$220,000 RIAA Victory To Be Appealed?
Minnesotan Jammie Thomas was recently found guilty of file-sharing and ordered to pay $220,000 in restitution, but has decided that she's going to appeal the verdict instead. This probably isn't surprising considering the amount of the fine compared to her stated annual salary of $36,000 and because like everything in this case, it seems that Thomas changes her mind quite often.
Case in point: less than 48 hours ago she stated in an interview that she wasn't going to ask for any financial support to pay the fine, but would gladly accept donations.
Of course, depending on when she was asked about file sharing she claims that she either didn't own the drive in question at that time, or was knowingly engaging in some marketing research involving Kazaa, or was just unknowingly sharing files over Kazaa which she was using as a music player for files she ripped off of her own CDs. If this case goes to trial again, we're wondering if another mutually exclusive version of the story will appear.
So what is the basis for an appeal?
“Thomas said on her blog that she and her attorney, Brian Toder, plan to appeal based on the federal jury's finding that making songs available online violates copyright.
"This would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks," Thomas wrote on her blog. "Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making-available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared."
The jury issued a decision on Thursday that Thomas was guilty of violating copyright for 24 songs and required her to pay $9,250 for each. The jury never found that Thomas had downloaded any music but had infringed by making the music available for to others to download.
The case is the first time the RIAA has won a jury verdict against an accused file sharer.”
Somehow we don't think we've seen the last of this story just yet. At the same time, we're not really able to predict just what will happen next, but we're willing to guess it'll probably involve more comments from Thomas that contradict early statements and/or testimony she's made.
Case in point: less than 48 hours ago she stated in an interview that she wasn't going to ask for any financial support to pay the fine, but would gladly accept donations.
Of course, depending on when she was asked about file sharing she claims that she either didn't own the drive in question at that time, or was knowingly engaging in some marketing research involving Kazaa, or was just unknowingly sharing files over Kazaa which she was using as a music player for files she ripped off of her own CDs. If this case goes to trial again, we're wondering if another mutually exclusive version of the story will appear.
So what is the basis for an appeal?
“Thomas said on her blog that she and her attorney, Brian Toder, plan to appeal based on the federal jury's finding that making songs available online violates copyright.
"This would stop the RIAA dead in their tracks," Thomas wrote on her blog. "Every single suit they have brought has been based on this making-available theory, and if we can win this appeal, they would actually have to prove a file was shared."
The jury issued a decision on Thursday that Thomas was guilty of violating copyright for 24 songs and required her to pay $9,250 for each. The jury never found that Thomas had downloaded any music but had infringed by making the music available for to others to download.
The case is the first time the RIAA has won a jury verdict against an accused file sharer.”
Somehow we don't think we've seen the last of this story just yet. At the same time, we're not really able to predict just what will happen next, but we're willing to guess it'll probably involve more comments from Thomas that contradict early statements and/or testimony she's made.
