Jammie Thomas file sharing verdict overturned

Stephen Withers
Friday, 26 September 2008 06:19

Business IT - Networking

Tom Sydnor, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for the Study of Digital Property at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, said "Yesterday, the Court in Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas concluded that if a KaZaA user shares two files - one encoding pornography and the other encoding a song - then she has 'distributed' the pornography but has not 'distributed' the song.

"That conclusion makes no sense, and the reasoning needed to achieve it is both predictably and fatally flawed."

However, Davis did explicitly address this point in his ruling.

"The criminal statute regarding distribution of child pornography is unrelated to the Copyright Act. The Court does not find the comparison to criminal law persuasive. When the definition of 'distribute' varies within the Copyright Act itself, the Court is not convinced that a criminal statute addressing child pornography should carry weight... Additionally, while there is no liability for an attempt to infringe under the Copyright Act, there is corresponding liability for attempted distribution in the criminal context."

So the Thomas case continues. Having gained one decision in their favour, the plaintiffs seem unlikely to back down. RIAA spokesperson Jonathan Lamy told the International Herald Tribune "a jury of her own peers unanimously found Ms Thomas liable for copyright theft and for causing significant harm to the music community."

"We have confidence in our case and the facts assembled against the defendant," he added, and said that the plaintiffs were still assessing their options.

Who knows? Maybe they'll offer to settle with Thomas for $US5400 in line with Judge Davis's recommendations. But Thomas has previously declined to settle, asserting "I have NEVER used a P2P software to download or upload music. That was reason number one why I refused to settle with the music labels that were suing me in the first place. I did not do what they had accused me of and I was not going to pay them for someone else's actions."

Another trial seems inevitable unless one of the parties changes its position. This time next year, perhaps?