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.

Comments

Re:Car analogy

[InvisblePinkUnicorn]

It appears my genius wit is far beyond that of the average slashdot user.

Re:Huh?

[cpt kangarooski]

What if I hang a painting in my restaurant? What if I put a statue in my corporate lobby?

It's not infringing to display lawfully made copies. See 17 USC 109(c).

What about tourists who take photographs of statues

That could be a problem for them.

and buildings?

That's typically not infringing. See section 120(a) (which itself usually doesn't need to apply, since most buildings aren't copyrighted anyway).

Can sculptors file a lawsuit for unequal treatment under the law, for discriminatory protection for different types of USEFUL arts, such as the different protections afforded musicians and sculptors?

First, copyrights don't deal with the useful arts; patents cover that territory. Copyrights deal with science, by which the framers meant general knowledge. Second, while an author could try that kind of an argument, I guess, they'd be pretty certain to lose, in light of Eldred, and given that sculptors (for example) are not a protected class.

Or can an artist who creates a statue which is placed in a public park place a camera on or in the statue and sue everyone who looks at the statue for copyright violation?

Neither looking, nor reading, nor listening, are infringements to begin with. See section 106 for most of the activities which are capable of infringing.

Do post card creators/vendors have to pay royalties for pictures of works of art on those post cards?

Depends on the art. For public domain works, e.g. the Mona Lisa, no. For copyrighted works, yes, if that's a part of the deal they worked out with the copyright holder. (It could just as easily have been a lump sum payment, instead of a royalty)