tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post6537075164049155998..comments2024-03-22T03:28:24.897-04:00Comments on Recording Industry vs The People: Final witness of June 16th in Capitol v. Thomas-Rassetraybeckermanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063235302436280455noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15479871.post-16545652978735079212009-06-17T09:49:43.567-04:002009-06-17T09:49:43.567-04:00Again, here are the questions (not necessarily for...Again, here are the questions (not necessarily for Ray to answer, but just throwing them out there) from the non-lawyer.<br /><br />1. Is the plaintiff required to show "substantial similarity" for each of the songs they are claiming infringement on? If so, then shouldn't each of these be played for the jury compared to the data as downloaded by the MS investigator. From the coverage, it appeared that a substantial portion of these claimed infringing songs were only partial downloads, and that playing these files (with the random data blocks from the non-downloaded segments) might result in a jury finding that they were not substantially similar.<br /><br />2. From the coverage, it seems that the defense would have a case to make in motions or at least closing, to say. Plaintiffs claim 24 songs infringing. They can prove ownership of only X. Of those X, this many were improperly registered, and thus they are not eligible to collect damages on until they are properly registered. This leaves Y songs that they can claim infringement on. Of those Y songs, they showed you a comparison with the original only on these Z songs. So, it is only for these songs which they have presented a full case on that the jury can use to find whether as a fact, they are substantially similar, and then to assess what the damages should be. (I hope that made some sense).<br /><br />3. I'm extremely curious why the defense hasn't seemed to be as vigorous in the courtroom in challenging the plaintiffs as they were in motions prior to trial. In motions they appeared to point out that they intended to challenge every aspect of ownership and registration of the copyrights, but according to the coverage, this appears to have fizzled out. They also appear to have allowed their own expert witness to be hamstrung in his testimony without putting up a similar challenge to the RIAA expert witness. Any speculation as to what happened here?Gamer Curmudgeonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15359221737037432744noreply@blogger.com