Fenxy

I'm not sure why she (of all people) went to court in the first place. She had a non-anonymous account on a file sharing network, linking her directly to the account that was sharing copyrighted material.

She can try and get some of the definitions overturned but she's not one of the people who pay up in the J Doe cases that the RIAA file (and settle) on IP information alone and therefore not that interesting a case (IMO) because its result won't mean anything for the hundreds that are in that situation.

Here's the thing... nailing consumers for piracy is no longer untested law: it’s now backed by precedent.

If she can get it overturned via appeal, then that would set another precedent to help others who might get caught up in something similar.

She's on very thin ice and even if she gets the definition lifted, I'm sure the RIAA and MediaSentry could easily provide evidence that the files could be downloaded and weren't just there being listed.

This doesn't set many far reaching precedents. It's very specific and she's very guilty. This isn't a case of "it could be somebody using unsecured wifi" because the account had her email attached to it.

The files were there listed under her account on a file sharing network... I don't see how she can argue that's not "available".

I can see why people are watching this with rapt attention but seriously pick another David to beat the RIAA. This bint is too guilty to stand a chance.

Well Oli, if you were in the US verses the UK, you might think differently about this.

The laws in the US are really messed up and setting a precedent like this can only cause more harm then good in my opinion.

Taken from her blog/myspace:

"I know this topic is debatable. It has been debated time and time again. I can honestly say I do NOT advocate theft. I will also say that I have NEVER used a P2P software to download or upload music. That was reason number one why I refused to settle with the music labels that were suing me in the first place. I did not do what they had accused me of and I was not going to pay them for someone else's actions.

I will admit I have downloaded music, but through other sources including MySpace and Wal-Mart.com. The main place I learn of new music is from MySpace and Yahoo LauchCast. I have purchased a lot of mainstream music, which was actually evidenced in my case and I have also purchased a lot of music from bands that I was able to sample their songs from MySpace or Yahoo. Obviously, I enjoy music, but I pay for the music I own. I do not own any music that was downloaded from anywhere other than MySpace or Wal-Mart."

From what I know about the case, I agree that she got Railroaded.

P.S. The RIAA is in it for the money and not the justice. Why do I think this?

Because right after the verdict, RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel told reporters outside the courthouse "this is what can happen if you don’t settle."

I have no sympathy for this woman, you committed a crime..take the punishment and quit trying to make yourself a martyr to all the other thieves.

The laws in the US are really messed up and setting a precedent like this can only cause more harm then good in my opinion.

But what precedent would it set?

She can say what she likes but the evidence presented was an account on kazaa (or somesuch) created on her email account. It's been the better chunk of 10 years since I used kazaa, but my assumption was that meant she had to have created that account. At least that's how it was presented.

So I don't see how this sets any unreasonable precedents for cases where there isn't an email-linked account being used.

Or have I missed something?

The precedent set was in proving liability.

The RIAA did not have to demonstrate that her computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive.

The RIAA did not have to show that she was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators accessed her share folder.

That's huge and gives the RIAA way to much grey area to mess with people.

Sometimes people have folders set to shared and don't even know it. What if you purchase a computer used from someone?

The judge in the case also ruled that jurors may find copyright infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on the internet... copyrighted or not...

So basically my understanding is if anyone has files on a computer, always connected to the internet (which almost everyone does these days) and it's in a shared folder, if someone other then you can reach it and grab files, you could be hammered like her... that's the precedent set from this verdict.

So now I can't even share "legit files" with family or friends.

Maybe my understanding of what took place is wrong, but this is how I understand it.

Great conversation going on by the way... keep the thoughts coming...

Why would she have to be at her keyboard?

If your computer is sharing copywrited files, you are liable. It doesn't matter what you are doing.

@Ozone42:

If your computer is sharing copywrited files, you are liable. It doesn't matter what you are doing.

My 83 year old grandmothers computer when connected to the internet technically could be sharing files that could be copyrighted with others and not even know it.

I guess what needs to happen is better education on how to protect and lock down your computer.

Also, how to keep your personal and private files out of shared folders to avoid something like this, especially if you are on the up and up with your files.

Reading more into other news stories on this, apparently her claim is that she personally paid for every bit of music on her machine and that other people downloaded her files from the shared folder without her knowledge... true or not... I still think she was railroaded... at least from the court transcripts I've seen and heard about.

This just goes back to my previous comment... people need to learn how to lock down their machines or if you plan on having music on a computer, make sure it's not connected to the internet.

Again it's not that grey. It was sharing from a Kazaa account, started with her email account.

I'm not sure how long user-ignorance can hold up against this sort of stuff. That's effectively what she's counter claiming because they have evidence that Kazaa was running off her computer using her email address.

Kazaa is not something that comes with Windows and is especially not something that sets itself up using your email address. It's presence and ability to respond to the RIAA/MediaSentry's probing shows it was installed by somebody using the computer.

That's what makes this a case of wilful copyright infringement - and makes her guilty.

I don't see (and would like clarification on) how this effects file-sharing within copyright law. I've not seen the bit about the judge saying to disregard copyright status.

I'll correct myself there. Instead of:

That's effectively what she's counter claiming because they have evidence that Kazaa was running off her computer using her email address.

I mean:

That's effectively what she's counter claiming because they have evidence that Kazaa was running at her IP using her email address. They're two bits of information that tie it directly to her.

Have a look at Ars Technica's view on why the RIAA won.

The mountain of evidence:

• Her IP address as given and logged by the ISP
• It was her computer because there was no router. It was a cable modem that was plugged into the same device months before and months after they sniffed the share, again, as logged and subpoenaed from the ISP.
• Her handle (tereastarr) which she'd been using online for ~13-14 years on multiple services, some of which had photo evidence that it was her.
• Songs present came from online, copyright infringing services - the proof being the multiple metadata fragments showing who had encoded the files (as many scene groups do). This shoots down the ripping claim.
• Lots of the music found was her favourite music

And having taken multiple computer courses for her BS in business administration, the RIAA managed (fairly) to convince the jury that she knew what she was doing.

Tons of evidence. Some could be circumstantial but combined, it really does make her irrefutably guilty.

@Oli: I've read the article you link to.

Have you seen this one by the same author who points out that Sony BMG's chief anti-piracy lawyer says "Copying" music you own is "stealing"?

The lady confirmed she had music on her own machine which she paid for via online stores (iTunes, Wal-Mart, etc).

Also, check out this article from the EFF which is now standing behind her to help in her appeal.

I'm not saying she's totally innocent but how the jury came to the guilty verdict is what has me and others in a twist.

As I said a few comments ago, my main issue is how a precedent was set in proving liability.

The RIAA did not have to demonstrate that her computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive.

I know many people who have music on their machines that on the surface might seem like copyright infringement...

Anyway, I'll get the documents I have from the court scanned in the next day or two and send them over your way so you can read the stuff I've been reading which isn't online.

It's a junk testimony that should have been thrown out citing copyright law, but I don't see how it applies to the case. I don't know why the RIAA would call her to make that point other than to illustrate the damage of illegal filesharing. I'll come back to this at the end of the post.

The lady confirmed she had music on her own machine which she paid for via online stores (iTunes, Wal-Mart, etc).

And the RIAA offered proof that a large proportion of the songs were downloaded. Multiple encoding regimes with multiple metadata fragments saying the tracks were ripped by scene groups... Not something you get if you rip all your own music or buy it from legitimate online retailers.

Notice that she was only convicted on a very small number of tracks presented. I suspect (although I do not know) that these had the additional tell-tale signs that the music was

The RIAA did not have to demonstrate that her computer had a file-sharing program installed at the time that they inspected her hard drive.

Any why should they? The evidence they do have proves this anyway.

They know:
- it was her IP they connected to
- it was only that computer connected to the modem
- it was kazaa, with her handle
- they could get copyrighted files from her computer over kazaa

Okay think of it this way. Say you have a phone line and a phone and you call up your local police station and issue bomb threats. Imagine they don't come right around and do you there and then, rather that you keep doing this for a few months.

Some time later, they track you down through your phone number (through the telco) but when they come in you have no phone. How on earth could you have made phone calls some months ago without a phone?!

Would you argue that they don't have enough evidence there? They don't need the phone because they know the line is yours. The same thing goes against Thomas apart from they can prove that it was not only her line but her computer.

The RIAA could have easily dropped their bum witnesses. They didn't need Sony BMG's chief bondage-whore to come in and shout her mouth off about how her kids are starving because of pirates but it helped them get the figure raised.

I agree with the EFF that it's a naff and even woefully inaccurate testimony but it really wasn't helping prove Thomas's guilt. Yes I agree that what the RIAA is going is going to drive their portion of business into the ground. But no, for the charges she's as guilty as can be.

So yeah, they should strike some things from the record (if they didn't already) but the verdict shouldn't change.

Ignorantia juris non excusat