Re: [Commons-Law] 1st Trial on file sharing- fines of 1.9 Million
Via: "Patrice Riemens"
> US mum is guilty of file-sharing
> By Jonathan Blake
> Newsbeat US reporter
>
> A woman has been ordered to pay $1.9 million (£1.2m) in the only
> file-sharing case to go to trial in the US.
>
> A jury in Minnesota ruled Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, had violated music
> copyright and must pay damages to the record industry.
>
(...)
My friend Dave, usually quite clued in in that sort of issues, expressed
the following additional thoughts:
- Obviously RIAA wanted to make an exemplary case in order 'to get the
message across' - and this case was relatively straightforward and clear
cut as far as fact were concerned.
- She was allegedly represented by a lousy lawyer, a 25 years old, for
whom this was his first major case. So he failed to look at the (rather
large) body of previous arguments and cases in this type of suits. And did
he not call in adequate defense withnesses, like EFF types etc.
- The jury did not like her. Possibly because of her 'attitude'. And so it
was quite happy to go along with plaintiffs in 'making an example'.
- RIAA probably won't go after her to claim the financial damages even if
she doesn't relent, as they are quite satisfied with the spine-chilling
verdict itself, and do not want more adverse PR.
This does not distract from the fact that the whole case itself is
bananas, of course.
> US mum is guilty of file-sharing
> By Jonathan Blake
> Newsbeat US reporter
>
> A woman has been ordered to pay $1.9 million (£1.2m) in the only
> file-sharing case to go to trial in the US.
>
> A jury in Minnesota ruled Jammie Thomas-Rasset, 32, had violated music
> copyright and must pay damages to the record industry.
>
(...)
My friend Dave, usually quite clued in in that sort of issues, expressed
the following additional thoughts:
- Obviously RIAA wanted to make an exemplary case in order 'to get the
message across' - and this case was relatively straightforward and clear
cut as far as fact were concerned.
- She was allegedly represented by a lousy lawyer, a 25 years old, for
whom this was his first major case. So he failed to look at the (rather
large) body of previous arguments and cases in this type of suits. And did
he not call in adequate defense withnesses, like EFF types etc.
- The jury did not like her. Possibly because of her 'attitude'. And so it
was quite happy to go along with plaintiffs in 'making an example'.
- RIAA probably won't go after her to claim the financial damages even if
she doesn't relent, as they are quite satisfied with the spine-chilling
verdict itself, and do not want more adverse PR.
This does not distract from the fact that the whole case itself is
bananas, of course.
comments
No new comments allowed (anymore) on this post.