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."
The reason this may stand up is that in the drug case it is SELLING the drugs that is illegal. In copyright law it is making the copies that is illegal. So -
in the drug bust the cops observe the dealer selling drugs; i.e. the illegal act.
in the copyright case making available is not the illegal act. The party making the copies (i.e. downloading) is the only one committing the illegal act.
but to set aside a jury's verdict is fairly unamerican
Not when the judge in question gave an incorrect interpretation regarding a point of law to the jury that almost certainly affected the verdict. I think it's a sign of a pretty good judge when he has the balls to say he made a mistake big enough to warrant a do-over.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This is not true, which is kind of the point of the judgment being referred to.
It is distributing copies that is illegal. You can make as many copies as you want, but if you rent them out, sell them, etc, then you are in trouble.
You're pretty close there... but making the copy is not the problem. The problem is downloading it. If I were to log into your computer remotely, and copy all your copyrighted media files to the same computer, that is not a violation. Transmitting the files? That's a copyright violation.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Most libraries have a copy machine in them. So, Person 'A' walks into a library, takes a book off the shelf, walks over tot he library's copy machine, and copies the book.
Who's responsible? Person 'A' who did the copying? Or the library for 'making available' the copier??
That's perhaps the fourth time I've seen that in this thread. RIAA trolls sure do have a lot of free time.
Requiem for the American Dream
Watch as yet another RIAA lawyer makes a complete ass of himself... and in the Midwestern normal town capital of the world no less... why do i feel like Garrison Kieler should be commenting on this.
In Hollywood, where the artists are strong, the music is paid for, and all the lawyers are below average.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I'm not siding with the RIAA..
That's perhaps the fourth time I've seen that in this thread. RIAA trolls sure do have a lot of free time.
Dear easyTree, I hope you get modded up for your astute RIAA troll-detection skills. I've noticed that this shill who writes these things always loves to start off with something like that. "Nobody hates the RIAA more than me, but......" "I'm no fan of the RIAA, but..." "Sure I don't like their heavy handed methods, but...." I've seen a million of them. It's the surest tip-off. The saving grace of these guys is their bottomless stupidity.
Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful