Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judge in Capitol v. Thomas Considers New Trial

Posted by timothy on from the disproportionality dept.

Jay Maynard writes "The judge in Capitol Records v. Thomas said today he's thinking about granting a new trial because he may have committed a 'manifest error of law' in his jury instructions. He says that his instruction that simply uploading music to a P2P network without any proof that anyone actually downloaded it may conflict with a case in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals that said 'infringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination.' Briefs are due by May 29, with oral argument July 1. The judge invited friend of the court briefs by May 29, as well." NewYorkCountryLawyer links to the Judge's order itself (PDF), in which the Judge notes that he may (in NYCL's words) "have overlooked controlling Eighth Circuit authority, the case of National Car Rental v. Computer Associates, which held that you can't have a violation of the 'distribution right' without an 'actual dissemination of copies or phonorecords.'" Update: 05/15 18:54 GMT by T : Note that while the linked story as well as Jay Maynard's summary use the term "upload," Thomas wasn't uploading the files themselves, only making them available.

13 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by EMeta · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sorry, I got lost in the legalese there. Someone want to help?

    1. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some of the details are unclear to me, but I'm pretty sure the judge simultaneously ordered a new trial and made gay marriage legal in California.

    2. Re:Huh? by kennygraham · · Score: 3, Funny

      When GP said "uploading" he meant "making available for download". Stop being a pedantic retard.

    3. Re:Huh? by Corf · · Score: 5, Funny

      Little punks should've stayed off my damn lawn. That'll larn 'em.

      --
      The pain was excruciating and the scarring is likely permanent, but that just means it's working.
    4. Re:Huh? by LMacG · · Score: 1, Funny

      I probably have it better than you, I may not be able to get married, but I can get laid.

      --
      Slightly disreputable, albeit gregarious
    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      seed->Alice Cooper - Poisen.mp3

    6. Re:Huh? by sm62704 · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wish more men were gay; actually I wish that all other men except me were gay. Then I could have their women.

      A gay man isn't going to hit on your woman. I have no idea why so many guys don't like gays, unless they're going to the bars where men hit on them instead of their women.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    7. Re:Huh? by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop being a pedantic retard.
      But I thought we were talking about laws.
      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  2. WAIT!! by whisper_jeff · · Score: 5, Funny

    Wait a second! You mean that for violation of distribution rights to actually happen, copies have to be distributed?? I wish somebody had said something sooner!!

    sigh...

    I guess the courts getting a clue later is better than not at all...

  3. Re:Bad Analogy by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 4, Funny

    But if you had a CD labeled "Poison" you should definitely be punished.

  4. Re:Bad Analogy by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    Have you got a liquid observers license in her state? No? Then you lose. Only people licensed to observe liquids can testify in court, sorry. Wait, what the hell were we talking about? See, I knew I should have used a car analogy. This poison analogy is just too confusing.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  5. Re:Bad Analogy by azgard · · Score: 2, Funny

    And if you had a CD labeled "Toxic", you should be punished too.

  6. Re:Quite muddying the waters. by kjots · · Score: 2, Funny

    No, sorry, it's you who are being an imprecise slacker because ... umm ... you failed to correctly capitalize your no-spam kludge! Yeah! Take that!

    Anyway, keeping with the subject, and regardless of what the FA actually says (I haven't read it and I don't plan to), unless the RIAA/MediaSentry actually download the content the defendant was not uploading it, they were only making it available. It is the the position of those that oppose the RIAA and MPAA in this matter that 'making available' is not infringement, and so far the courts appear to agree with us.

    As for you guys, you can just keep on trading insults like the immature little shits that you are - it appears that's all you're good at (that goes for most of the rest of you too).