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."

1 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. You shouldn't trust by Moryath · · Score: 0, Troll

    "in-person accounts" of things either - even if it's Wired.

    Look at what happened to the two border patrol agents the Bush Administration is holding as political prisoners for arresting a drug runner who has ties to the Mexican Mafia and therefore to Bush.

    The court of appeals said verbally that they were aghast, the prosecution ADMITTED that their star witness (the drug runner) lied under oath. The court of appeals in open court said that they couldn't see possibly how this was a valid prosecution under the law.

    10 months later, after the Bush admin / Mexican mafia threaten the judges, they "somehow" now see how preventing the defense from showing that the drug runner had been caught running multiple loads even while under his "immunity agreement" with the prosecution - while the drug runner was claiming it was a "one time only thing" because "he needed money for his grandmother's operation" - was legally valid and no new trial is warranted.

    My prediction: the judge who said this, will get a phone call from the Prez or several Congresscritters, or a visit from certain branches of covert government and/or MafiAA stooges, and will "magically" put off the ruling for 6 months and then issue the opposite opinion when he thinks nobody is looking.