RIAA appeal in Jammie Thomas case declined

By on December 30, 2008, 4:45 PM
The RIAA’s costly legal campaign against file sharers was dealt another blow today. Following a mistrial declaration in the RIAA vs. Jammie Thomas case, which nullified the jury’s $222,000 award against the Minnesota woman for allegedly sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network, the RIAA obviously sought permission to appeal the decision to toss the verdict.

However, federal judge Michael J. Davis is maintaining its position that his advice to the jury in the original trial was wrong and that merely “making available” files for download on P2P networks does not count as infringement. Saying that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals was quite clear on the matter, Davis declined the petition, meaning the case will indeed be going back to court for a retrial.

The RIAA will have to wait until a final judgment is issued in a new trial next year before filing an appeal. But given the RIAA's recent decision to transition away from individual lawsuits and towards working with ISPs to police users, it’s unclear if the infamous group will be willing to gear up for yet another high-profile trial against Thomas.




User Comments: 4

Got something to say? Post a comment
9Nails said:
If this is open to speculation, my guess is that their lawyers are looking to justify their job positions with-in the RIAA and will try to push forward with the retrial. Their lawyers never got that victory that they wanted. They failed to strike fear into the hearts (and wallets) of every music listener out there. And they're blinded by the path they they chose to take.IMHO, if they continue with this case, they'll legitimize filesharing, since the argument to "make available" was ruled as not infringing copyright laws. And the files plus the Kazaa program in question wasn't found on her hard drive. So they don't have many other angles which to pursue.
syber said:
Both the RIAA and Directv sued a total of 60,000 people many of who were innocent. Even though they knew of their innocence, they collected money from them then locked them into an agreement not to tell or not to report them for the false court complaint. The US justice system refused to help those falsely accused and failed to stop the suits even though they knew the court complaints were bogus. To bring the justice system back into the fold of protecting innocent people, those falsely sued need to send a strong message. The next time they are a juror before a court, do just what Justice did to them. Ignore Justice. Cast your juror vote against justice. The next time you are a witness, do not come foreword. This way eventually Justice will learn what it is like to be ignored when crimes are committed against you by huge companies you never had a chance against. Huge corporations should not be immune from braking the laws just like the consumer.
DarkCobra said:
WoW! I wholeheartedly agree with 9Nails but I'm a little frightened by what syber just said. Telling a prospective witness to a crime to INTENTIONALLY NOT COME FORWARD AND TELL THE TRUTH as a means to somehow course-correct a broken justice system is a bit much. Committing another wrong is really not going to repair the first one. You also say those on future juries should also cast their votes in the opposite direction even if wrong so as to somehow repair a past transgression of justice somewhere else. Sorry, but this is convoluted logic at best!Got a better idea. How about simply fixing the tire that's flat instead of flattening the other three in order to teach the first flat a lesson! Silly me huh?
syber said:
To Dark Cobra,As you say, fix the flat tire and not flatten the other three. But what happens when there is no way in which to fix the flat. WWhere attorney's have come to court with claims they knew to be false, then they have crossed the line. Attorney's have no business suing people when they knew they were innocent. How do you write someone did XYZ when they never did. Then, collect thousands of dollars to settle on such a false claim. The next part is that the justice system had a responsibility to protect innocent people. US Attorney's sworn under oath to up hold the laws. They too knew innocent people were sued and made to pay. The US Attorney looked the other way and allowed both Directv and the RIAA to collect on false claims. When we go down that road of permitting innocent person's to be sued and allowing for claims we knew to be false, we threaten our very security. For anyone one with enough money can simply take from someone with less using the court and litigation costs. Because there were 60,000 lawsuits with Directv and 30,000 with the RIAA, I would say that the department of justice doing nothing in light of all the innocent persons sued was pretty wide spread. In fact in some cases, the department of justice was involved in assisting directv and the riaa sue innocent people. Innocent people who were sued are victims of fraudulant suits. Those innocent person's are crime victims unable to report there crimes and for the most part ignored. While it may be reprehensible for a crime victim to cast a juror vote against justice, it is far worse that justice ignored the crime victim. Where justice finds no interest in doing what is right, then justice has to change to propecting innocent people which is right.[Edited by syber on 2009-02-15 06:23:12]
Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.