Comments on: Judge Tosses Out RIAA’s First File-Sharing Conviction, Thomas Granted New Trial!

By: Jammie Thomas Round 3: $1.5 Million for Illegally Sharing 24 Songs

Jammie Thomas Round 3: $1.5 Million for Illegally Sharing 24 Songs — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:10:28 +0000

[...] District Judge Michael Davis later tossed out that verdict saying that he made a “manifest error of law” when he instructed the jury that simply making the songs available for others to download could [...]

By: Jammie Thomas Judge Appoints Mediator to Help Settlement Talks

Jammie Thomas Judge Appoints Mediator to Help Settlement Talks — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 08:15:42 +0000

[...] years of legal setbacks it finally managed to convince a jury last year that she was guilty of copyright infringement, and [...]

By: No Deal! Jammie Thomas to Appeal $1.92 Million Fine

No Deal! Jammie Thomas to Appeal $1.92 Million Fine — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 22:37:20 +0000

[...] would be all over back then, but that was when a new twist in the case happened – Judge Davis threw out the case citing a manifest error in law by instructing the jury that merely making songs available via a shared point is copyright [...]

By: Jammie Thomas Fined $1.92 Million for Sharing 24 Songs

Jammie Thomas Fined $1.92 Million for Sharing 24 Songs — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 03:32:41 +0000

[...] for sharing 24 songs on the FastTrack network. Then, in a surprising turn of events, Judge Davis threw out the case because of an error on his part. The main reason for the case being thrown out was because he instructed the jurors that merely [...]

By: Mrs Robinson

Mrs Robinson — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Well done Jamie – you are a hero.

Anon. p2p see Dargens

By: El Comandante

El Comandante — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

This is big news. It’s a war of attrition with the RIAA. The retrial will cost her thousands. Nevertheless this is a victory. I’m glad to have contributed to her defense fund.

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

I guess we know which law they are going to lobby for next. Glad to see some judges still have common sense especially to the point of understanding what the purpose of the law was for. Now we can all agree on more reasonable penalties instead of one that bankrupts the individual for file sharing.

By: Theinfamousone

Theinfamousone — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

Great news so here’s a question is there really any way they can prove someone illegally download any of the 24 songs which were available for distribution? I am sure it’s possible with bittorrent. LOL I love these battles of attrition. As if the RIAA is ever really going to run out of money for lawyers. At this point even if it were costing them more than they were making off of the settlements or lawsuits I doubt they would stop. It’s a matter of saving face for them and they still feel like it’s lessening file sharing which they feel equals more record sales so they can pretty much justify any legal fees.

I don’t get the 70 cents minus 35 cents for not having to distribute it thing…are they talking about the price of CD divded by 24 songs or something?

By: mountain_rage

mountain_rage — Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000

The judge basically claimed that they should only be allowed to sue for actual damages since they did not loose money from their overhead. So basically he said that they should only be able to claim the losses of their net profit which I guess is estimated at 35cents. Sometimes I have to wonder who is the main drive behind the filesharing lawsuits. The lawyers are arguably making a killing off these lawsuits so I wonder how much they are pushing to keep them going.