TorrentFreak Email Update

MPAA Joins RIAA in “Monstrous” Jammie Thomas Appeal

Posted: 06 Jan 2012 03:09 AM PST

riaa The battle between the RIAA and the file-sharing mother of four Jammie Thomas has turned into a numbers game.

It all started in 2007 when a jury hit Thomas with a $222,000 verdict when she was found guilty of sharing 24 songs using the file-sharing client Kazaa. In 2008 Thomas appealed this verdict and a mistrial was declared, with the judge ruling that the fines were "disproportionate to the damages suffered."

The case went up for re-trial before a new jury in 2009 where Thomas lost and was ordered to pay $1.92 million in fines. She then filed for a re-trial and in November 2010 a jury again found her guilty and awarded a total sum of $1.5 million .

Last year the case moved in another direction. Describing the massive damages as “monstrous and shocking” U.S. District Judge Michael Davis significantly reduced the earlier fine. Instead of $1.5 million, the judge ruled that $2,250 per song, for a total award of $54,000, is the maximum consistent with due process.

"The Court concludes that an award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling. Such an award is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable," Judge Davis wrote.

The RIAA was disappointed by the verdict of the federal court, and is now hoping to reinstate the initial $222,000 damages award through an appeal. This week the music lobby group filed a brief in which they claim that this amount is not “monstrous and shocking,” and neither was the $1.5 million fine.

“Neither the first jury's $9,250-per-work award nor the third jury's $62,500-per-work award is more substantial than the Constitution allows,” the RIAA concludes.

The RIAA further criticizes Judge Davis’ ruling that any fine higher than $2,250 per infringed song requires some proof of actual damages. In other words, the RIAA would have to show that there is “some” relation with actual damages suffered by the copyright holder. According to the RIAA, neither the copyright act nor the due process clause requires this.

“Neither its legal analysis nor its factual analysis supports the court's holding that the relationship between actual and statutory damages renders any award greater than $2,250 per work unconstitutional,” writes the RIAA.

The RIAA is not alone in their assessment, as they are now joined by the MPAA who this week filed an amicus brief in the case.

“That ruling improperly would require copyright owners who elect statutory damages to present proof of actual damages. Requiring such proof would significantly alter well-established ground rules for copyright litigation, add substantial practical burdens and unreasonably increase the costs of pursuing such litigation,” the MPAA writes.

In addition, the RIAA argues that Judge Davis made a mistake by ruling that “making a work available” is not part of the distribution right protected by the Copyright Act.

“The District Court erred in rejecting the first jury's verdict on the mistaken ground that the Copyright Act does not protect the copyright holder's long-established exclusive right to control the terms on which a work is ‘made available’ to the public,” the RIAA writes.

Again, the MPAA sides with the RIAA in its writing to the court.

“That right is, in fact, an international copyright norm. The right has particular importance in a digital age where unauthorized third parties routinely make available valuable copyrighted works for instantaneous dissemination to millions of Internet users around the globe,” they write.

It is now up to the court to decide if the arguments provided by the billion dollar entertainment companies hold any ground.

To be continued, indefinitely.

Source: MPAA Joins RIAA in “Monstrous” Jammie Thomas Appeal

BitTorrent Releases New “Share” Application

Posted: 05 Jan 2012 02:33 PM PST

share BitTorrent Inc. is mostly known for the development of the uTorrent and BitTorrent Mainline clients, but today the company adds another piece of software to its arsenal.

Dubbed “Share,” the new application is targeted at people who want to share large files with a private group of people, as opposed to uploading them via a public BitTorrent site for all the world to see. With the tagline “No more storage limits. No more fees” it also takes a stab at the increasingly popular cyberlockers.

Although the software uses BitTorrent under the hood, people are not required to create torrent files. Instead, they can select files on their computer, pick a person or group to share them with, and the application takes care of the rest.

According to BitTorrent’s chief strategist Shahi Ghanem the new application fits perfectly into a world where media files grow larger and larger by the day.

“With today's consumer cameras/video recorders producing stunning quality, traditional media sharing requires concessions. With Share, you don't have to crop photos, reduce resolutions or cut video length to easily share something with your friends, family and colleagues. It's much faster than traditional 'cloud' solutions and easy for anyone," says Ghanem.

Share with Share

Those with a keen eye for detail may see similarities between “Share” and the “Project Chrysalis” client that was released last year. The new application is an improvement over the Chrysalis client, directly based on input from users.

“After evaluating the user response and feedback, we realized we had the right goal, but users identified challenges with the implementation. Ultimately, we took what we learned and started again from scratch. Share was born," Ghanem explains.

The Share project is currently in an early Alpha phase, but once it has matured the application will be integrated into the existing uTorrent and BitTorrent Mainline clients. Although some might find this useful, there is also a group of uTorrent users who would prefer to keep a lighter client.

In recent years uTorrent has been augmented with quite a few extra bells and whistles, features that some traditional BitTorrent users are not interested in. To address these concerns, we asked whether BitTorrent Inc. would consider releasing a more basic version of the popular client as well.

“We might consider it in the future – it’s definitely not out of the realm of possibility,” we were told. “Right now, even with the new features, the client is still very small and efficient on resources. We also review features very frequently, and if they aren’t being used, we are always open to removing them.”

A uTorrent “light” may indeed not be a bad idea to please the angry mob. Those who are less resistant to change are of course invited to give Share a spin.

Source: BitTorrent Releases New “Share” Application

The Pirate's Press

Friday, 6 January 2012