It must have felt like an attack from behind when the RIAA heard that they lost its only major court victory, with a mistrial being declared in Capitol V Thomas. Making things worse, the Department of Justice, viewed by some to be the bully’s trusted lieutenant, turned on the content industries by soundly criticizing a bill aiming to increase copyright and patent enforcement powers.

The Thomas case is now a proverbial millstone around the neck of the RIAA. At first it looks impressive, and gives a frightening impression to anyone that thinks to challenge them, but now it’s starting to drag them down. Not only was the decision in the case thrown out, the statement by the judge in support of the mistrial reads like a critique of the legal arguments put forward by the RIAA over the last 5 years.

Yet, the millstone around the neck is not just in the refuting of legal arguments. It also extends to the excessive damages that were awarded in the first trial. The $9250 per infringement has been argued to be so far past constitutional restrictions on excessive punishments, that it has brought it into public attention. Because of this, it may end up reducing the maximum amount of damages and fines that can be awarded, which may also undermine the settlement encouragement (or ‘pay instead of fight’) strategy. The end of the judge’s order says it all:

While the Court does not discount Plaintiffs’ claim that, cumulatively, illegal downloading has far-reaching effects on their businesses, the damages awarded in this case are wholly disproportionate to the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Thomas allegedly infringed on the copyrights of 24 songs – the equivalent of approximately three CDs, costing less than $54, and yet the total damages awarded is $222,000 – more than five hundred times the cost of buying 24 separate CDs and more than four thousand times the cost of three CDs. While the Copyright Act was intended to permit statutory damages that are larger than the simple cost of the infringed works in order to make infringing a far less attractive alternative than legitimately purchasing the songs, surely damages that are more than one hundred times the cost of the works would serve as a sufficient deterrent.

While 24 songs is more like two CDs (than the three the court states), that damages should go from 4000x losses (assuming 3CDs) to 100x, means that the $222,000 would be more like $5,550. That’s quite a difference. The same could be applied to amounts demanded in pre-trial settlements, where the RIAA has often asked too much. The court’s math is far more reasonable, despite being calculated using retail CD prices, which have all manner of mark-ups and distribution costs that are not relevant to digital music included. A digital download doesn’t have to pay for the CD blank and doesn’t have to pay for transportation to the store. There are no printing costs or middlemen profit. The court gives an estimated cost of $2.25 per track, the actual cost for a download is more than seven times less than that.

Of course, other arguments, ranging from definition semantics, to trying to use criminal law as precedent, were denied as well. Some of these arguments were novel, others seemed like desperation.

The other news from Wednesday didn’t help either, especially in the muddling of civil and criminal enforcement of copyright. The Department of Justice sent a letter to Senators Leahy and Specter over the Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act (EIPRA) of 2008, which passed through the Senate judiciary committee last week. It stated that the Departments of Justice and Commerce had ’strong and significant concerns’ with portions of the act. In short, they said they didn’t want to be used as free lawyers for the entertainment industry, and also felt that the position of an ‘Anti-Piracy Czar’ would be, surprisingly, unconstitutional. When even the US Justice department, which has seemed indifferent to the US Constitution in recent years, uses it as an excuse to oppose new powers, it could be likened to rats leaving a sinking ship.

Of course, the past week hasn’t been only bad news for the RIAA and its members, it’s been bad press for them too. On Monday, they elected to proceed to a jury trial in Maverick V Harper, with a date set for November. The RIAA were unwilling to accept a $200/infringement settlement offered by the judge. In taking the offer, they would have had a win, but at a lower amount, and left the potential for innocent infringement defenses. However, with the Thomas mistrial ruling two days later, negating any precedent they hoped to point to, and undermining some of the possible defenses, it may seem they have gambled on a treble-or-nothing bet.

The case in question centers around 38 songs, although only 6 were downloaded by MediaSentry. What can make this case interesting is that MediaSentry may be in violation of the law, regarding Texas based investigators, and that the age of the defendant – Whitney Harper was 16 when the infringements allegedly occurred – make an innocent infringement defence possible. Attacking a young girl for actions in her teens may not play well with a jury.

All in all, a bad week for the RIAA, and it may only be the first of many. We may never know if the article written by New York based attorney Ray Backerman did anything to to bring about a closer examination of the RIAA’s cases. Nor can it be overlooked that Wednesdays are not the RIAA’s best days – exactly a week before the Thomas and DOJ setbacks, they set themselves up as targets of ridicule by suing Beckerman. They accused him of allegedly doing what they have been repeatedly accused of doing – irony indeed. Many people are doubtless wondering what excitement October 1st will bring.

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

Some may see that as a mixed blessing. Toder, a maritime law specialist, was hardly the most appropriate choice of counsel, and this showed in a frankly lackluster non-existent defense.

Ms. Thomas explained to TorrentFreak why she initially chose Toder for the case “I had no idea who could represent me for my case and Mr. Toder was listed on another attorney’s weblog, Mr. Ray Beckerman, as being the attorney from Minnesota who handled cases such as mine.” she also said, “I feel Mr. Toder performed as best he could considering the financial situation I am in and how much I could afford to pay him and his firm.”

The notice on the website says that all the donations will still be used for her new defense: “She [Thomas] confirmed that the donations collected here are still going into her legal defense fund and will be used to finance her appeal. She is now in search of a capable attorney ready to take the appeal either pro bono or for what is raised through fundraising efforts.”

Donation details are at freejammie.com

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.

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?

Article from: TorrentFreak, check out our new blog at FreakBits.