First Court Battle Against File-Sharer

A blow to the P2P community was delivered today.

Zeropaid

[quote4afceee278]The courtroom in Duluth, Minnesota was filled with both cheers and outrage this afternoon, and unfortunately for us members of the file-sharing community we won't be breaking out the bubbly anytime soon it appears.

For those of you that have been following the first ever file-sharing case to reach a jury trial in Virgin v. Thomas, the verdict's in and Jammie Thomas has been found guilty of copyright infringement for the illegal file-sharing of music on KaZaA.

The Jury ordered Thomas to pay some $9,250 for each of the 24 illegally shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, which amounts to some $222,000 in total penalties.

The verdict is a big setback for the file-sharing community and a huge win for the RIAA who will probably be more emboldened than ever to go after people who illegally share music on P2P and file-sharing networks.

The case did set some stunning precedents, however in that the RIAA didn't have to prove that a file-sharing program existed on her PC at the time they inspected her HDD, or that she was the actual person who shared the music.

Also, the RIAA wasn't forced to prove that anybody actually downloaded the songs from her, only that she even shared them at all.

Though interestingly enough the win may actually be a hollow one because piracy is more rampant than ever and clearly their legally strategy is having no effect in trying to bring it to a halt. It was even revealed yesterday that they've sued more than 26,000 people so far and essentially lost money on the cost of litigation versus settlement amount recouped. When you factor in all the people they've pissed off and thus business lost compared to the so-called deterrent factor they seek to instill, their strategy has been total blunder.

In fact, according to Big Champagne, an online measuring service which tracks P2P and file-sharing network traffic, the number of P2P users illegally sharing copyrighted material has nearly tripled since 2003 when the RIAA first began its file-sharing crackdown.

All this win will mean is that people will perhaps settle sooner and without hesitation, but overall it won't in any way translate into an end to music piracy as we know it. This is probably the most depressing thing in that all the RIAA has managed to do is get a jury to reach a verdict that really proves once and for all how desperate it really is. I mean great, now a lady of limited means owes them $220,000 for which she will have to declare bankruptcy, and the RIAA gets what?

People already know file-sharing is illegal, but that's not the point. The real point is that the RIAA does everything in its power to rip off consumers and artists alike, and wrap everything in DRM so that even when you purchase music its never really yours. Rather than address these issues they sue everybody in sight to somehow out the file-sharing genie back in the bottle.

If the verdict wasn't enough to already make you angry with the RIAA then how about this quote from the RIAA's lead attorney, Richard Gabriel, outside the courtroom.

"This is what can happen if you don't settle," he said.

What a jerk.

In a lone bit of hope for the future of the verdict in the case, which will certainly be appealed, Ray Beckerman of Recording Industry vs The People writes

I'm sorry to hear that Ms. Thomas lost, but I don't think the case is over by a long shot; the verdict -- based as it upon an entirely erroneous jury instruction going to the very heart of the case -- will almost definitely be set aside on appeal.

Moreover, the RIAA may have won this courtroom battle, but it already lost the war a long time ago when it decided to sue its customers rather than listen to what they had to say.

If you want to show the RIAA who really won, I urge you to go out and download few new albums after your read this, and preferably the top 20, their real "money makers." [/quote4afceee278]

http//www.zeropaid.com/news/9040/BREAKING%3A+RIAA+Wins%2C+File-Sharer+Loses+%24220%2C000%21

It was bound to happen...

Anyone who still downloads off of Kazaa....

The fact she downloads of Kazaa shows that they don't care who they target. Only newbies use Kazaa. They should stop targeting the simpletons and maybe go for the head-hanchos? Although I don't want them too, but makes more sense to me. 10 people that hate the RIAA is better than the 26,000 they have sued.

is anyone at risk? people that download via torrents for example?

Remember, this case was first started back when Kazaa was popular and used by almost everyone.

Yet another instance of the little guy getting fucked over by the MAN!

p2p is for noobs

[quotee80325a73f="Twon"]is anyone at risk? people that download via torrents for example?[/quotee80325a73f]
Of course you're at risk with torrents. Torrents are no safer than any other P2P method. There are steps you could take to minimize your risk, but you can never eliminate it.

[quote5a173a4252="justin2610"]Yet another instance of the little guy getting fucked over by the MAN![/quote5a173a4252]

For stealing...

I think the lawsuit is ridiculous too, but it's not like the person was innocent.

[quote6e4dcc6c92="CollidgeGraduit"][quote6e4dcc6c92="justin2610"]Yet another instance of the little guy getting fucked over by the MAN![/quote6e4dcc6c92]

For stealing...

I think the lawsuit is ridiculous too, but it's not like the person was innocent.[/quote6e4dcc6c92]

Well they weren't really required to prove she was guilty... The evidence isn't very convincing.

There was a pretty big discussion about this on a different forum I go to. Appearantly, since this is a civil lawsuit, they were not required to prove without doubt that she did it, but moreso that it is the biggest chance. The main evidence against the RIAA was that her router was unlocked, so anyone could do the sharing if he was stealing the internet.

Anyway, newsgroups + private torrents ftw!

Criminal Case == Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Civil Case == Preponderance of evidence

Given what I read about the case, the preponderance of evidence was sufficient, almost overwhelming, to suggest she had done it. The only thing they didn't have was surveillance footage actually showing her sitting at the computer at that precise moment, but EVERYTHING else pointed to it being her. It wasn't just somebody hijacking her wifi connection -- the Kazaa account username was the same username she used on lots of other internet sites.

I did question something their technical expert testified to about IP addresses and how they would have been different for someone else coming through her wireless, but I chalk that up to the reporter not relaying the details accurately. It wasn't a transcript, so I'm assuming the reporter was clueless of such things and reported it badly.

I haven't used Kazaa or Limewire in years lol

My recommendation to anyone would be to GET OFF the public sites, and stick to ONLY private bit-torrent sites requiring an invite to join/see anything. There is a program called Vidalia for Macs that is supposed to mask your port identity or something, I may look into it.

[quote37d7b46644="tylerc"]I haven't used Kazaa or Limewire in years lol

My recommendation to anyone would be to GET OFF the public sites, and stick to ONLY private bit-torrent sites requiring an invite to join/see anything. There is a program called Vidalia for Macs that is supposed to mask your port identity or something, I may look into it.[/quote37d7b46644]
As has been said many times before don't assume a private tracker will protect you. You think they aren't infiltrated? The way people "trade" invites all over the net, I can guarantee it. Not to mention the occasional "open enrollment" periods that many private trackers have had. I completely fail to understand why a private tracker would ever do that -- once you open the door, expect all sorts of critters to rush in. It defeats the purpose. Might as well stay public at that point.

Private trackers might improve your odds against being caught, but don't let it lull you into a false sense of security. Same goes for PeerGuardian, which is almost useless as is most blacklisting mechanisms.

Given the nature of TCP/IP and the protocols involved, don't ever believe ANYTHING that tells you it will mask your IP from your local machine. It isn't possible. For TCP/IP protocols to work, the originating address is embedded in the protocol. The only way to hide your IP from a downloader on the other end would be to go through one or more proxies, and there has yet to be any really useful torrent proxies that I've heard of. Plus they would have to be offshore and out of US (or a friendly agency's) jurisdiction, else the proxies themselves would be subject to seizure and monitoring. But the protocol and volume just doesn't lend itself well to proxy use, which is why they haven't proliferated yet.

Like music artists don't make enough money as it is...I don't see how sueing some average person who probably makes nothing close to $200,000 a year for that much money is going to solve anything. It is not going to prove a point, people are still going to be downloading music. I do not get why would they charge her $9,250 per song, that seems a little extreme too. If anything the RIAA are the bad guys here, they are actually going to be this greedy over something so small?

[quotec665798ab2="dmorris68"][quotec665798ab2="tylerc"]I haven't used Kazaa or Limewire in years lol

My recommendation to anyone would be to GET OFF the public sites, and stick to ONLY private bit-torrent sites requiring an invite to join/see anything. There is a program called Vidalia for Macs that is supposed to mask your port identity or something, I may look into it.[/quotec665798ab2]

As has been said many times before don't assume a private tracker will protect you. You think they aren't infiltrated? The way people "trade" invites all over the net, I can guarantee it. Not to mention the occasional "open enrollment" periods that many private trackers have had. I completely fail to understand why a private tracker would ever do that -- once you open the door, expect all sorts of critters to rush in. It defeats the purpose. Might as well stay public at that point.
[/quotec665798ab2]

Even though it is probable that the RIAA has gotten into private torrents, we have yet to hear someone receiving a cease and desist letter from the RIAA on trackers such as Oink, Torrentleech, etc. The day that someone claims to have received a letter for dling off a private tracker, I will drop torrents altogether.

edit nevermind

She is appealing the ruling. F the RIAA and MPAA...

Heard this on my local radio show this morning....