Slashdot Mirror
RIAA's $222k Verdict Is Likely To Be Set Aside
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "Apparently the RIAA's 'big gun' didn't fare so well this morning in Duluth, when he tried to persuade the judge in Capitol v. Thomas that the part of the Copyright Act which says 'by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending', can be disregarded. According to an in-person account by Wired.com the Judge indicated that he is likely to grant a mistrial, setting aside the $222,000 jury verdict based upon his incorrect jury instruction, and that he will probably hand down his decision in September. Just yesterday some of the same lawyers got rebuffed by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in their attempt to argue that Cablevision's online storage for its customers constitutes a copyright infringement, in Cartoon Network v. CSC Holdings. There, too, the content owners had argued that the wording of the Copyright Act did not mean what it said. There, too, the Court politely but firmly disagreed."
I don't think that's going to stand up. Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them. Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
Not defending the RIAA, but just pointing out something that seems illogical to me.
Start a happiness pandemic
Even if the 'making available' argument doesn't stand under current law, you can expect attempted copyright infringement to be made illegal when congress gets back from vacation.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
I think it's an indication that judges do read ABA journals, that word does get around, and that perhaps there is a hope that these tactics are being exposed for what they are, a colossal rort of the legal system for private gain. You can fool some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time, it appears.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
did you read the part where it said the verdict would be set aside because of bad jury instructions ... if the jury gave the wrong answer because they were asked the wrong question it should be set aside.
An attorney we use is fond of saying that words and punctuation have to mean something, or else there is no point in writing things down in laws and contracts.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
None of this means a damned thing if the RIAA succeeds in getting their private gestapo made into an arm of the Department of Justice. Remember, they are pushing a bill to create a Federal framework for billing the US Government for both civil and criminal actions using Federal officers to do their dirty work. Even if you don't download music, you're gonna pay through the nose in tax dollars and the loss of more civil rights as the government bureaucrats try to ram through new laws to "support their mission" - mandatory ISP snooping and filtering, legitimized abuse of due process, lower standards of evidence, and a grab bag of laws to "protect jobs" (that's the rationale being currently used to get this bill passed). We're setting ourselves up for an Orwellian nightmare of epic proportions if this nightmare passes.
He's not saying that the Jury's verdict is wrong, he's saying that the decision was made on incorrect information. The fact that they based their decision on were wrong. If a Jury found a man guilty of murder but it turned out that the prosecution had hidden facts that would have exonerated the defendant, would you consider that "unamerican"?
I, personally, am an adherent to the principle of jury nullification. I think that's the point of having a jury in the first place. A judge is far more qualified to appraise the "legality" of a case than a legal lay-person. Juries should be instructed to exercise their own judgment taking into account their own values, the circumstances unique, and the legal arguments that take place between the lawyers as arbitrated by the judge. In that order!
Of course, in America, if anyone tries to make a jury aware of this inherent right during the course of a trial, it is grounds for a mistrial. Look it up.
Look on the bright side. Western society is in terminal decline anyway. When archaeologists of the next great civilisation look back at us, the RIAA's efforts to turn corporate policy into federal law are going to be seen as something of a barometer... if they are even remembered at all.
Look, I'm no fan of the RIAA, but to set aside a jury's verdict is fairly unamerican. A jury listened to the facts, contemplated the charges, and rendered a verdict.
They were essentially mis-instructed in the charges.
Setting that aside is something that courts should be loathe to do, and should only be done at the appellate level by seasoned, reasoned jurists.
Lawyers are officers of the court. They must act within the bounds of the court process. To give purposefully misleading information to the judge is outside what they are supposed to do. The judge is not and can not be an expert in everything. The lawyers in the case are supposed to bring up everything relevant, and the judge decides points of law and the juries points of fact. But, the judge decided a point of law incorrectly, essentially because the lawyers on one side lied to the judge. That is a violation of the process and should require a mistrial. The jury made a decision based on incorrect instructions. Thus the decision they made may have been correct based on their information, but may not have been correct if they were properly instructed. The judge gave them one last chance to convince him that the information provided to the judge was correct, and he indicated that he does not believe the instructions he gave the jury were correct, and thus he should declare a mistrial.
As for whether that's right or wrong or whatever, that's what's happening here, and well within the rules of order. It was started because the lawyers on one side misinformed the judge. And that's simply not allowed.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't be silly, it was quite obvious she was guilty as charged, the only grossly unfair thing was the punishment.
She was charged of having committed copyright infringement in two different ways. The first charge was incorrect and only happened because the RIAA's lawyers lied to the court, and the evidence for the second charge is most likely incorrect as well.
Quote: "The defense is arguing that if the investigators are not liable for downloading the content illegally, then the content must be authorized by the RIAA."
It is actually the other way around: the defense is arguing that SINCE the downloading was previously authorized by the RIAA as part of the investigation, no infringement took place! You can't illegally copy your own goods, or goods that you are authorized to copy by the copyright holder!
you don't understand. this is slashdot. it doesn't matter how blatantly guilty she is, we have to find a way to twist logic to make piracy seem ok.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
I suggest that their PR-dollars would be better spent by trying to compete within their purported area of expertise.
Did you say "compete"? What's that? That's not a word they're familiar with.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful
So, genius, explain to me how you upload something without making a copy.
Typically it is legal to make a copy of material under fair use guidelines. Whether the copy is on a CD or on a server or some other medium is generally irrelevant. What is relevant is whether mens rea can be proven and whether the use clearly falls outside fair use guidelines. Upload stuff to a website saying "Warez here - come and get it" and you likely are committing a copyright violation. But simply putting files on a server is not an automatic copyright infringement. The issue is a lot more complicated than that.
Both sides copy, and as you say, the act of copying without permission is illegal.
This statement could not be more wrong. Copying material is not an automatic copyright infringement and both case law as well as legislation have strongly established this fact. All copyright infringements require the act of copying but not all copying is an automatic copyright infringement.
Undercover cops buy drugs and the state doesn't have to prosecute them for buying them.
Police officers are sanctioned by the government to enforce the law. The RIAA and other private organizations do not (and should not) share the same legal protections as a police officer sanctioned with enforcing the laws. The act of trafficking schedule 1 controlled substances is always illegal for private citizens. Making a copy of copyrighted material often is entirely legal under fair use doctrine. Furthermore selling controlled substances without a license is a felony whereas selling copyrighted material without any special license is frequently legal.
If the plaintiff had assistance from legally sanctioned law enforcement authorities who, in the process of a properly conducted investigation, concluded that there was reasonable grounds to suspect attempted copyright infringement then it would seem more likely to be acceptable as evidence. But just because some private investigator found "evidence" doesn't mean a court will or should automatically allow it to be presented.
Why couldn't investigators "illegally" download copyrighted material and still have it considered infringing on the part of the defendant, but not be prosecuted?
Because a private citizen cannot manufacture a crime against another private citizen. Without getting into the particulars of any given case is is easy to think of situations where the defendant was not attempting to commit copyright infringement. Making copies of copyrighted material is not prima facia evidence of copyright infringement.
The GP did specifically write "without permission". Under any reasonable readings of that expression,...
Don't confuse reasonable readings with legal interpretations. Fair use copying does not, under any circumstances I am aware of, require permission from the copyright holder. The GP post you refer to is at best ambiguous on this point and I see no reason why anyone should assume your broad interpretation of "without permission" since permission is not necessarily required.