Slashdot Mirror
Judge in Capitol v. Thomas Considers New Trial
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.
Well, don't expect the terminology to always be technically correct.
Basically we're looking at a rematch in the "making available" debate. The original verdict nailed the defendant to the wall for making tracks available for download. Now the judge is thinking that was based on incorrect instructions he gave the jury about how to understand the law.
For "upload to a p2p network", substitute "place on a shared drive readable/searchable/indexed by a p2p network".
I remain on the fence on this one. I don't believe that literally "just making available" should be illegal; I also don't believe that putting the track on a p2p share is "just making available" because of the implicit advertising of availability. I understand the argument that you can't have distributed if nobody downloaded, but I find it hard to believe that my liability should depend so absolutely on the actions of others.
This is really a beautiful moment for our democracy, to see a judge on his own realizing his mistake, and instead of just sitting on it, doing something about it. I have to say... this is a big man.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
If you put poisoned candy on your front porch, you don't get charged with negligent homicide unless a kid eats it. The actions of others do affect your liability.
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
This is one of those times where someone else has to do something in order for what you do to be considered a crime. But advertising availability isn't copyright infringement. You infringe when you distribute. So if no one has downloaded, you haven't distributed, thus you haven't infringed copyright. It's a very dangerous thing to start saying that intent is enough to convict a person of a crime. Intent ought to be considered when a crime has occurred, but to outlaw intent itself sets very bad precedent.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
It's not just democracy, but this judge deserve real kudos for having the backbone to admit his error. Too often we here of those in power who realize they have made a mistake, and cover it up in lies or denial (often making worse mistakes in the process).
Rather than just referring to him as "the judge in Capitol V Thomas", his name is "Judge Michael Davis." If anyone happens to know him, I'd say that it's about time to congratulate him for being man enough to step up and make this admission.
Here's a better one: Someone sees a jar labeled poison on your windowsill and turns you in to the Poison Industry of America, who file suit against you for having poison, which their clients have a patent on. However, all you had was a jar labeled poison, and no one actually proved that it contained anything but water, let alone the PIA patented poison.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
And yet citizens, who have even less expertise in law than lawyers and judges, are expected to obey the law and can be punished for not doing so.
What do you call a legislator at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Doesn't matter, mediasentry has authorization from the RIAA labels to download the files in certain instances. Additionally, they admitted in a recent article that they don't know when/if anybody has downloaded the files ever. Ignoring that they don't have a license to conduct investigations in most states anyways.
Just because I don't have the authorization to offer a song for download, doesn't mean that the person downloading it doesn't have permission to download it. And for the purposes of copyright infringement, the fact that the other party had permission would limit my liability to making available. Since no unauthorized copy was created. And likewise if you reverse the situation if I have permission to allow the uploads, and the person on the other end doesn't have the authority to download, it's still a non-starter.
Which is where the arguments get difficult to prove, in order to prove it's case the RIAA has to demonstrate that somebody who wasn't authorized to download the materials did so. And that furthermore the downloads were offered on purpose rather than by accident.
It would not be valid to claim that I've engaged in copyright infringement if somebody broke into my computer via a rootkit and placed things into a p2p share without my permission. Nor would it be permissible to hold me accountable if I weren't aware that somebody else had put things up for share without my knowledge. As long as I had engaged in the due diligence necessary for the scenario, it wouldn't be my liability.