Fresh from losing a battle against the music industry causing Jammie Thomas-Rasset to be liable for paying $1.9 million in copyright infringement, lawyers Joe Sibley and Kiwi Camara has decided to sue Scribd. Scribd has “built a technology that’s broken barriers to copyright infringement on a global scale and in the process have also built one of the largest readerships in the world,” according to the two attorneys. “The company shamelessly profits from the stolen copyrighted works of innumerable authors.”
It is interesting to note that in Camara and Sibley’s last trial, they were defending a client from copyright infringement and now they are pursuing after a company that violates copyright. Camara and Sibley were interviewed back in July about whether they would ever defend copyright and they said yes assuming that they believe in the issue. The lawsuit was filed by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Plaintiff Elaine Scott said that she found an unauthorized copy of her book “Stocks and Bonds: Profits and Losses, A Quick Look at Financial Markets” on the website. Scribd prides themselves as being the “YouTube for documents.”
Scribd said that they remove content when required by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Scribd has built an automated filtering system that prevents unauthorized materials from being published too. “The West Coast technology industry has produced a number of start-up firms premised on the notion that commercial copyright infringement is not illegal, unless and until the injured party discovers and complains of the infringing activity, and (the) infringer fails to respond to such complaints,” states the complaint written by the lawyers.
Jammie Thomas of Minnesota was found liable for 24 acts of copyright infringement with damages worth $1.92 million. Jammie had a new trial and a new lawyer after she was unable to pay her previous lawyer. The copyright material belonged to four major record labels.
Kiwi Camara was Thomas’ lawyer in the case and he was angry when he found out there was an $80,000 per song damage awarded to the labels. He believed that $750 per song was more reasonable. Thomas was shocked by the verdict but believed the jury did their job.
“I’m not going to hold it against them.” added Thomas but said that the recording industry probably won’t end up getting the money. ”Good luck trying to get it from me… it’s like squeezing blood from a turnip.”
However RIAA spokesperson Cara Duckworth said that the recording industry was willing to settle on the case. A proposed settlement has not yet been made. Camara and Harvard professor Charles Nesson still plan on filing a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA.
There are currently two high profile RIAA lawsuits taking place. One of them involves a Harvard professor and the other involves Jammie Thomas-Rasset. Now the lawyers in both cases are forming a partnership to file a class-action lawsuit against the RIAA to get back the $100 million that they claim the recording industry stole.
Kiwi Camara represents Jammie Thomas-Rasset in a lawsuit that the RIAA filed against her. There is a retrial taking place in Minnesota next week. Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson is representing Boston student Joel Tenenbaum in an RIAA trial as well. Kiwi and Charles are the ones getting together to file the $100 million class action lawsuit against the RIAA.
Camara did an interview with Ars Technica earlier this week and revealed two pieces of evidence that will help his case. MediaSentry was hired by the RIAA to track down the IP address of those who share files. Camara is arguing that MediaSentry is not licensed as a private investigator in Minnesota. This makes them running an illegal “pen register” and their evidence should be barred.
Another approach that Camara is considering is making the RIAA prove that they own the copyrights in question. If the RIAA or MediaSentry cannot prove any of the above scenarios, then the cases will fall apart for them. Camara’s approach is quite unorthodox.
Camara said that the RIAA basically committed a “technical screw-up” when it came to claiming the proper copyright ownership. The RIAA lawyers provided courts with “true and correct” copies of the evidence, but they were not “certified copies” required by federal rules of evidence.
The RIAA asked the judge to take judicial notice for these claims, but the judge refused. The recording industry will now have a limited amount of time to file for the certified copies. Camara already has rebuttals in mind just in case the RIAA is able to get all of the certified copies necessary for the case.
More news on the trial as it develops. Kudos to Ars Technica for their thorough coverage of this case.
