Lawyer in Jammie Thomas case withdraws

18 May 09 20:53 by Randomus in category Uncategorized To news archive

As the legal case between the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Jammie Thomas heads to retrial, it appears her lawyer is trying to withdraw from the case due to $130,000 of unpaid legal bills.

Attorney Brian Toder originally tried to withdraw from the case prior to the first trial, but he was not allowed to do so because of a ruling from Judge Michael Davis.  However, Thomas reportedly said she has no objection to her attorney’s latest withdrawal request, and trial jude Raymond Erickson will likely allow it.

The first round of the Capitol Records v. Thomas was originally lost by Thomas, but the judge involved in the case gave wrong instructions to the jury. It was ruled a mistrial after the judge said that simply having a file available for sharing couldn’t prove someone actually downloaded the file.

Before the case was ruled a mistrial, Thomas owed the RIAA more than $200,000 in damages related to being found guilty.  Prior to this second trial, both sides met and were unable to agree upon a settlement offer.

Since the "making available" copyrighted file theory won’t be allowed in the second trial, it should be interesting what legal tactics the RIAA will use to try and show Thomas’ guilt in the case.  The second trial begins on June 15.

"We struck an impasse," according to Toder.  "We actually had some offers back and forth, but there was definitely an impasse there that could not be overcome despite considerable efforts by Judge Erickson."

Thomas remains the only person to go all the way through a jury trial with the RIAA, as most people chose to pay fines ranging from $1,500 up to $7,000.  The RIAA now says that it is more interested in focusing on ISPs instead of individual file sharers, though several individuals have been sued since that statement was released.

1 Comments

AmiWolf
Posts: 75
Posted on: 22 May 09 18:47
I feel Ms. Thomas. On and on and on - it's got to be nerve wracking.
Let's see if I've thought this through correctly, and using ultra simple examples:
If I have a P2P program, and I tell this program where to place my downloads on my HD, then I would think that if the program asks you if you want to share any other directories or drives you would tell it no. That would result in the "sharing" part.So using the analogy that my computer is my house, and I open the door, I have to tell you what rooms you can or can't go in to.
OK, so now you're in my "house" and you happen to see my CD collection, what's to stop a person from either stealing it from me, or asking if they can listen to it? Nothing, because I've already told you what rooms you can or can't go in to, and the person is going to do what they will.

My naivite on P2P must be showing - sorry

Post a comment

Hello guest,
default
To benefit from all extra features you need to log in or sign up.

Most popular headlines

Grandmother is falsely accused of file-sharing (11)

A woman falsely accused of downloading copyrighted movies might've lost her Internet connection had she not taken her case to the media.

PS3 closing ground on Xbox 360 (1)

  • Sat 6 Feb 14:00 by Randomus
  • Game Consoles

After years of trailing the Nintendo Wii and Microsoft Xbox 360 on the sales charts, the Sony PlayStation 3 continues to close the gap on the Xbox 360.

Blame Blu-ray for lack of PS3 game downloads (13)

Don't expect Sony to offer its full game catalog for download over the Playstation 3 any time soon.

Murdoch: Avatar DVD won't be 3D (17)

  • Thu 4 Feb 00:00 by Randomus
  • Blu-Ray writers & players, LCD TV

News Corp. CEO Robert Murdoch confirmed the DVD release of Avatar won't have 3D support, with no word on a possible 3D Blu-ray version.

See all headlines

Active Commenters