared over the Internet by the username “tereastarr@KaZaA” o n Feb. 21, 2005. The plaintiffs claim their investigation found that Thomas as the subscriber responsible for the pirating.

During cross-examination, Thomas’ attorney, Brian Toder, questioned if there was any evidence actually proving that Thomas had shared the songs in question. Pariser conceded that it would be “hypothetically possible” for someone else to do so.

Toder also questioned why the music industry isn’t seeking actual damages, but instead monetary awards allowed by copyright law ranging from $750 to $150,000 a song. The 12-person jury will determine the actual amount Thomas will pay if the jury decides she did pirate the songs.

The reason, Toder implied, was because the plantiffs can’t identify anyone else who may have shared the files.

The plaintiffs’ second and third witnesses, Mark Weaver of Safenet, Inc., and David Edgar, an Internet security manager for Charter Communications, testified on the steps they used to track the Feb. 21, 20 05, file sharing to the IP address they contend was registered to Thomas.

While cross examining the first three witnesses, Toder raised the question of whether someone else could have shared the files using the internet provider address registered to Thomas, perhaps through a wireless connection.

The plaintiffs’ fourth witness however said that Thomas’ computer was on the public Internet at the time and that “no wireless router was used in this case.”

Doug Jacobson, testifying as an expert witness, explained his investigation of Thomas’ Internet account and his examination of an exact copy of her computer’s hard drive.

In his opinion, Thomas’ account and computer were used distribute and download songs. The examination of the hard drive found a large number of audio files and several instances of the username “tereastarr.” But there was no evidence of KaZaA or any other peer-to-peer network, Jacobson said.

Judge Davis ended today’s court sessio n around 5:20 p.m., before the plaintiffs lead attorney, Richard Gabriel, finished his examination of Johnson. The trial resumes at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

The trial is being watched closely by many interested in the issue of downloading and sharing of Internet files. About 24 spectators were in the courtroom as jury selection began at 9:30 a.m. Some were representatives of local, Twin Cities and national media, including the Associated Press and Wired magazine. A courtroom artist sat in the front bench, drawing pictures of attorneys, witnesses, the judge and defendant. Others spectators were members of the plaintiff’s legal team.

Others were there, however, simply because they were interested in the issue.

“A lot is at stake at this trial,” said Josh Richard of Duluth. “It comes down to what people see as their definition of freedom. Each side has sound arguments. We’ll see how it plays out.”

Megan Carney came from the Twin Cities to watch the trial. The i nformation technology worker said the techniques that RIAA uses to identify people it claims are downloading and sharing copyrighted material are not well known.

“I’m interested in seeing how that stands up in court as evidence,” she said.

“I think RIAA’s techniques are underhanded and want to see if 12 other people agree,” said Robert Fensterman, a self-described computer geek from Duluth.

The RIAA claims the music industry is losing billions of dollars from the illegal copying of its music. The industry’s zero-tolerance copyright campaign started in 2003, threatening people who it alleges has downloaded copyrighted music with lawsuits unless they settle out of court.

It took just over an hour to seat a six-man, six-woman jury from a pool of 39 prospective jurors. The jury includes a high school English teacher from Kanabec County who has a master’s degree and is a musician. He wore his hair over his ears and a black T-shirt with white lettering that read: "Got Democracy?”

The man said he has read a lot about the issue of music pirating in Rolling Stone magazine. He said his students also like to write about the issue. “It’s a good, controversial topic for students to write about,” he said while being questioned as a prospective juror by U.S. District Judge Michael J. Davis.

The jury was seated at 10:45 a.m. in U.S. District Court in Duluth. The teacher seated as a juror said most of his students probably sided with those who download music. “I know it’s a very debatable topic with lots of issues,” the juror said. He said his view goes back and forth, but he could keep an open mind and follow the law that the judge said they must follow.

The jury also includes a silver-mustached man who doesn’t have a computer and doesn’t have much use for technology.

[Naethyn]

Forgot to mention this but my mother works in the court that this is going down. She can't say who'll win but after reading more articles online it sounds like the defense has it in the bag.

[Tikker]

I actually have a hard time believing that the RIAA could lose a case like this

it's dead easy to prove that someone has an IP at a particular moment in time, and just as easy to show what traffic is coming from that IP

it also kind of makes me giggle that the defendant keeps saying "I don't download anything" when she's getting wtfpwn'd for uploading

[Naethyn]

Defendant's counsel hammers away at piracy picture painted by RIAA

By Eric Bangeman | Published: October 03, 2007 - 01:51PM CT

Duluth, Minnesota — During the second morning of the Capitol v. Thomas trial, a clearer view of the two sides' legal strategy emerged. The RIAA, led by their counsel Richard Gabriel, is attempting to craft a carefully-constructed picture of the defendant as a KaZaA user whose "copying and distributing" music over the P2P network has harmed the record industry. The RIAA's counsel also hopes to paint a picture of the defendant as a habitual music thief who not only shares music, but also steals plenty of it herself. To that end, the RIAA is arguing that the music found on her computer during a forensic inspection was obtained illegally, by copying the music directly from another hard drive. In other words, she's guilty coming and going.
Related Stories

* Judge bars RIAA president from testifying in Capitol Records v. Thomas
* Debate over "making available" jury instruction as Capitol v. Thomas wraps up (updated)
* First RIAA trial gets under way with jury selection, opening statements
* RIAA anti-P2P campaign a real money pit, according to testimony

In contrast, the defendant's counsel, Brian Toder, has tried to plant the seeds of doubt about the real identity of the person detected using KaZaA by Media Sentry on the night of February 21, 2005. How can anyone be certain she was sharing the files? During the morning's session, he also attacked the RIAA's expert witness, Iowa State University computer science professor Doug Jacobson.

Professor Doug Jacobson conducted the forensic inspection of Thomas' hard drive, a drive which had been replaced under extended warranty by Best Buy about two weeks after the alleged infringement was noted by Media Sentry (but before the RIAA came calling). During its opening statements, the plaintiffs alluded to the possibility that the drive had been replaced in an attempt to wipe out any evidence of copyright infringement, but testimony from Ryan Maki, a Geek Squad "deputy of counterintelligence" (read: supervisor) resplendent in a Geek Squad sweater and sporting a law-enforcement-looking badge on his belt, confirmed Thomas' tale of hardware woes necessitating a replacement. It would appear that she had her drive swapped for a legitimate reason.
How fast can you rip?

This still leaves the question of the music found on Thomas' new hard drive. During Gabriel's direct examination of Jacobson, the investigator noted how close together the timestamps of the songs in Thomas' My Music folder were. "It is my opinion that the music files on the defendant's hard drive were placed there from another hard drive," affirmed Jacobson, attempting to account for the nature of the time stamps.

Once cross-examination began, Toder started asking Jacobson about things such as MAC address spoofing, cracking, P2P pollution, and multipeer contamination, intimating that one of those things could have been in play when Media Sentry detected the shared folder at the IP address in question. He then questioned Jacobson about his assertion that the music currently on Thomas' computer had to have come from a hard drive and announced that he wanted to demonstrate to the jury that it was possible to rip CDs as quickly as the timestamps from the forensic examination showed (the timestamps were approximately 15-20 seconds apart with a longer 30- to 45-second gap between CDs).

The RIAA's Gabriel objected, and the jury was led out as the attorneys discussed whether the demonstration should go forth. Judge Michael Davis gave his assent to the demonstration, and, after the jury filed back into the courtroom, Thomas ripped two CDs, timing it on her cell phone. When the first CD was done, she announced the time as 2:36.18. Gabriel immediately objected saying that they timed it at over four minutes. The apparently-amused judge said that the jurors could figure out the time for themselves. The second CD ripped in 2:17.71 according to the defendant's timing (I timed the second demonstration in 2:18.97). Gabriel again objected, saying that he had it at three-and-a-half minutes.

With the results in hand, Toder got Jacobson to admit that, despite whatever differences in hardware and software (e.g., WMP 11 versus WMP 10), the results of the test indicated that it was possible that the music was legitimately ripped from CD. "Is it still your testimony that the music on the defendant's computer was copied from a hard drive?" asked Toder.

"Given new versions of software, you could rip this fast," conceded Jacobson.
Thomas "a good music customer"

Aside from Jacobson and Maki, the only other two witnesses called by the plaintiffs were Kevin Hebemeier, Thomas' ex-boyfriend, and Eric Stanley, a computer forensics expert originally retained by the defense. Stanley's testimony was very brief, but he did note that he was originally told that the hard drive was replaced in January or February of 2004, not March 2005 as it actually was.

It's unclear why the plaintiffs called Hebemeier, as he really didn't do much to help their case. He confirmed the defense's timeline of events—that there was a real hardware problem over a month before Thomas got a letter from Charter Communications. He recalled telling Thomas after the letter arrived that "there's nothing there because the hard drive was wiped out and replaced" and confirmed that she used the e-mail address tereastarr@hotmail.com.

Under cross-examination, Hebemeier said he never saw Thomas using KaZaA and that he never saw any evidence of its presence when he used her PC. He also said that he had witnessed her ripping CDs and had talked to her on the phone while she was in the process of ripping. He also said that she owned at least a "couple hundred" CDs.

During his cross-examination of Geek Squad member Ryan Maki, Toder was able to use Best Buy's sales history of Toder to show that she was an avid music fan that bought a lot of music from the store, both before and after February 2005. "Best Buy's records show that she bought hundreds of CDs before February 2005, did she not?" asked Toder.

"There are quite a few CDs and DVDs purchased," replied Maki. "She's a good customer."

The plaintiffs hope to wrap up their case this afternoon by calling another three or four witnesses consisting of record company executives and RIAA president Cary Sherman. So far, their case appears to be strong: they've shown that Thomas uses the "tereastarr" handle extensively (the KaZaA user identified by Media Sentry was "tereastarr@KaZaA"), that the IP address flagged by Media Sentry was assigned to her account at the time, and that only one MAC address was interfacing with the cable modem during the months before and after the alleged infringement. Where the RIAA's case seems to be running aground is in its attempt to paint her as a pirate. The defense appears to have successfully countered allegations that she was into large-scale piracy, instead showing that she's a devoted music fan who owns hundreds of CDs.

Of course, it will be up to the jury to make the final call. They seem to be following the proceedings with interest, although I've detected a couple cases of eyes glazing over when the testimony gets technical.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20 ... -riaa.html

[Naethyn]

She was found guilty of 24 charges totaling over 240,000.

[Tikker]

She was found guilty of 24 charges totaling over 240,000.

like I said, it's very easy to prove someone is uploading copyright material

the monetary value that they come up with is always ludicrous

[brinstar]

fuck the riaa

[Harrison]

fuck the riaa

I hope they all find anthrax in their wheaties.

[Ouchyfish]

If damn near everyone shares music gets sued and does not pay...where will they put us all? Australia?

[Lueyen]

He won't lose this case. If all they have is his name subscribed to the IP there is no actual proof he did the crime. He is also not directly responsible for the content downloaded as this same thing can happen from any public computer. In fact, in recent news the RIAA is being counter sewed many times! I bet he gets money out of this. That or they will bully him into submission.

Although this prediction turned out to be false, I think it underscores the gravity of the outcome of the case. I have to wonder how long it will be until innocent people who's systems have been compromised lose a case like this. While I'm apt to consider that I'm by no means privy to all the case information and courtroom presentation, what I've read regarding the lack of solid evidence concerns me. It may very well be that this woman was full of shit in her defense, but if I understand the hard proof or lack there of in this case, it definitely changes the playing field.

In the end the RIAA and MPAA won't ever completely eliminate this, at best they can force it underground so not every joe blow with a computer and an internet connection can do it easily, but someone will always find a way I don't see and end to this fight ever and to some extent I see the pursuit of it as a catalyst that will encourage it's growth.

[Tikker]

all they really need to do is make the prices viable for people to buy, rather than pirate

[Harrison]

From: http://torrentfreak.com/riaa-misinforma ... ks-071009/

RIAA Misinformation Campaign Apparently Works
Written by Ben Jones on October 09, 2007

A Juror in the recent Capitol V Thomas trial speaks out, and potentially opens up avenues for overturning the verdict. His message to the RIAA – ‘your strategy is working’

RIAAOne of the jurors in the trial, which last Thursday awarded $222,000 in punitive damages against a Minnesota mother of two, spoke in an interview with Wired’s Threat Level about the decision they made.

The juror, Michael Hegg, a steelworker that claims he has never been on the Internet, said it took just five minutes to reach the verdict.However hours were spent deciding, or ‘bickering’ as to how much to award to the plaintiffs in punitive damages – no actual damages were awarded, because none were sought. Hegg’s statement, that “we wanted to send a message that you don’t do this, that you have been warned,” sends a message of it’s own, that the double-talking tactics of the industry groups is working.

Potentially more serious though, are the hints given by him that it was never going to be a fair trial. For someone who has never been on the internet, he, for instance, responded to claims of spoofing, and of possibly being a zombie system as “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding.’”

We discussed these statements with Andrew Norton, spokesperson for the Pirate Party of the US, which was not happy with some of the actions in this trial. “The attitudes and responses of this jury member shows that, whilst the litigation strategy may be a ‘Money Pit’, the misleading PR campaigns are having an effect, to the point where they are undermining the ability to allow anyone a fair trial for these alleged offenses. It’s also clear from what he has said that the jury disregarded some of the facts presented to them by witnesses, such as the hard drive in question was replaced because it was faulty, not in relation to the trial.” He also added, “This jury clearly came into the trial with its mind made up, undoubtedly thanks to propaganda such as the “You wouldn’t steal a…” advertising campaign that has been running for a number of years, which incorrectly associates downloading with theft.”

The Jury also ignored a lot of precedent in other similar cases, or was not made aware of it. This is highlighted by Hegg’s assertion that the Kazaa screenshot, showing millions of Kazaa users, sharing hundreds of millions of ’songs’ (potentially oblivious that a small percentage of those users and a large percentage of those files were the agents of the plaintiffs, and their fake files) established that Kazaa’s raison d’être was for file-sharing – something no-one has ever questioned. His logical leap, however, that file-sharing is copyright infringement is one not shared by courts elsewhere, (affirmed in trials such as Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) amongst others.)

Yet, the biggest surprise of all, and one that could come back to haunt the RIAA, is that no actual damages were claimed. This may have been because it would have been hard to establish an actual figure, backed up sufficiently to the courts requirements, but will make it hard to claim, in future, that they are losing money. If Ms. Thomas, with all the evidence they had against her caused them no actual financial damage, then it will be hard for them to claim anyone else has cost them either. Of course, when your misinformation strategy means you get the punitive damages anyway, does it really matter?

[Tikker]

eh? how would any of that affect the verdict?

it's VERY easy to prove someone was downloading/uploading copyright material

I've gotten probably 50+ letters from lawyers of various companies to track down who the individual was*

it's not hard, and it's pretty much impossible to dispute the evidence


*we've never actually turned over the information, as they've never actually been able to get a warrant.