Posted 08/17/09 at 09:12:52 AM by Paul Lilly

Jammie Thomas is running out of options. Found guilty in 2007 of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $220,000 for willfully making available 24 songs via peer-to-peer, she now owes a whopping $1.92 million following a retrial earlier this year. Surely the Department of Justice would step in and find the nearly $2 million fine unconstitutional, right?

Wrong. According to ArsTechnica, the huge of amount of damages (Thomas ended up owing $80,000 per song) were not intended just to apply to big corporations, but also to "deter the millions of users of new media from infringing copyrights." The only time the DOJ would have a problem with a fine is if it become "so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportional to the offense and obviously unreasonable," something for which a $1.92 million fine for sharing 24 songs doesn't qualify.

"We are pleased the Administration has filed a brief supporting our position," an RIAA spokesperson told ArsTechnica. "Its views are consistent with the views of every previous Administration that has weighed in on this issue."

So where does Thomas go from here? Probably bankruptcy court.

Read More

Posted 07/30/09 at 06:54:21 PM by Pulkit Chandna

DRM protection has been a bone of contention between content owners and anti-DRM activists. The latter party’s contentions seem to be becoming quite popular with content providers, with many music download services, including the august iTunes, opting for DRM-free music. However, DRM hasn’t been eliminated as a lot of downloadable content, including streaming/downloadable videos and streaming music, is still fettered by DRM protection.

The Copyright Office is currently deliberating upon allowing fresh exemptions to its rules that forbid DRM cracking – enshrined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Steven Metalitz, a DC-based lawyer, who represents Big Content – a collective term for DRM-loving individual content owners and their organizations like MPAA and RIAA, reckons users should not be allowed to crack DRM protection even if an online store shuts down its authentication servers.

“We reject the view that copyright owners and their licensees are required to provide consumers with perpetual access to creative works. No other product or service providers are held to such lofty standards. No one expects computers or other electronics devices to work properly in perpetuity, and there is no reason that any particular mode of distributing copyrighted works should be required to do so,” he wrote in a missive addressed to the Copyright Office’s top legal advisor.

It is quite unrealistic to expect online stores to perpetually maintain their DRM servers. But it is ludicrous to assume that shutting down of an authentication server or the whole online store is reason enough for the user to surrender his ownership rights.

Read More

Posted 07/20/09 at 06:15:27 PM by Paul Lilly

We've been outspoken as anyone when it comes to draconian DRM measures, but we never thought we'd see the day when the RIAA declares DRM is dead. And now that it has, we're a little bit worried - could this be a sign of the apocalypse?

Consider that just two years ago, RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol said "DRM serves all sorts of pro-consumer purposes."  Consumers, of course, held a decidedly different opinion and the growing demand for DRM-free music has led to numerous music services and labels offering music without digital restrictions. Nevertheless, the RIAA predicted a comeback for DRM last year, but is now singing a different tune.

"DRM is dead, isn't it?," said Jonathan Lamy, chief spokesperson for the RIAA, when asked about the RIAA's view on DRM for an upcoming SCMagazine article.

Lamy's comment was in reference to the DRM-less iTunes store and other online services offering unrestricted music. And while the rest of us have known this for awhile, this is the first time that the RIAA has said on record that DRM is dead. Let's hope it stays that way.

Read More

Posted 07/20/09 at 04:00:00 AM by Paul Lilly

Get ready for a whole new kind of Pirate Bay, one that embraces the RIAA rather than try to fight it. That is, if investors okay the $7.8 million deal that would have Global Gaming Factory acquire the popular torrent sharing site. Already getting a head start, the Swedish software company has hired Wayne Rosso, the former president of Grokster and founder of Massboxx, to help hammer out licensing deals with content owners.

"I've gotten friendly with a lot of these guys," Rosso said of Mitch Bainwol, the RIAA's CEO and other music industry execs. "These are good guys. They've been wonderful to me. Other people in the business have been nice to me but they've had to hold thier nose."

Rosso's comments are in stark contrast to an opinion he held during his days with the now defunct Grokster. Back then, Rosso compared RIAA execs to Stalin. But, as Rosso notes, "The Pirate Bay has turned over a legitimate new leaf, so it has to be above board from the first day."

That means a new business model, one which will likely include unlimited music downloads for a monthly fee. Rosso says that eventually users will be able to pay nothing to download music, so long as the tunes stay tied to the user's computer.

Read More

Posted 07/07/09 at 07:23:14 PM by Paul Lilly

It's been a roller-coaster of a legal ride for Jammie Thomas, who was found guilty of copyright infringement for sharing 24 songs through KaZaA, a P2P file sharing application. After the dust settled, Thomas was ordered to pay $1.92 million in damages, an amount levied against her in a retrial of the case and much higher than the original $220,000 verdict she received in the original case.

In a motion filed today with the Minnesota federal court, Thomas called the verdict "excessive, shocking, and monstrous." As such, Thomas wants the federal judge overseeing her lawsuit to either toss out the exorbitant damage award, reduce it, or issue her a retrial.

"For 24 songs, available for $1.29 on iTunes, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per song -- a ratio of 1:62,015," the motion states. "For 24 albums, available for no more than $15 at the store, the jury assessed statutory damages of $80,000 per album, a ratio of 1:5,333. For a single mother's noncommercial use of KaZaA, and upon neither finding nor evidence of actual injury to the plaintiffs, the judgment fines Jammie Thomas $1.92 million. Such a judgment is grossly excessive and, therefore, subject to remittitur as a matter of federal common law."

The record labels also filed a motion today, one which asks the judge to issue a permanent injunction against future copyright infringement. Because, you know, a $1.92 million fine apparently isn't enough of a deterrent.

Should Thomas be issued a retrial or have her fines reduced? Hit the jump and sound off.

Read More

Posted 06/19/09 at 10:00:08 AM by Paul Lilly

For the second time, a jury on Thursday found Jammie Thomas liable for willful copyright infringement, this time ordering her to pay fines totaling an eye-popping $1.92 million to the RIAA. The surprise decision breaks down to $80,000 for each of the 24 songs Thomas was found guilty of illegally sharing. According to ArsTechnica, Thomas let out a gasp as the fine was read.

"Good luck trying to get it from me," Thomas said when speaking about the verdict. "It's like squeezing blood from a turnip."

For those who haven't been following, Thomas in 2007 was initially accused of illegally sharing 1,700 songs, but the RIAA dropped that number down to 24. In October of the same year, a jury found her guilty and imposed a $222,000 verdict against her. The decision was later thrown out when U.S. District Judge Michael Davis said he erred when giving his jury instructions that simply making songs available amounted to copyright infringement.

The RIAA, big winners in the retrial, told reporters that they have always been, and still are, willing to settle the case. Thomas' lawyer acknowledged the settlement offer, but said he plans to file numerous motions if Thomas chooses to continue the fight.

Read More

Posted 05/22/09 at 09:36:49 AM by Paul Lilly

Brian Toder, former defense lawyer for Jammie Thomas, dropped a bombshell earlier this week when he asked to be removed from the case. He did so saying he was owed nearly $130,000 "that will never be recovered, coupled with the likelihood that a similar, additional amount will be incurred if ordered to continue representation of defendant."

Stepping in to take Toder's place is a trio of former Harvard University classmates who feel confident they can take on, and defeat, the RIAA.

"We are going a for a jury verdict of zero," said Kiwi Camara, one the three Texas lawyers who replaced Brian Toder on Wednesday. "We are going to convince a jury that the RIAA should not bring these cases."

Doing so will be anything but easy. With a retrial scheduled to begin in just three weeks on June 15, the trio said they will not seek a delay, and instead plan to attack the RIAA's litigation strategy, Wired reports.

"We think the jury is going to reject this strategy," Camara said. "The RIAA strategy here is not to try any of these cases."

Brian Toder wished Thomas well in her ongoing fight.

Read More

Posted 05/19/09 at 10:00:08 AM by Paul Lilly

On hindsight, Jammie Thomas may one day look back and wish she would have taken whatever deal was being offered during a court-mandated settlement conference just days ago. Certainly that seems to be what her lawyer, Brian Toder, must have wanted her to do, as Toder is now attmempting to withdraw from the case less than a month before a retrial in the RIAA's first copyright infringement suit to go to a jury is scheduled to take place.

According to what Toder told U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Minnesota, he is owed nearly $130,000 "that will never be recovered, coupled with the likelihood that a similar, additional amount will be incurred if ordered to continue representation of defendant."

The RIAA doesn't appear to be opposed to Toder withdrawing from the case, but at the same time, it doesn't want another delay. Should Toder get his way, a delay would seem inevitable, as "there's no way another lawyer could try this case by June 15," Toder said in a telephone interview with Wired.

If you haven't been following, Jammie Thomas was found guilty of copyright infringement in 2007 and fined $222,000 for allegedly sharing 24 songs via Kazaa. Judge Davis later declared it a mistrial on the basis that he falsely instructed the jury that just by making available copyrighted works on a file sharing program constituted copyright infringement, even if it couldn't be proved that anyone actually downloaded the songs.

Barring another delay, a retrial is scheduled for June 15.

Read More