Says continued illegal downloading would add “great and irreparable injury,”asks that she be forced to destroy all copies of illegally downloaded songs, and also insists she shared 1,702 songs, not just the 24 she was convicted for.
The RIAA often does things that one couldn’t imagine in their wildest dreams. Today is no exception. After recently winning a sickening $1.92 million USD judgment against suburban housewife Jammie Thomas for illegally “making available” 24 songs in her KaZaA shared folder, it is now asking that same judge to bar her from any further illegal downloading or uploading of copyrighted music.
“Plaintiffs requested such injunctive relief because Defendant’s conduct ‘is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money,’” reads the court brief.
The RIAA also want US District Judge Michael Davis to order her to destroy all copies of music already downloaded illegally, including those burned onto CD-Rs.
Why all the fuss?
After being ordered to pay $1.92 million USD, a mind numbing $80,000 per song, you’d think it’d be obvious that Jammie Thomas would go nowhere near KaZaA or any other similar direct connect file-sharing program, even as she does appeal the verdict.
Perhaps because Timothy Reynolds, the attorney representing the RIAA in the case, says that Jammie Thomas actually distributed 1,702 songs, not just the 24 she was actually convicted of, to “millions of other users,” who in turn, are likely to distribute the recordings even further.
“The extent of the viral, or exponential, infringement set in motion by Defendant is literally incalculable,” Reynolds wrote. “Absent an injunction, there is nothing to stop Defendant from downloading and distributing more of Plaintiffs’ copyrighted sound recordings through an online media distribution system.”
I wish the RIAA would’ve pursued all 1,702 illegally distributed songs, for at $80,000 dollars per infringment it would’ve meant a total judgment of more than $136 million dollars! The press would’ve had a field day with that one, and surely the public would’ve clamored for legislative reform.
Stay tuned.
Hey RIAA, drop dead!
they want more money
how silly can RIAA be
The RIAA must be legally destroyed. We need to vote for politicians who will put and end to this madness, and prevent future governments from signing onto and legally enshrining business models.
If the RIAA is going to claim that Thomas shared 1,702 songs for purposes of an injunction then they are going to have to sue her and win on all those cases.
To the court she is only guilty of sharing 24 songs until plaintiffs can prove otherwise. And I don’t think the judge will issue a special injunction for only 24 songs.
Not to mention the fact that the statement:
‘is causing and, unless enjoined and restrained by this Court, will continue to cause Plaintiffs great and irreparable injury that cannot fully be compensated or measured in money,’
IMO is a very dangerous rode to go down for the RIAA. They’re basically saying that they cannot prove harm by the defendant, and without harm their entire lawsuit may: 1) be rendered entirely frivolous, or 2) may limit or eliminate the punitive damages (reducing a $1.92 million judgment to a mere $24.00).
If the judge takes the RIAA’s word of harm without proof then its going to be thrown out on appeal and may even be cause for yet another trial. If the judge requests proof of harm and the RIAA cannot provide it, then its going to make them look really bad and will only strengthen the defense’s appeal and may have the damage award drastically reduced.
They can try all they like, but they are spitting against the wind.
File-sharing is here to stay, and the system of intellectual property has been rendered defunct by technology.
Time to abolish absentee ownership!