The $222,000 verdict against Jammy Thomas for copyright infringement by P2P is no more. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Davis dismissed the verdict (PDF), saying it was based on the faulty “making available” theory of distribution. Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.

The decision means the RIAA now has zero wins at trial, Wired notes.

RIAA’s “making available” theory would hold that someone has distributed copyright material merely by creating the potential for distribution. Under the RIAA’s theory, it need not show actual distribution. The judge soundly denied this legal reasoning:

If simply making a copyrighted work available to the public constituted a distribution, even if no member of the public ever accessed that work, copyright owners would be able to make an end run around the standards for assessing contributor copyright infringement.

And Judge Davis went further, “implor[ing] Congress to amend the Copyright Act to address liability and damages in peer-to-peer network cases…”

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.

Thumbs up from EFF:

EFF applauds Chief Judge Davis’s thorough rejection of the RIAA’s effort to rewrite copyright law and thereby avoid the trouble of actually proving any infringement has occurred. And we wholeheartedly endorse the court’s call to amend the Copyright Act’s oppressive damages provisions.

One important tidbit, little noticed yet, pointed out by Excess Copyright: “distribution to an investigator, such as MediaSentry, can constitute unauthorized distribution.”

I will offer an in-depth walk-through of the decision shortly.

As a law school graduate and technology writer, Richard Koman brings a unique perspective to the blog's intersection of law, government and technology. See his full profile and disclosure of his industry affiliations.

So she has to go back to trial now?

Even if she never pays them a dime in damages, the amount of her life sucked away by this probably makes RIAA folks smile.

I doubt it, that would mean the RIAA would actually have to have a case.

Thomas will face a new trial, in which the RIAA will have to prove actual distribution.

Once again demonstrating that reading comprehension's for dirty liberals:


I don't think they'll win, but they'll bleed this woman's time and money dry out of spite.

Last year a Minnesota woman became the first person ever to lose a P2P copyright infringement case to the RIAA. It was initially heralded as a victory for the RIAA's argument that simply offering files for download violated copyright holders' exclusive rights. But after Thomas appealed the decision she was granted a new trial based on the judge's determination that the RIAA's legal theory was directly contradicted by everything from legislative intent to prior caselaw. But instead of getting her day in court she's once again fighting for her new trial as the RIAA looks to appeal her appeal.

Confused yet? Well that's probably the point. In fact, like much of what RIAA lawyers claim, their justification for appealing the decision doesn't seem to have much in common with the facts. It goes something like this.

The entire "making available" claim is based on a number of cases involving secondary infringement. In each of those cases the defendant was a third party who contributed to someone else's copyright infringement. In setting aside the original judgement and ordering a new trial Judge Michael J. Davis said as much.

Now RIAA lawyers are asking to delay the new trial while they appeal his decision to grant the new trial. And the reasoning behind the request? Basically they're ignoring what the judge said and claiming there's dissent among different judges as to whether simply offering files for download constitutes distribution of those files.

The problem with this is that the only reason there's any confusion is the RIAA's use of unrelated cases in the first place. And that's what the judge dealt with when he granted a new trial.

What's more, if the RIAA did actually have a case for appeal they'll get that chance after the new trial is finished. As Thomas' lawyers are pointing out in a new memorandum filed with the court that would basically give them an extra appeal they're not entitled to.

31 December 2008 15:11 by Andre "DVDBack23" Yoskowitz | 4 comments

The RIAA has been denied their request to appeal a judge's decision that has granted a retrial in the RIAA's case versus Jammie Thomas.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis of Minnesota originally declared the trial a mistrial, and nullified the jury's $222,000 award against Thomas over her alleged sharing of 24 songs on Kazaa. The mistrial was declared because the judge erroneously told the jury that downloading music from P2P networks constitutes as copyright infringement, when it in fact, does not.

Davis added that "actual distribution of copyrighted music must be shown," meaning that the RIAA must prove that others downloaded the music Thomas was sharing. The RIAA admitted that it would be virtually impossible to do so.

The retrial is scheduled for March 9th.