jammie

The decision this week by a federal judge in Minnesota to order a new trial in the recording industry's case against Jammie Thomas was seen by many as a victory for users of peer-to-peer networks.

But was it? Thomas remains the only defendant sued by the Recording Industry Association of America to take her case to trial, resulting in a jury verdic

It’s been a bad week for the RIAA. First their headline campaign victory over Jammie Thomas was thrown out, and then the government said it ’strongly opposes’ a bill lobbied for by the entertainment industries.

A federal judge on Wednesday set aside the nation's first and only federal jury verdict against a peer-to-peer file sharer for distributing copyrighted music on a peer-to-peer network without the labels' authorization.

The RIAA echoed its sister lobbying group, the MPAA, by telling the Jammie Thomas judge that solely making available copyrighted works on a peer-to-peer network is enough to prove unauthorized distribution with fines of up to $150,000 per violation.

Any higher standard of actual proof would "cripple" copyright enforcement in the digital age.

Following in the footsteps of the MPAA, the RIAA has now filed its response in the Jammie Thomas case, claiming again that actual proof of distribution doesn't make sense: "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online." See, there's just one problem with this.

The law isn't designed to make it easy to enforce copyright owners rights.

The Motion Picture Association of America tells the judge in the Jammie Thomas case that making a song available on a P2P network should count as infringement; proving that actual distribution took place is "often very difficult" and even "impossible."

The Electronic Frontier Foundation weighed in this week on the Jammie Thomas file-swapping case, where the judge has asked for public comment on whether just making a file available for download on a P2P network should count as copyright infringement.

In its filing, the EFF goes for the jugular and shows that the RIAA's entire approach is wrong.

Threat Level reports that the MPAA now argues that it has the right to demand up to $150,000 in damages per illegally downloaded file, without having to proof that someone actually downloaded that file.

Well, well, well. The RIAA is not having a particularly good week. In the Tanya Andersen case (where the RIAA sued an innocent person), the court has awarded Andersen $108,000 in legal fees from the RIAA.

You may recall that the RIAA had protested having to pay legal fees, which the judge smacked down.