RIAA Case Juror Speaks: 2 Jurors Wanted $3.6M Fine ("She lied. There was no defense...")

Daily Tech ^ | October 10, 2007 | Jason Mick

[Stoat]

Internet RIAA Case Juror Speaks: 2 Jurors Wanted $3.6M Fine
Jason Mick (Blog) - October 10, 2007 2:14 PM
 

 

---

It turns out that Jammie Thomas could have been worse off

The tech news industry has been buzzing with news of the $222,000 verdict in the precedent setting civil case Capitol Records v. Jammie Thomas, the first instance of an RIAA complaint going to a trial by jury.

Now a juror from the case has opened up and discussed their feelings about the case and what went on inside the courtroom.

While some may feel the $9,250 per song fine levied against Thomas was extreme and unreasonable, she could have been far worse off, if a couple of the jurors had their way.

In an interview with THREAT LEVEL on Tuesday, Michael Hegg, one of the jurors from the case, reported that two jurors had tried to sway the other jurors to adopt the maximum fine per violation, $150,000 per piece of copyrighted material. 

As Thomas was found guilty of 24 such violations, this would have resulted in a $3.6 million fine.

Another juror, according to Hegg, was insistent on making the fine as low as possible.  The minimum amount per violation, by law is $750.  This would have led to a far lesser fine of $18,000, still a significant sum, but over $200,000 less than the $222,000 jury decision.

Hegg, a 38-year-old steelworker from Duluth, Minnesota who had just returned home from a 14 hour shift when the interview took place, was unsympathetic at Thomas's plight. 

He elaborated, "She's a liar.  She should have settled out of court for a few thousand dollars.  Spoofing? We're thinking, 'Oh my God, you got to be kidding.'  [The verdict was] a compromise, yes, we wanted to send a message that you don't do this, that you have been warned."

Hegg felt that the fact that Thomas turned a different hard drive over to investigators than the original was particularly damning.  He repeated his feelings that she was being deceptive. "She lied.  There was no defense. Her defense sucked," he elaborated.

Hegg is a married father of two and says his wife is an "Internet guru," but admits to not knowing much about technology issues.

Hegg said his opinion and that of the jury was swayed by a number of pieces of evidence presented by the RIAA.  One exhibit, viewed multiple times showed that there were 2 million users on Kazaa, the network Thomas was accused of using, on the night RIAA investigators found Thomas's alleged folder.  Also, Thomas's use of the name "Terreastarr" on other online accounts, the same as the name on the Kazaa account, helped convince them.  Then there was the fact that the RIAA's technical experts matched the IP and MAC address to her computer.  Expert testimony had revealed that Thomas had not used a wireless router, casting further doubt on her claims that she was hacked.

Hegg seemed almost enraged at Thomas as he concluded the interview by saying, "I think she thought a jury from Duluth would be naïve. We're not that stupid up here.  I don't know what the f**k she was thinking, to tell you the truth."

Hegg's statements echo the Bush administration's statement earlier this week, that the punishment fit the crime and serves as a good warning to potential violators. 

The RIAA has a strong ally in the current U.S. administration, which has made major efforts to police copyright infringement and raise the fines for violators, including championing and signing into law the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005.  This law mandated that possession of even a single copy of a film unreleased on dvd could subject the owner to a stay in prison.  The law included no provisions for currently unreleased or untranslated foreign films, but so far the motion picture industry has been slightly less zealous in prosecuting infringers than the RIAA.  Recent reports put the RIAA settlements at nearly 36,000 individual settlements, by certain estimates.

Still there are many around the country who feel that she got off too lightly or was fined too heavily or unjustly.  Even the jury seems to have mirrored this same split.  One wanted to just fine her the minimum amount, others wanted to fine her the maximum amount $3.6 million dollars. 

The end result is still the same though: Thomas is going to have to pay, unless her appeal somehow succeeds.  Meanwhile the RIAA can rest content with their victory as they ponder their next plan of attack in their colorful battle against copyright infringement.
 

[montag813]

Is there anything to prevent a jury (not this one, but any jury) from saying, ‘this law is unconstitutional’ and tossing the whole shebang?

Yep. It's called "jury nullification". They decide to acquit despite the evidence. I once saw this in a NYC trial wherein a shopkeeper shot an armed robber to death, and the D.A. charged him with unlawful possession of a handgun. The jury simply acquitted him. The judge and D.A. were pissed. Nothing they could do.

[montag813]

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. Absolutely insane.

Yep, an absurd verdict. $9,250 per song when one can download the same songs legally for between $0.59 and $0.99 each from iTunes, etc.

[Wiggins]

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. Absolutely insane.

I agree. A person would be better off if they smashed the window to a store and grabbed the Cd's they wanted. Even if they get caught a first offense Burglary charge carries little or almost no jail time. At least where I live anyway. The restitution that would be made would be for the broken glass. Makes no sense.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

Is there anything to prevent a jury (not this one, but any jury) from saying, ‘this law is unconstitutional’ and tossing the whole shebang?

There are many out there who are afraid to recognize the full authority of the jury as the final check on the authority of a runaway government, including its courts.

It is not only the juror's right, but his duty, to find the verdict according to his own best understanding, judgment and conscience, though in direct opposition to the directions of the court.-- John Adams

More here.

[antinomian]

Yep. It's called "jury nullification". They decide to acquit despite the evidence. I once saw this in a NYC trial wherein a shopkeeper shot an armed robber to death, and the D.A. charged him with unlawful possession of a handgun. The jury simply acquitted him. The judge and D.A. were pissed. Nothing they could do.

Except declare a mistrial if a juror admits they acquitted because they don't approve of the law. Jury nullification is not legal in the US. I think that's an outrage, but judges will throw you off a jury or set aside a jury verdict if they think that's what's going on.

Jury nullification was one of those rights of Englishmen our ancestors thought they were fighting to preserve.

[PAR35]

Jurors take an oath. As I noted, they can honor their word, or they can choose to violate the oath they have taken.

[antinomian]

Jurors take an oath. As I noted, they can honor their word, or they can choose to violate the oath they have taken.

True, but keep in mind jurors are drafted and their oaths are dictated to them by the court. Personally I would be more concerned with justice as I see it and less concerned with venerating the state.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

So is it your position that a court can compel an oath that implicitly invalidates an inherent responsibility of a juror?

[jwh_Denver]

“Jurors can always violate their oaths, if they have no moral integrity.”

You’re propounding one of the big lies of the powers that be that say there is no jury nullifacation when in fact there is. Jury nullifacation gives citizens a right to say in a jury trial that a law is wrong regardless of whether a person is guilty or not of breaking said law.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

[PAR35]

You’re propounding one of the big lies

You have twisted and mis-stated what I have said in order to call me a liar.

You certainly appear to have little enough integrity to ignore any oath you would take as a juror.

[PAR35]

So is it your position that a court can compel an oath that implicitly invalidates an inherent responsibility of a juror?

You refuse to take the oath, and you will be thrown off the jury. It's up to the judge as to what he does about it after that. But you might want to bring your toothbrush, just in case. But no, she can't make you take the oath. She might be able to make you wish that you had.

[supercat]

Even 25 years, plus one possible renewal would be a huge improvement over the current situation.

I would like to see an escalating scale of renewal fees. If Disney wants to keep Steamboat Willie protected by copyright, and is willing to pay to do so, I don't have a problem with that (though I'd suggest that fees should double every few years, so that the fees would reach $1,000,000/year after 100 years or so; Mickey Mouse may be worth that, and maybe even $16,000,000/year but probably not $256,000,000/year). My bigger objection with the copyright laws is that they end up "protecting" (i.e. effectively destroying) works whose value to their creator falls off relatively quickly but which might still be of value to others.

Suppose someone in the year 2100 (assuming current rules are still in effect) finds a piece of music which looks interesting, which bears the notice "Copyright 1980 James Smith". If the composer of the piece of music never achieved any particular publicity, would there be any way to determine if the piece of music was still covered under copyright? If the music were written by someone famous like Andrew Lloyd Webber, one could find out whether he died prior to January 1, 2030. But "James Smith"? There would be many James Smiths who were alive in 1980 who didn't make it to 2030, but many others who did. As to which of them wrote the piece of music, who knows?

If one considers that copyright notices aren't even required at all under the present rules, the situation becomes even more absurd. Something with a copyright notice by a well-known creator will become public domain 70 years after that person's death. Something without a copyright notice will never lapse into the public domain.

[PAR35]

Personally I would be more concerned with justice as I see it and less concerned with venerating the state.

Others have taken that position as well. The problem is that if you know up front that you will find for one side or the other, and the lawyers do a half way decent job on voir dire, you are going to have to lie under oath at some point. If that doesn't give you pause, and you don't brag about it, then you will probably get away with it.

The OJ case was pretty much a case of jury nullification, and nothing adverse happened to those jurors, for example.

[Cymbaline]

I’m sorry but this is ridiculous. Absolutely insane.

I agree. Total BS in its entirety. A $3.6 mil fine for distributing 24 songs? What's next? Death penalty for jaywalking? How about life at hard labor for failing to put a quarter in a parking meter?

[Cymbaline]

To ask the question is to answer it.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

Now you've done it. Notwithstanding an oath you might take to a judge, you have a responsibility as a citizen in some cases, to the integrity of the law, and to resist its perversion.

Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:
In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

Art. 1, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:
In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts.

[Nomorjer Kinov]

So if the judge can compel an oath under penalty of imprisonment that requires one to violate his jury responsiblity, is the jury simply window dressing?

[DeweyCA]

That’s called jury nullification. Technically it can be done, but a juror will never say that. The juror will always claim some lame evidence. Think of the OJ jury.

[MaxMax]

Better version:

Officer: You were speeding sir

Speeder: Everyone else was speeding also, why pull me over?

Officer: You ever go fishing?

Speeder: Um yea why?

Officer: Did you catch all the fish?

Speeder:

[Arkinsaw]

People just need to come to the conclusion that popular music is not worth going to jail over, not worth getting fined over, and not worth paying for to support that industry.

Just listen to the radio and listen to Radiohead or better yet...buy a harmonica or a guitar.

Not worth getting sued to get it for free.....and not worth paying for.