RIAA Misinformation Campaign Apparently Works
Written by Ben Jones on October 09, 2007A Juror in the recent Capitol V Thomas trial speaks out, and potentially opens up avenues for overturning the verdict. His message to the RIAA , ‘your strategy is working’
One of the jurors in the trial, which last Thursday awarded $222,000 in punitive damages against a Minnesota mother of two, spoke in an interview with Wired’s Threat Level about the decision they made.
The juror, Michael Hegg, a steelworker that claims he has never been on the Internet, said it took just five minutes to reach the verdict.However hours were spent deciding, or ‘bickering’ as to how much to award to the plaintiffs in punitive damages , no actual damages were awarded, because none were sought. Hegg’s statement, that “we wanted to send a message that you don’t do this, that you have been warned,” sends a message of it’s own, that the double-talking tactics of the industry groups is working.
Potentially more serious though, are the hints given by him that it was never going to be a fair trial. For someone who has never been on the internet, he, for instance, responded to claims of spoofing, and of possibly being a zombie system as “Spoofing? We’re thinking, ‘Oh my God, you got to be kidding.’”
We discussed these statements with Andrew Norton, spokesperson for the Pirate Party of the US, which was not happy with some of the actions in this trial. “The attitudes and responses of this jury member shows that, whilst the litigation strategy may be a ‘Money Pit’, the misleading PR campaigns are having an effect, to the point where they are undermining the ability to allow anyone a fair trial for these alleged offenses. It’s also clear from what he has said that the jury disregarded some of the facts presented to them by witnesses, such as the hard drive in question was replaced because it was faulty, not in relation to the trial.” He also added, “This jury clearly came into the trial with its mind made up, undoubtedly thanks to propaganda such as the “You wouldn’t steal a…“ advertising campaign that has been running for a number of years, which incorrectly associates downloading with theft.”
The Jury also ignored a lot of precedent in other similar cases, or was not made aware of it. This is highlighted by Hegg’s assertion that the Kazaa screenshot, showing millions of Kazaa users, sharing hundreds of millions of ’songs’ (potentially oblivious that a small percentage of those users and a large percentage of those files were the agents of the plaintiffs, and their fake files) established that Kazaa’s raison d’être was for file-sharing , something no-one has ever questioned. His logical leap, however, that file-sharing is copyright infringement is one not shared by courts elsewhere, (affirmed in trials such as Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and A & M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (2001) amongst others.)
Yet, the biggest surprise of all, and one that could come back to haunt the RIAA, is that no actual damages were claimed. This may have been because it would have been hard to establish an actual figure, backed up sufficiently to the courts requirements, but will make it hard to claim, in future, that they are losing money. If Ms. Thomas, with all the evidence they had against her caused them no actual financial damage, then it will be hard for them to claim anyone else has cost them either. Of course, when your misinformation strategy means you get the punitive damages anyway, does it really matter?
Previously: Anti-Piracy Lobby Wants Pirate Bay Secrets from Swedish Police
Next: BitTorrent Streaming Service Launched
43 Responses
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Scary :(
A colombian stand-up once said, wisely, “confuse and you shall reign” reffering to the new strategies many generations were taking upon themselves to execute.
This strategy is certainly one used by the industry.
The BT community is growing exponentially faster than the RIAA can sue/settle. Despite this case, the odds are getting better for us everyday! Don’t know about you all, but I take comfort in that. More than a hydra, it’s practically a virus!
They will never see that money.
what a suprice, the jury realy was stupid!
maybe hopefully the next jury will know wtf the internet is, imo someone should not judge what he doesnt know anything about, the jury didnt even seem to know a proper “penalty” in the first place! you dont just judge like they did, they went all out and they basicly didnt even know what the internet is.. all evidence was a RIAA network “expert” that claimed to have her IP linked to a Kazaa account, and the protocols logged, but theres no proof anyone downloaded from her and it was dismissed(i think?) that she downloaded from Kazaa.
i think this jury is probably the most sadest jury ever seen, a jury is used to provide fairness and make good decissions everyone agrees with basicly,
220k dollars? does it sound fair for a 30yo mom?
again does 220k dollars sound fair and like a good decission to completely ruin the lives for a mom and her 2 kids forever just to set an example of something they didnt even know anything about??
and no evidence or proof, either they are realy just stupid, or they were payed.
thank god i dont live there id go ballistic… lol seriously id shoot someone, most likely the farmer that doesnt know what the internet is that ruined 3 lives completely…
Yes, jury of your “peers” indeed. Sounds like a mix of propaganda, and possibly the defense being weak. Imagine if a real honest to goodness good lawyer took up the cause. I just keep on hoping for my generation to grow up an take over (I’m 25 so any day now right?…..right?) and stop this ridiculous crap. Never been on the internet? They must have thought “spoofing” was some slang term, one of them maybe heard it on “Hackers” and was like “Naw, that’s when you program virii that act like screensavers!”
oplz
Make the Jury half of people who are currently using bit torrent, and the other half of people who used to use bit torrent. Lets see what happens. When you have morons out there who don’t know what companies like the RIAA has done and probably don’t know what Azureus is, you are bound to have a one sided trial.
Three truths the entertainment cartel doesn’t want you to know:
1) IP addresses are not similar to phone numbers, they are less identifiable
2) “Making available” is their name for the honor system, but they don’t have any proof or evidence of dishonor whatsoever.
3) RIAA/MPAA is a religion that is worse than Scientology. They’re not artists, they don’t represent artists, they use artists.
I would think any judge in their right mind would consider this a mistrial and demand an appeal. This is like having a lynch mob as a jury. The defense attorney should be hanged by his or her toes then dragged through the town by a jackass. If anyone finds out his or her name please advertise it. No one should let them have work again.
Don’t blame the jury, blame the defense. From what I read they didn’t provide much proof to counter what was said but the witnesses of the plaintiffs. It also didn’t help that the screenname on the Kazaa account was one the defendant had used for numerous other accounts, including her gmail account I believe. That one thing is really what I think made the jury think she was guilty.
[quote comment="184334"]I would think any judge in their right mind would consider this a mistrial and demand an appeal. This is like having a lynch mob as a jury. The defense attorney should be hanged by his or her toes then dragged through the town by a jackass. If anyone finds out his or her name please advertise it. No one should let them have work again.[/quote]
This is his legal profile. as you can see, he’s very well qualified on the subject of piracy
http://pview.findlaw.com/cmd/profileview?wld_id=3019138_1&channel=&print=1
LOL! Maritime law! We iz teh piratz of teh internetz!!! yarrr!!!
This would make the real mafia proud.
Or is it a joke?
Please try to get the facts straight. It was shown that she wasn’t using a router, and the same pc had been plugged in for the last 4 months. She used the same username on kazaa as on her (password protected) pc, and a bunch of websites, including a dating site with her photo. The music shared matched that of her music taste. She really never stood a chance, and her defense sucked.
$9250 per song is WAY too much though, but it’s clear that she was not getting away without punishment.
Really, though. ANYBODY could be using that name on Kazaa, at any time. Multiple people could be using it too.
All of this case just leaves me wondering why people still use that shitstain that is Kazaa.
How did they get access to her other accounts anyway? She did’nt freely tell the RIAA look at my match.com account.
I’m an ex-Kazaa (and eMule and Napster) user as well! It’s clear that it’s getting riskier and riskier to keep using such apps. The best way to stay out of the courtroom is to use private p2p apps, which are legal, since you only share with your friends, not millions of strangers. GigaTribe is a great example: http://www.gigatribe.com
What makes everyone think this wasn’t all set up to gain more publicity?
Personal I think she was guilty. There was jsut too much evidence that her machine was host the files, even if she personal was not doing it. The damages was insane. I would have have he pay $5 a song in damages to make people not want to get caught but low enough to be reasonable. With a 7-9K win the RIAA would be hard pressed to keep suing people. What you see I have share 30 songs ok bill me $150 and not the 3-5K they are doing now. Stops the strong arming and still send a message the it is wrong.
[quote comment="184693"]I’m an ex-Kazaa (and eMule and Napster) user as well! It’s clear that it’s getting riskier and riskier to keep using such apps. The best way to stay out of the courtroom is to use private p2p apps, which are legal, since you only share with your friends, not millions of strangers. GigaTribe is a great example: http://www.gigatribe.com/quote
Nice! click on the link and peer guardian blocks it for… anti p2p!
[quote comment="184646"]Please try to get the facts straight. It was shown that she wasn’t using a router, and the same pc had been plugged in for the last 4 months. She used the same username on kazaa as on her (password protected) pc, and a bunch of websites, including a dating site with her photo. The music shared matched that of her music taste. She really never stood a chance, and her defense sucked.
$9250 per song is WAY too much though, but it’s clear that she was not getting away without punishment.[/quote]
it was shown that the same MAC address was attached to the cable modem for four months, not the same device. A MAC address can be cloned or spoofed. Please don’t comment on things you know nothing about.
it comes down to this, the entertainment industry is moving towards a pay-per-use-pay-per-view-pay-per-listen model.
they would LOVE it if each time you used entertainment, it was paid. they only want to issue us a 1 time license, and if at all possible, that media should vanish into thin air once you listen to it or watch it. they LOATHE CDs, which last for YEARS, tape and vinyl too but not at the same quality.
in 2008 Denmark will STOP BROADCASTING ANALOG TV.
Govt mandated Hi Def/digital TV is already law, & will begin the progress to narrow casting, where freely available signals floating through the air and space will not be so common. We will all need media servie to watch TV, an Comcast and Vzn are already offering this type of thing.
sharing files and all this legal crap is a VERY bad precedent as it criminalizes ANY exchange of entertainment media. in 5 years the jails will be overflowing with nothing but pot smokers and people who like music. you have been warned. now figure out what you can do about it, and please vote.
Ummm…they WILL NEVER HAVE to prove actual damages.
The US Congress allows them statutory damages based on the # of infringing works copied.
Look it up.
Maybe, as none of us have been privvy to the whole case and all of the facts involved, we should all be reserving judgement.
We don’t have the evidence in front of us and, just because the jury found her guilty of the offence, this does not automatically make them stupid, crooked, or irresponsible. They are asked to pass judgement on the facts presented. If this woman’s defense team couldn’t counter the arguments then what choice did the jury have? Alternatively, maybe they argued admirably but there was so much evidence against her. We don’t know, all we know is that she has landed herself in a whole lot of trouble.
1 references to this post
Pages: [1] 2 » Show All
Responses are closed
All remaining responses will continue to be archived. Use the TorrentFreak forums if you want to discuss something.