A group of US record labels agreed to drop a music piracy case in the US after the alleged file-sharer argued that it could not be proved that she downloaded any illegal music. The case may set a precedent that undermines scores of other music piracy cases.
Tammie Marson of Palm Desert, California refused to pay the initial $3,500 demanded by a group of record labels and opted to fight the case in court. Marson and her lawyer Seyamack Kouretchian of Coast Law Group argued that the fact that Marson’s computer contained illegal music files downloaded over her internet connection was not proof that she had committed a crime.
The record companies – Virgin, Sony BMG, Arista, Universal and Warner Brothers – agreed to dismiss the case and pay their own legal costs.
“They don’t take these cases to trial, they either settle or dismiss,” Kouretchian told OUT-LAW. “It was our position that they could not ever prove that Tammie Marson downloaded this music or that Tammie Marson made it available. It was just an absolute impossibility. The best they could ever prove was somebody had used Tammie Marson’s internet account to download the music or make it available. That’s the best they could ever do.”
Related Posts
- UK ISP, Record Industry Join Forces to Fight Illegal File-Sharing
- Court says neutral party must examine hard drive in file-sharing case
- RIAA Blames Harvard Law Professor for Dragging Out File-Sharing Case
- Irish Record Industry Sues ISP for Illegal File-Sharing on its Network
- EFF Takes on the RIAA in File-sharing Case
Loading ...
Good job Tammie! Innocent until proven guilty. Besides SHARING is SHARING. Prove we didn’t buy it. Prove we stole it. Prove we knew it was copywrited material……..Virgin Sony and the others can kiss our harddrives!
PM
Could the empire be crumbling a bit today? Sure hope so… RIAA bastards!
Eventually there will be laws in effect that will make this case a thing of the past. I am not cursing the P2P world its just the way the USA works and as long as we control the UN it will happen everywhere. Except finland and a handful of other counties.
I’m thinking about all the old threads on ZP and elsewhere discussing whether or not filesharing was illegal. Every once in a while some brave soul would say “not really. It’s not really illegal until it’s been proven in court.” That bold soldier would be ignored or jumped on.
I’m also thinking of all the poor saps who listened to the rhetoric and forked out 3500 bucks a crack in extortion money to the RIAA as settlement fees.
This is not a precedent since it was not the decision of the judge. The recording companies dropped it BECAUSE they didn’t want a precedent. SoreVexed is right. Now they will work with the legislators whom they have in their back pockets to come up with a law to correct this loophole. This is another case of technology getting ahead of the law. Now there will be a rush to catch up. Wireless networks are indeed a conundrum. If a city provides wireless service–as many are now doing–and someone uses that service to share copyrighted files who is liable? The city? I think not. It will be interesting to see what kind of restrictive laws they will come up with. We have to keep a close eye on those legistlators who file such bills. They hear a lot from the recording industry but now they need to hear from us–the public the voters–loud and clear.