I frankly seems like a pretty cut and dry case to me, but I'm curious what specifically factored in as evidence of her guilt.
Setting her Kazaa username to her email address was probably the most damning evidence in my eyes. Next was plugging the computer direct into the DSL modem (I think), rather than connecting behind a home NAT or wireless gateway. And finally, sharing such a huge library of songs -- some of which were independently confirmed to be on her hard drive later -- didn't help. Taken together, it seems like a pretty sound judgment. However, I wonder if the evidence used to convict her will become increasingly difficult to gather. As more and more p2p traffic migrates to BitTorrent, usernames go away entirely, and a lack of auto-seeding makes huge open archives less common. And as more and more users connect via unsecured wireless gateways, the link between an IP address and a computer (not to mention an individual user) gets harder to pin down. In effect, she was caught using 2nd generation p2p pirate software. (Napster/Scour being 1st, Gnutella/Kazaa being 2nd, BitTorrent 3rd.) I wonder how this will factor into the construction of generation 4? Built-in onionskins? -david > -----Original Message----- > From: John Parres [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 3:07 PM > To: The Pho List > Subject: Pho: W: RIAA Jury Finds Minnesota Woman Liable for Piracy, Awards > $222,000 > > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/riaa-jury-finds.html > > RIAA Jury Finds Minnesota Woman Liable for Piracy, Awards $222,000 > By David Kravets EmailOctober 04, 2007 | 4:34:32 PM > > DULUTH, Minnesota -- Jammie Thomas, a single mother of two, was found > liable Thursday for copyright infringement in the nation's first > file-sharing case to go before a jury. > > Twelve jurors here said the Minnesota woman must pay $9,250 for each > of 24 shared songs that were the subject of the lawsuit, amounting to > $222,000 in penalties. > > They could have dinged her for up to $3.6 million in damages, or > awarded as little as $18,000. She was found liable for infringing > songs from bands such as Journey, Green Day, AFI, Aerosmith and > others. > > After the verdict was read, Thomas and her attorney left the > courthouse without comment. The jurors also declined to talk to > reporters. > > The verdict, coming after two days of testimony and about five hours > of deliberations, was a mixed victory for the RIAA, which has brought > more than 20,000 lawsuits in the last four years as part of its > zero-tolerance policy against pirating. The outcome is likely to > embolden the RIAA, which began targeting individuals in lawsuits after > concluding the legal system could not keep pace with the ever growing > number of file-sharing sites and services. > > Still, it's unlikely the RIAA's courtroom victory will translate into > a financial windfall or stop piracy, which the industry claims costs > it billions in lost sales. Despite the thousands of lawsuits -- the > majority of them settling while others have been dismissed or are > pending -- the RIAA's litigation war on internet piracy has neither > dented illegal, peer-to-peer file sharing or put much fear in the > hearts of music swappers. > > According to BigChampagne, an online measuring service, the number of > peer-to-peer users unlawfully trading goods has nearly tripled since > 2003, when the RIAA began legal onslaught targeting individuals. > > At the time, BigChampagne says, there were about 3.8 million file > sharers trading over the internet at a given moment. Now, the group > has measured a record 9 million users trading at the same time. > Roughly 70 percent of trading involves digital music, according to > BigChampagne. > > The case, however, did set legal precedents favoring the industry. > > In proving liability, the industry did not have to demonstrate that > the defendant's computer had a file-sharing program installed at the > time that they inspected her hard drive. And the RIAA did not have to > show that the defendant was at the keyboard when RIAA investigators > accessed Thomas' share folder. > > Also, the judge in the case ruled that jurors may find copyright > infringement liability against somebody solely for sharing files on > the internet. The RIAA did not have to prove that others downloaded > the files. That was a big bone of contention that U.S. District Judge > Michael Davis settled in favor of the industry. > > Thomas maintained that she was not the Kazaa user "Tereastarr," whose > files were detected by RIAA's investigators. Her attorney speculated > to jurors that she could have been the victim of a spoof, cracker, > zombie, drone and other attacks. > > The jury found her liable after receiving evidence her internet > protocol address and cable modem identifier were used to share some > 1,700 files. The hard drive linked to Kazaa on Feb. 21, 2005 -- the > evening in question -- did not become evidence in the case. > > According to testimony, Thomas replaced her hard drive weeks after > RIAA investigators accessed her share file and discovered 1,702 files. > The industry sued on just 24 of those files. > > More to come ... > > (Courtroom sketch: Wired News/ Cate Whittemore) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This is the Pho mailing list, hosted by griffinatonehousedotcom and > johnparresatgmaildotcom. _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
