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.

6 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 kennygraham · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.