RIAA trial verdict: Was the decision fair? - Page 3

HarryT · 10-09-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lemurion

As far as I know, she's not actually a criminal, as it was not a criminal case but a civil one. Having said that she was certainly guilty of copyright infringement.

But I understand that she claimed to have had no knowledge of it. That presumably means that she lied under oath, in a court of law. That is perjury, which is a criminal offence, even in a civil court case. In this country, a number of rather prominent people (most notably Lord Archer, the author) have received quite lengthy jail sentences for committing perjury in civil court cases.

Can't that happen in the US?

Lemurion · 10-09-2007, 02:37 PM

I see where you're coming from, but as far as I know she would only be considered a criminal in this case if she was charged and convicted of perjury. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's how it works.

Goshzilla · 10-10-2007, 01:13 AM

How do we know she lied? She lost the trial... Sorry folks but perjury does not equate to being on the losing end of a civil trial.

No, perjury to be proven requires an actual charge of perjury to be persued, either in the course of the trial, or in a seperate trial.

Simply assuming she is a liar for losing the case, is a "verdict by public opinoin." It carries no logical weight or legal one.

HarryT · 10-10-2007, 03:46 AM

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

Goshzilla · 10-10-2007, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

I don't pretend to know the details of this case. I would be an arm chair amature at most and I don't want to waste my time rummaging through it just to have some sense of self satisfaction. The most I get from this case are news snippets, and internet ones at that. So I take all this with a grain of salt. I'm not saying I believe her and I don't say I don't believe her. I'm saying regardless of the outcome, being unconvincing to a jury in a civil trial does not equate to perjury unless the crime of perjury was subject in the hearing.

jamesdmanley · 10-10-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

its not impossible for someones pc to be used by someone else w/o the owners knowledge, specially people with computers that are always on and similar internet connections. infact, its quite easy for someone with a little knowledge and the right tools

JSWolf · 10-10-2007, 11:03 AM

And because she has kids, it's very easy for one of them to do it without her knowing. Maybe she had once up to download something and the kids just continued to download using her name. And some P2P programs automatically share what's downloaded. So maybe she didn't do it. So she may not have lied. But she still is responsible.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-10-2007, 11:09 AM

This is why I think a lot of home computers are going to get locked-down by the homeowners, to make sure they are not liable for such an action by anyone in the household for which they are responsible. It's become (almost)the same as locking up the liquor cabinet to keep the booze out of the kids' hands.

DNel · 10-10-2007, 12:07 PM

What would be nice to see is the RIAA making sure all the award goes to the artists instead of pocketing it themselves. And their lawyers should be doing this pro bono. And yes, I think the award is extreme, but she is guilty. I also heard that she is appealing the ruling because of some federal ruling that came out a couple of days earlier that would impact her case (what is was I don't remember)

Steven Lyle Jordan · 10-11-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DNel

What would be nice to see is the RIAA making sure all the award goes to the artists instead of pocketing it themselves. And their lawyers should be doing this pro bono. And yes, I think the award is extreme, but she is guilty. I also heard that she is appealing the ruling because of some federal ruling that came out a couple of days earlier that would impact her case (what is was I don't remember)

That would be nice, but as the original complaint was about Thomas' making available "over 1,700" songs, obviously certain artists were cut out when they trimmed it down to 22 for the trial. I'd imagine the artists would open a brand new can of worms arguing over why their song was cut from the initial list, and therefore denying them due compensation. I'm sure the RIAA doesn't want to go there.

View Poll Results: Was the damages award fair?
The jury should have awarded more.	0	0%
This amount was as good as any. (She is finacially ruined.)	3	7.32%
It was much too high.	38	92.68%
Voters: 41. You may not vote on this poll

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A verdict on speed reading	untiedknot	Lounge	12	11-02-2010 08:30 PM
So what's the verdict on K3?	Williamlk	Amazon Kindle	70	10-27-2010 08:25 AM
RIAA: DRM is dead	Format C:	News	9	07-20-2009 09:21 PM
Brass Verdict	MickeyC	Reading Recommendations	2	12-28-2008 08:42 PM
So what's the verdict?	HarryT	Amazon Kindle	22	10-31-2007 02:58 PM

10-09-2007, 02:37 PM	#32
Lemurion eReader Posts: 2,750 Karma: 4968470 Join Date: Aug 2007 Device: Note 5; PW3; Nook HD+; ChuWi Hi12; iPad	I see where you're coming from, but as far as I know she would only be considered a criminal in this case if she was charged and convicted of perjury. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe that's how it works.

10-10-2007, 01:13 AM	#33
Goshzilla Zealot Posts: 104 Karma: 346 Join Date: Oct 2007 Device: Rocket Ebook 1150	How do we know she lied? She lost the trial... Sorry folks but perjury does not equate to being on the losing end of a civil trial. No, perjury to be proven requires an actual charge of perjury to be persued, either in the course of the trial, or in a seperate trial. Simply assuming she is a liar for losing the case, is a "verdict by public opinoin." It carries no logical weight or legal one.

10-10-2007, 03:46 AM	#34
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,560 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	But do you really believe that she DIDN'T lie? She denied having done it, when there was documentary evidence showing that the files were downloaded from her IP address, using a "screen name" that she had used for years. It seems clear that she lied about it, and hence perjured herself under oath.

10-10-2007, 11:03 AM	#37
JSWolf Resident Curmudgeon Posts: 80,742 Karma: 150249619 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Roslindale, Massachusetts Device: Kobo Libra 2, Kobo Aura H2O, PRS-650, PRS-T1, nook STR, PW3	And because she has kids, it's very easy for one of them to do it without her knowing. Maybe she had once up to download something and the kids just continued to download using her name. And some P2P programs automatically share what's downloaded. So maybe she didn't do it. So she may not have lied. But she still is responsible.

10-10-2007, 11:09 AM	#38
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	This is why I think a lot of home computers are going to get locked-down by the homeowners, to make sure they are not liable for such an action by anyone in the household for which they are responsible. It's become (almost)the same as locking up the liquor cabinet to keep the booze out of the kids' hands.

10-10-2007, 12:07 PM	#39
DNel Member Posts: 14 Karma: 29 Join Date: Jul 2007 Device: Sony eReader	What would be nice to see is the RIAA making sure all the award goes to the artists instead of pocketing it themselves. And their lawyers should be doing this pro bono. And yes, I think the award is extreme, but she is guilty. I also heard that she is appealing the ruling because of some federal ruling that came out a couple of days earlier that would impact her case (what is was I don't remember)