RIAA Running Scared of a Jury ?

[GhostShip]

This case has plenty of potential to expose some aspects of the RIAA extrotion campaign to the public gaze.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070910-with-trial-date-looming-riaa-tries-to-avoid-facing-a-jury.html

The over 20,000 file-sharing lawsuits that have been filed over the past few years share a single distinction: not one of them has made it to trial. 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.

The RIAA is looking for the judge to rule favorably on three issues. First, it wants the judge to rule that the record labels own the copyrights to the songs allegedly shared by the defendant. Second, it wants the judge to agree that the copyright registrations are in order. Those two items may not appear to be that big of deal, but number three is a doozy.

The labels want the judge to rule that the defendant was not authorized to copy or distribute the songs flagged by SafeNet, the RIAA's investigator in this case. If the judge decides those three issues in the labels' favor, the plaintiffs believe that it "will significantly narrow" the outstanding issues and prevent the "unnecessary expense of litigating issues about which there is no dispute."

Thomas' attorneys also raise a number of issues about the copyright claims. As part of the original complaint, the record labels attached screenshots of the files the defendant was allegedly sharing and stipulated that they owned the copyright to those songs. But the documentation provided by the labels to support their claims of copyright ownership don't quite add up.

I,m not suprised the RIAA dont want a jury to look this matter over.
This case has the capability to expose the claims of the so called "copyright owners" in this case UMG as false, as the listed owners of the claimed works are not themselves, this is something many courts take for granted and as such its likely filing a false claim will boomerang back on them especially in the eyes of a jury, lets be honest no one likes a rich bully, and a jury will not sit by idly when its clear all thats happeneing is a power play by the Cartel based on hot hair against a poor defendant.

[ñòóKýçrÕôK]

In the case of american justice in the court system it comes down to "I as the judge know it's the law, but if you don't point that out it's not my place to present it and therefor it technically is not my problem to worry about.". And most big business in the US is scared to go to a jury because they know even though facts are facts a jury would most likely show sympathy to the little guy and not award as favorably as a just a judge might.

[MinersLantern]

I think the riaa has more to worry about from the mediadefender leak  lol

[MinersLantern]

and back to the topic... it is true that real peeps on a jury have a thing against a giant supercorporation, and that is a good thing.

[Mytheroo]

Laws pretty much come into being cus of a mandate of the people. The overwhelming majority want something to become law etc.

Considering that at least a few on the jury maybe filesharers themselves, it would open the door to this law actually being changed to something that the majority of people want. (I know I assume alot here )

RIAA has a responsibiliy to their members, and I reckon they can see that copywrite laws are getting very outdated....but they are just trying to hold on as long as possible.

Before 'recordings' Musicians has to play live to earn some money or a meal or a bed for the night. Now that 'recordings' are no longer a good business model, maybe musicians will start realising that they need to actually play their instruments to a paying public to make money from their talent. The original business model is still valid, but recordings are dead as a way of making a fortune.   And I think RIAA know it!!