|
|
RIAA Dares To Be Stupidby George Ziemann -- June 4, 2009 Jammie Thomas, now married and with a new lawyer, gets ready for a new trial, while the RIAA files motions asking for the same flawed jury instructions that caused a mistrial the first go-round. If they had a brain, they'd be dangerous. So now it's Capitol Records v Thomas-Rasset. The trial is scheduled to begin on June 15, so it's time for the RIAA to step forward and display the many ways that they abuse the legal system and waste the resources of the court. In the first trial, the jury instructions stated that the RIAA did not have to prove that actual distribution took place. The law actually says that if you're going to sue someone for distribution, you've gotta catch them distributing first. That's why the first case was declared a mistrial -- because the jury instruction was the opposite of the law. Apparently, they want to do that again. As long as the hackers at MediaSentry could download a copy from you, you're guilty. That's what they want to tell the jury. It's not what the law says. We know this because we've already been over it all. The RIAA also wants to prevent Thomas-Rasset from being allowed to have an expert witness (or at least one who is an actual expert in something, unlike the RIAA's phony experts). There's another motion to prevent her from using fair use or "innocent infringement" as a defense, and another to keep her from mentioning other cases, because if there was a trial, the RIAA caved on the eve of the proceedings -- every time except for Thomas' case. In return, Thomas-Rasset's team filed a motion pointing out that MediaSentry was in violation of the Minnesota Private Detectives Act and two federal laws. As a result, she says, all their "evidence" should be thrown out. Okay, most of that is just a summary of what is on Ray Beckerman's site (link at top right) from earlier this week. For the most up-to-date information on most RIAA cases, visit Ray's blog. While it's easy to laugh at the RIAA's apparent incompetency, it seems to me that it's just a ploy to run up Thomas-Rasset's attorneys fees. Her last lawyer couldn't afford to help her any longer. So now the new guy will have to rebut all of the RIAA's twisted physics, pseudo-science, dishonesty and just plain stupidity all over again. We need the P2P version of the Betamax case or, at the very least, an explanation as to why the American Home Recording Act (AHRA) does not apply. Whatever Thomas-Rasset was or was not doing, I guarantee that there was no profit to be had. |
|