First RIAA Lawsuit Heads to Trial

quote:

---

The RIAA is trying to keep Virgin Records, et al v. Jammie Thomas from a jury trial, filing a motion for summary adjudication on some specific aspects of the case............

.........Perhaps the biggest reason that the RIAA doesn't want this—or any other—case to go to trial is the possibility of losing. The RIAA has fought the exoneration efforts of every defendant tooth and nail, trying to simply walk away from the litigation by dismissing it without prejudice. A handful of defendants have managed to be exonerated, most notably Debbie Foster, Patricia Santangelo, and Tanya Andersen—who is now suing the RIAA for malicious prosecution.

A loss at trial would be even more catastrophic for the RIAA. It would give other defense attorneys a winning template while exposing the weaknesses of the RIAA's arguments. It would also prove costly from a financial standpoint, as the RIAA would have to foot the legal expenses for both itself and the defendant. Most of all, it would set an unwelcomed precedent: over 20,000 lawsuits filed and the RIAA loses the first one to go to a jury.

---

quote:

---

The RIAA's evidence in the case of Virgin v. Thomas seems to hinge on the testimony of an expert witness whose expertise has already been called into question in another case.

In a deposition earlier this year, Iowa State University associate professor Douglas Jacobson testified about his forensic examination of a defendant's computer hard drive. The examination was done on behalf of the RIAA legal team, based on information provided by MediaSentry, a company that works with the entertainment industry to identify copyrighted works shared illegally on P2P networks.

His testimony states an assumption on his part that MediaSentry had conclusively proven an IP address registered to the defendant was used for sharing files.His conclusion, resulting directly from that premise, stated that despite a lack of either MP3 files that could have been shared or KaZaA software RIAA attorneys claim was used to share the files doesn't exxonerate the defendant, but rather shows that she has another computer.

Despite his complete lack of physical evididence, a report he submitted to RIAA lawyers indicates that he can "demonstrate how defendant's internet account and computer were used." However, when pressed by the defense he admitted that what he meant by a demonstration was quoting MediaSentry's results.

Upon futher questioning, he admitted that not only did he not have any evidence of files being shared from the defendant's hard drive, but also that he didn't bother to document his forensic examination aside from the conclusions he reached, despite the capability of EnCase, the forensic examination software he uses, to create detailed reports. His said "I examined the hard drive, found no evidence of file sharing software or audio files, and so there was nothing to document."

---